Using Conflict Theory to Explain Corrupt Judge’s Scandal

Introduction

            

                Social classes have always been a topic that many criminologists expound during their publications and other scholarly efforts.  The economic stratification of populations also provides the framework for how the societal divisions within a culture create tensions within one another and eventually leads to power struggles (Hagan & Shedd, 2005; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  As many theorists have debated the issue, the fact remains that there is a “haves” and “have-nots” complex within the United States, as well as in many other modernized places throughout the world (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  Because these divisions breed social turmoil they, in turn, create deviancy that is described by the upper portion of the society in order to enhance their livelihoods.  Laws are needed to maintain order and public safety, although the supporters of conflict theory have suggested that the “haves” are deliberately seeking out the disenfranchised or less powerful and often dismiss crimes that are committed by the people who fall into the elite category (Agatiello, 2010; Aidt, Dutta, & Sena, 2008; Hellman, 2013). 

Choosing who to subject the law to is a form of justice that obviously caters to a specific group, and the supporters of conflict theory and other Marxist ideas do posit that this theory presents a social conflict that makes greed, social and political power, and financial gain very prevalent (De Graff, 2007; Glaeser & Saks, 2006; Marx & Engels, 1848).  Nonetheless, there are instances when the underclass’s voice prevails and the people within the elite class are ousted and punished for their actions (Meitl, Minton, Dyer, 2005; Mugiu-Pippdi, 2013).  With this being said, many of the legal cases, or other applications of justice, that do attack an elite member of society end up with ramifications that are not as severe as a form of retribution that would be put upon a member of the lower division of society (Holtfreter,Van Slyke, Bratton, & Gertz, 2008; Szockyj, 1999). 

            Moreover, when these social elites are subjected to minor consequences it validates the ideas that are abundant within general conflict theory.  This can be further explained by presenting the idea that the punishments are given out by other members of the “haves” group (Marx & Engels, 1848; Szockyj, 1999).  Unfortunately, this includes judicial administrators at times; however, as previously mentioned, the voice of the public can become so strong that examples and true applications of justice must be ensued.  If they were not, then the social elite could be scrutinized so harshly that the power that is bestowed upon them may be diminished in such a fashion that would not allow for their continued prosperity (Edwards, 1963; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  This notion presents the idea that some of the actions by the upper classes, the applying authentic justice and subjecting other social elites to the treatment that the lower division of society endures, is purposively done in order to save-face, and again, a method so that they can continue on with their lives without catching flack for their actions. 

            With these contrivances being evident, this essay will present a criminal case that involved a juvenile court judge and his corruption by using conflict theory to explain the judge’s, and other parties involved, course of actions.  In brief, the case involves a judge acquiring finances to put juveniles into a detention center, and more specifically, putting many juveniles into the correctional facility for minor offenses.  Lastly, the charges and sentences will be presented to give more breadth to the illegal actions and ideations that are prevalent throughout conflict theory and, in turn, provide a summation that allows the audience to comprehend how the aforementioned theory and criminal actions are correlated. 

Crime

            

              The scandal occurred in Scranton, Pennsylvania; two judges were exposed for their corruption and tax evasions (Huffington Post, 2013; McCoy, 2011).  Additionally, each judge received compensation from private contractors to incarcerate juvenile offenders to a specific location and, in turn, allowed both parties to profit.  In particular, the crime in focus will be the actions of Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and how he sentenced many juveniles to terms of incarceration for petty offenses.  His unlawful actions led to a conviction of twelve charges and a twenty-eight year prison sentence; although, there were a total of twenty-seven charges that he was not held accountable for (Huffington Post, 2013; McCoy 2011).  The depth of the criminal actions by Ciavarella were suspected to be ongoing for approximately a decade, and how the public and other judicial professionals found out about the bribery stemmed from a former executive for one of the private contractors (the main witness for prosecutors and former owner of the institutions) and investigations by law enforcement (Huffington Post, 2013; McCoy, 2011).  Also, the way in which the illegal actions ensued came about when the previously mentioned attorney and business developer ( the Prosecutor’s key witness) decided to establish  their own private enterprise; which included deeming a public-operated facility in terrible conditions and bribing Ciavarella and others so that young offenders would enter the for-profit institution (Huffington Post, 2013; McCoy, 2011).  

