Having clarified the basic premises of Quinney’s critical criminology, we can now move on to gain a better understanding of the foundations of his propositions. In the next section, sociology of criminal law, legal order as an instrument of repression, and similarities to other criminological theories are discussed.

Quinney works to develop and expand upon an area of understanding, tantamount to critical criminology, called sociology of criminal law. Within this perspective, the central focus is the need, development, and justification for law in society. It is an examination of how law is thought to have evolved, and what justifies contemporary law. Quinney declares because law "...gives behavior its criminality," it cannot be ignored as far as it’s formulation and administration. He attempts to address the question, "what are the influences that shape our laws?"(1969/Preface)

He states that communities develop laws related to, and surrounding, beliefs and values. For instance, the Massachusetts Bay colony developed their laws from scriptural sources the Puritans believed and lived by. It was natural to do so, as it was consensual. He also refers to the Volstead Act of 1920, a result of rural puritan interests over a developing urban culture. He states the act was "..a dramatic attempt to control morality through criminal law" (Quinney, 1969/p.7).

Quinney states that sociologists accept the necessity of law, and pluralistic organization without question. The problem is, according to him, only a few are able to influence the formulation of law. Therefore, laws do not necessarily serve to protect the accepted, consensual, good in society, instead they are developed by a few with the most influence/power. He asserts "Law serves the powerful over the weak; it promotes the war of the powerful against the powerless." (Quinney, 1974.a/24).

Basically, the sociology of law is the domain assumption by social scientists that law is necessary, and that it is the only way in which society can be protected from the overlapping interests of individuals. This assumption creates a paradigm where social scientists begin their inquiry. They fail to look at the morality of the legal order itself, and instead seek to study how it effects society, and then to refine those effects, to use law to manipulate a desired goal of social harmony. This way of thinking, Quinney proposes, is like running with blinders on, or disenabling a broader view of alternative potentials for social, human, existence. "A sociology of law as presently conceived and practiced cannot break out of the ideology of the age. It can only confirm the existing order; problems of the age are only exacerbated by the sociological-scientific study of law."(Quinney, 1974.a/26)

The whole underlying notion of the sociology of law is that law and sociology are seemingly, according to contemporary views, bound together. One cannot be looked at without considering the other. What happens in contemporary American society, is that we automatically assume the necessity of laws, and therefore the existing order.

In "The Problem of Crime," (1970) Quinney discusses how laws and social norms are often conflicting, or are not consistent with each other. He states that a large portion of society does not accept many of our current laws. He illuminates the disparity between laws that are based on moral, cultural norms, and those that do not have custom as it’s purpose...such as trade laws (economics) (p.29). Even when laws are derived from morals, they are usually the products of special groups who have more influence in guarding their morals than other groups. To these "other" groups, some laws are not considered legitimate, they do not pertain to their particular cultural norms - thus a selective obedience occurs (p.30). Groups that occupy the power positions, legislate the content of criminal law. Thus criminal law protects that small minority of the powerful, by proscribing behavior they interpret as threatening, or "wrong." Also, laws do not always keep up with the changes that occur in society. "Blue laws" are an example of those that lag behind social changes. More importantly, sometimes law serves to influence changes in society. They often form without any moral impetus at first but are later supported by the morality they outlined. For example, civil rights laws helped to spread a type of moral code to places they did not exist before the laws there reflected them (p.31).

In his own contributions to the perspective, he emphasizes an awareness and consideration for interest structures. In our society, he maintains, the interest structure is characterized by the unequal distribution of power and conflict (Quinney, 1969/preface). "Law is created by interests," and he suggests that this should be more the focus than how much law maintains interests. Moreover, seldom is law the product of a whole society, instead it is the product of a specific group, one that has the most influence in translating their interests to policy (1969/p.17). Here lies the impetus for undergoing examinations of the constructs of law, or sociology of law; to find out what interests are being served, and whom do they belong to. Quinney and other critical criminologist find it is the interests of the ruling class, and not the population. What is created is a legal order based on capitalist interests. The following discussion of the legal order that has evolved expands that very notion.