            Many other professionals were accused and criminally charged, however the pernicious activity of Judge Ciavarella were the most serious actions as seen by prosecutors, and thus he became the center of attention.  By being in a position that requires not only an oath to uphold the law, but also to be fair and impartial during criminal proceedings, Ciavarella caused the public to become quite angry with the botched justice.  Therefore, Ciavarella was held accountable for his actions and sentenced by a federal court judge to a twenty-eight year prison sentence (Huffington Post, 2013; McCoy, 2011).  In short, the crimes that will be focused on in this essay will be the racketeering charges committed by Ciavarella, and by providing more insight about the chosen theory (conflict theory) the reader should be able to comprehend how the theory and criminal activity are interrelated.

            As for the racketeering charges, they vary from state-to-state and thus can include various types of sentencing structures.  However, for a federal charge of racketeering, under the RICO Act, it brings possible sanctions of up to twenty years in prison for each charge, as well as a forfeiture of the assets that were acquired during the criminal activity (Criminal Rico 18 U.S.C. A Manual for Federal Prosecutors).       

Conflict Theory

           

              In general, conflict theory encompasses elements that explain elements of society and how they contribute to power struggles (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  Mostly it explains how there are economic classes and a competition for resources, which eventually leads to the elite group engaging in activities that will allow them to benefit as well as to maintain their status (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  Even with the many variations of conflict theory, the main ideas stem from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s (1848) notions about capitalism and how the upper class uses their wealth as an advantage over the less fortunate (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  The two main concepts that are identified in Marx and Engels’s (1848) work are the productive forces and productive relations of an economic-based society (Siegal, 2007, p. 253).  Whereas, the productive forces are the materials that are made and utilized by everyone, and the productive relations are relationships that are evident among the people engaging in these services (Siegal, 2007, p. 253).  These two elements can be transitioned into the behavior of Judge Ciavarella and his companions, as he turned the juveniles into the productive forces and the productive relations became the agreement that was made by him and the other criminals (private contractors) (Huffington Post, 2013; Marx & Engels, 1848, McCoy, 2011; Siegal, 2007).   

     

Also, they mention how once the socioeconomic divisions are noticed that the conflict will become out-in-the-open and, in turn, create the previously mentioned power struggle (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  Marx and Engels (1848) pointed out the negative aspects of humans and present societal conditions in a negative view, and use the understanding of laws to suggest that the legal system is used as a utility to rule over the underclass (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  This concept has massive implications when discussing the American legal system, as it is common for the upper class to not be subjected to the same regulations that the lower portion of society has to deal with (Holtfretter, Van Slyke, Bratton, & Gertz, 2008; Szockyj, 1999).  As aforementioned, the wealthy are in power in a capitalistic society and are able to get over on the legal system most of the time.  When crimes are committed by the elite group lenient sentences are given out, and the concept of “real” crimes becomes evident (Siegal, 2007, p. 253).  According to conflict theorists, crime is a political concept that undermines the lower class for the greater good of the elites (Siegal, 2007, p. 16). 

Overall, conflict theory has a basis in greed, political power, financial gain, and many other circumstances that allow a person to maintain these characteristics (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  The competition for resources becomes the engine that drives each person, and the people who have more resources available to them are then able to control the others who are looking to utilize the same resources (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  In regards to the crime being discussed in this essay, Ciavarella and his cohorts used their positions as a resource, as well as the juveniles and for-profit detention center, and were then able to profit and sustain their livelihoods at the expense of the underclass.     

Using Conflict Theory to Explain the Judicial Corruption

           

              Judge Ciavarella exhibited all of the elements that are discussed in Marx and Engel’s (1848) ideations about a class-based society and, in turn, presents how it contributes to criminal activity by the social elites and competition for resources (Green & Cornell, 2005; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  In particular, when Ciavarella and his cohorts proclaimed that the publicly operated correctional facility was unfit for service, the decision exuded how the parties were coalescing in order to profit from the people who enter the justice system; specifically the people who fall into the category of the underclass [juveniles] (Huffington Post 2013; Marx & Engels, 1848; McCoy, 2011; Miller, 2003).  Second to this, sustaining their social and economic dominance was also demonstrated when Judge Ciavarella accepted payments from the private contractors (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  The bribery can be considered to be an example of the ideas that capitalism formulates greed, a desire for economic prosperity, and the controlling of the underclass; which is what Marx and Engels (1848) posit in their work, and more specifically, the competition for resources in a capitalistic society that they present (Marx & Engels, 1848; Miller, 2003; Siegal, 2007).  

  

Marx (1848) also suggests that crime in a capitalistic society stems from labels, which of course deals with the social stratification and verifies that the actions of the corrupt judge can be explained by implementing conflict theory (Siegal, 2007, pp. 253-255).  That is, because the underclass is labeled as inferior, the subjecting them to incapacitation was necessary for Ciavarella to maintain his label as well as his social, political, and economic power (Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007; Skoll, 2009).  Using his contacts who built a for-profit prison, as well as his position of judicial authority, explains how his criminality is not only illegal behavior, but specifically posits how the judge was attempting to simultaneously control the lower class and enhance his livelihood; an example of the competition for resources that Marx and Engels (1848) spoke of and the desire of the upper class to find options to maintain their clout (Marx & Engels, 1848; Savur, 1975). 

            Engels’s (1844) rendition of conflict theory can be put into the equation of the judge’s criminal behavior by presenting the thoughts about the underclass being deemed as brutes and animal-like creatures (Engels, 1844; Siegal, 2007, p. 255).  Ciavarella’s actions indicate that he showed little or no remorse for the juveniles, which does exhibit that he thought that they were an inferior or subordinate species when compared to him and his counterparts (Engels, 1844; Engels, 2006; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  Transferring this concept into the incarcerating of juveniles can be quite complex, yet it still can be properly administered so that a clearer understanding can be reached.  For example, Ciavarella not only formulated the scheme with his counterparts, but he also displaced juveniles who most likely were unable to gather the best legal resources to attain a dismissal or adjudication in their favor.  Additionally, the sending of juveniles to a correctional facility for status offenses can be viewed as having a perception that is arrogant and conveys the notion that these young offenders were bestial people in the mind of Ciavarella (Crump, 2008; Fred, 1997; Engels, 1844; Marx & Engels, 1848).  In general, it is an understanding that specific juveniles had little worth in society, and were considered to be profitable products; similar to how livestock is treated (Engels, 1844; Engels, 2006; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).

Conclusion

The work of Marx and Engels (1848) describes how the judge’s racketeering crime is an example of how labels and inequalities of a society were part of the rationale for putting so many juveniles into the for-profit prison (Engels, 1844; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  Also, the competition for resources became evident when Ciavarella and his colleagues decided to deem a publically funded correctional facility unfit in order to send juveniles to their institution and, in turn, profit from the terms of incarceration.  More specifically, when the judge conducted the institutionalization he did so because he would be able to make his resources within society more abundant, and thus retain the political and social power that he already had; which is an example of the ideas that are presented in conflict theory.  The greed, economic prosperity, and controlling of the underclass was clearly presented in Ciavarella’s criminal activity; meaning that his actions, and his partners’ actions, were motived by the finances that were stemming from the juveniles that entered the judicial system. 

As for Engels’s (1844) concepts about the underclass being brutes or having animal-like characteristics, this was expounded when the judge decided to place the juveniles into a facility that is known for being a place that houses people who have such qualities (Engels, 1844; Engels, 2006; Marx & Engels, 1848; Siegal, 2007).  Sentencing juveniles to terms of incarceration which such a perception is an example of what Marx and Engels (1848) posit in their theory; mostly Engels’s (1844) understanding though.  The egregious actions of the judge and his criminal friends was certainly pernicious and then ended up backfiring when a former colleague was forced to “blow the whistle,” and testify against the corroborating judges (Huffinton Post, 2013; McCoy, 2011).  This whistleblowing can be interpreted as the competition concept that is discussed throughout Marx and Engels’s (1848) conflict theory. The idea that the informant/witness was attempting to compete for resources and save his label and status is what is being presented. 