The ideology of capitalism, and the sociology of criminal law, as presented above, both converge on the issue of legal order as a mechanism for control of the repressed. In this section, Quinney’s argument becomes more specific in regards to the coercive measures of the state and ruling class. It is within this issue that Quinney joins criminologists in the study of crime. His argument is that legal order is the basic framework from which a system that generates suffering, and therefor disobedience, can devise measures to control threats to maintain it’s existence.

Quinney suggests that the state’s promotion of capitalism works to create a surplus of labor. Social welfare programs such as education, and health care satisfy some of the needs of the working class, and work to legitimize the system. Crime control has as its function to control those that are not "pacified" by employment or social welfare programs. Moreover, the state’s expense of crime control will increase as capitalism increases. Quinney states that confinement in prison is merely one way of controlling the surplus of labor that capitalist economy produces and needs (Quinney, 1980.a/p.114). He further states that we are led to believe that existing laws are a construct of consensual contract, and serve the majority interests, and values. Instead, they are the tools of the ruling class to protect the status quo. (Quinney, 1974.a/p.140).

He develops his argument by reporting that there is consensus on the influential control of foreign policy by the wealthy. Also, he states that there is plenty of evidence that they have overwhelming influence in domestic policy as well (specifically in protective labor legislation, regulation of business, social security, and recognition of labor unions) (Quinney, 1974.a/p.56). He then explains that the wealthy, consistent with foreign and domestic policy, have influential control over crime policies as well. He declares "..crime fighters are indeed influentials drawn from an elite segment of American society. The majority enjoy an income that is without question considerably higher than the national average"(Quinney, 1974.a/p.57). What Quinney asserts here, is that, whether it is the ruling class directly who influence policy, or those who benefit from the system, is circumstantial. They are all the ruling class that benefits from the established order. The economic and political nature of criminal policy making in America is that which is determined by the ruling class. The functions of the system are the goals of the capitalists, to protect the established order through maintaining/insuring domestic order (Quinney, 1974.a/p.59).

Quinney dissects a number of governmental commissions that addressed the crime problem in America. In each he displays the type of people who made up the commissions, and the results of each. In each case he suggests that the aims of the ruling class were supported by a commission constituting the ruling class members themselves. For instance, the 1960's Omnibus Crime Bill was a triumph of the American corporate ruling class. It worked to conceptualize criminal reality in a way that "..assured it’s own existence." Certain pieces of legislation that resulted from the reports were directly aimed to protect the established order. For example, rioters and potential rioters were placed under surveillance. Rights of defendants were reduced to enhance prosecutorial proceedings. Again, the government committee was said to have included "...elite representatives from all established interest groups" (Quinney, 1974.a/p.74).

Quinney has as his objective, and he states he is in the company of most critical philosophers, to develop a "critical-Marixian" analysis of crime control in capitalist society. This will undertake an extrapolation of basic Marxism, as Marx said little about criminal law and crime control. He acknowledges that legal order contains more than criminal law, however, he states that criminal law is the fundamental to that order. He states "it is the coercive instrument of the state and it’s ruling class to maintain the existing social and economic order (Quinney, 1974.a/p.15).

In short, legal order, the defining of deviancy and control over those who fit those definitions, is used merely as a tool to control threats to the capitalist system, by those who benefit the most from that system. Moreover, the legal order is assumed by the population through the use of ideology, to represent the collective interests. Finally, the criminal justice system is simply, as Quinney suggests, an instrument of control within the legal order. The next discussion summarizes some extrapolations of, similarities to, and support for Quinney’s theories of crime.

Though critical criminology is a broadly independent theory of crime, it has some similarity to other theories. Concentric zone theory is one. Capitalism, as it evolved, brought people to where labor was needed, and urbanization resulted. The social ills produced by urbanization (capitalism) have been used by Quinney as evidence of capitalistic production of crime. He states the modern dilemma of crime is really an artifact of industrialization’s urbanization of America. In rural society, crime was dealt with by mostly informal and primitive systems of justice. With the massive move to cities, more elaborate and dysfunctional formal systems emerged. The urban society "bred" new types of problems, such as vagrancy, prostitution, drug use, and even stealing, rape, and murder (Quinney, 1970/p.169). Moreover, because of the heterogeneity of urban cities, all the forces of the world work together against a sense of community so necessary to an effective system of norms that control individual behavior. Race, ethnicity, economic disparity, all add to the crime problem of the inner city (Quinney, 1970/p.170).