In sum, the racketeering scandal is a great example to use for when discussing conflict theory.  Ciavarella’s actions displayed all of the major components that Marx and Engels (1848) posited, as well as some of the concepts that this author posits about the social elite turning on each other in order to save their own resources and prominence.  Competing for resources and labeling certainly applied to the judge’s actions, and was verified once the public became aware of the criminal activity.  Finally, Ciavarella’s racketeering scandal should bring any doubts about conflict theory to an end; this is due to the obvious decisions that were based on sentencing juveniles who had little resources or wealth to obtain proper justice; which demonstrates how the current society that we live in is based on socioeconomic status, as well as a flux of competition. 

References

Agatiello, O. R. (2010). Corruption not an end. Management Decision, 48(10), 1456-1468.

            doi: 10.1108/00251741011090270.

Aidt, T., Dutta, J., & Sena, V. (2008). Governance regimes, corruption and growth: Theory and

evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36(2), 195-220. doi:

10.1016/j.jce.2007.11.004.

(2009). Criminal RICO: 18 U.S.C.: A Manual for Federal Prosecutors. Retrieved from

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/rico.pdf.

Crump, D. (2008). The social psychology of evil: Can the law prevent groups from making good

people go bad?. Brigham Young University Law Review, 5, 1441-1464.  

De Graff, G. (2007). Cause of corruption: Towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public

            Administration Quarterly, 31(1/2), 39-86. 

Edwards, G. (1963). Sentencing the racketeer. Crime & Delinquency, 9(4), 391-397. doi:

            10.1177/001112876300900412.

Engels, F. (1844). The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844. 

Engels, F. (2006). Selections from the conditions of the working class in england in 1844.

            Organization & Management, 19(3), 389-402. doi: 10.1177/1086026606292490.

Fred, A. C., (1997). The political psychology of evil. Political Psychology, 18(1), 1-17.

            doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00042.

           

Glaeser, E. L., & Saks, R. E. (2006). Corruption in America. Journal of Public Economics,

90(6),1053-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.007.

Green, P., & Cornell, D. (2005). Rethinking democratic theory: The american case.

            Journal of Social Philosophy, 36(4), 517-535. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2005.00291.x.

Hagan, J., & Shedd, C. (2005). Punishment and crime: A socio-legal conflict theory of

perceptions of criminal injustice. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2005, 261-

597.

Hellman, D. (2013). Defining corruption and constitutionalizing democracy. Michigan Law

            Review, 111(8), 1385-1422.

Holtfreter, K., Van Slyke, S., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2008). Public perceptions of white

            collar crime and punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 50-60. doi:

            10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.006

Huffington Post. (2013). 'Kids for Cash' Juvenile Detention Scandal Lands $2.5 Million

Settlement in Pennsylvania. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/kids-for-cash-scandal-2-million-settlement_n_4123236.html.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London, GB: Electric Book Co.

McCoy, C. R. (2011). Ex-judge mark A. ciavarella jr. guilty in 'cash for kids' case.

            Philly.com. Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2011-02

19/news/28611757_1_worst-judicial-scandals-juvenile-law-center-ciavarella.

             

Meitl, P.J., Minton, P., Dyer, B. (2005). Public corruption. American Criminal Law Review,

            42(2), 781-823.

Miller, G. (2003). Using conflict theory. Contemporary Sociology, 32(4), 524-525.

           

Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2013). Controlling corruption through collective action. Journal of

            Democracy, 24(1), 101-115.

Savur, M. (1975). Sociology of conflict theory. Social Scientist, 3(12), 29-42.

            

Siegal, L. J. (2007). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson

            Higher Education.

Skoll, G. (2009). Contemporary Criminology and Criminal Justice Theory. United States:

            Palgrave MacMillan. 

Szockyj, E. (1999). Imprisoning white-collar criminals?. South Illinois University Law

Journal, 23(3), 490-503.