This in fact is very similar to Durkheim’s and Merton’s theory of anomie. In his book "Providence; The Reconstruction of Social and Moral Order" (1980.b), Quinney states that "when work ceases to fulfill the human need for expression and communication, we no longer realize ourselves through creation." The alienation from work and self will carry over to all parts of our life. Our lives, as well as production, has been surrendered to alien hands and subverted from us. We are not the beneficiaries of our own production (1980/p.2).

Also, like Durkheim, Quinney believes that crime is a necessary part of social revolution. It reflects the changes taking place in society, and is a result of maladaption to social controls (Quinney, 1970/198). It is because of the crime problem in America, that Quinney thinks criminologists should be suspect of the social-economic system in place, namely capitalism.

Quinney even joins, at some points in his argument, with the demonic perspective. He stated that after the enlightenment and bourgeois liberation, religion had lost its immediacy. What was left was the demonic state where the separation of life from the sacred gave free reign to social ills brought about by the potential evil nature of human beings (Quinney, 1980.b/p.8-10).

In addition, Quinney’s understanding of the sociology of law is shared by others. For instance, in William Chambliss’ The Law of Vagrancy, written in 1964, he states, referring to the destruction caused by the black plaque "This decimation of the labor force would necessitate rather drastic innovations in any society but it’s impact was heightened in England where, at this time, the economy was highly dependent upon a ready supply of cheap labor" (p.288). Chambliss went on to explain how the laws of vagrancy reflected the needs of the social arrangement, specifically the economic structure. Quinney specifically cited where Chambliss stated that the vagrancy laws forced laborers to accept low pay though contrary to other acts of mandatory minimum wages (Quinney, 1969/p.58). He used Chambliss’ essay as a part of developing his notion of the sociology of criminal law.

In Chiricos and Delone’s Labor Surplus and Punishment (1992) Quinney’s proposition that legal order is used as a repressive tool, was cited as support in their argument that harsher punishment is related positively with the amount of surplus labor. They stated "Quinney contended that criminal justice is the modern means of controlling surplus populations" (p.424). Conversely, that entire article serves to support any and all of Quinney’s critique of the capitalist structure.

Other authors have used Quinney’s critical perspectives, attesting to its current popularity.

Finally, and probably the most conspicuous is the interconnectedness of critical theory with social conflict theory. Quinney himself states that his theory is based, to a large extent, on sociological conflict theory (Internet). These integrations and sharing of commonality in theory helped to better understand Quinney’s propositions. However, there is much more foundation to his beliefs and arguments that has not been addressed so far in this presentation. The next section attempts a brief summary of Quinney’s theological perspectives that profoundly influence his understandings and explanations of society.

There is more to Richard Quinney’s theory on crime than a critique of capitalism. There is more to Richard Quinney’s perspectives in general, than can be fully covered here. Quinney has spent much of his life developing a religious, humanist understanding. His religious perspectives influence his development of thoughts on all other issues. That is why, although this fundamental part of Quinney can only be partially uncovered here, his perception of the supernatural must be discussed in any attempt.

Quinney’s critical philosophy is developed through religious beliefs and converges upon Marxist thought, yet Marxism is mistakenly considered by many as anti-religious. Sociology in general and critical philosophy specifically, has close ties to the study of the supernatural and coinciding practices that effect social arrangements. In fact, a poll in 1964 of 6,762 members of the American Sociological Association, of which 3,441 replied, discovered that more than 25% "...of the sociologists who responded had thought, at one time or another, of becoming clergy men" (Gouldner, 1980/p.24).

In fact, Quinney states that he viewed Marx as more of a prophet than others did, most of whom he claimed gave Marx a materialist focus. Marx foretold how capitalism would detach us from our human spirit. He asserts that in spite of the other focus given to Marxist thought, it is consistent with Jewish, and Christian theology (1980.b/p.4). He explains that Marx’s references to religion that cited it as the "opium for the repressed society" were aimed towards the religion of Prussian Germany, infested with Lutheran dogmatism (1980.b/p.6).

Quinney explains that the evolution of capitalism necessitated the suppression of religion. It was not merely a split, or dividing of the two concerns, government and religion, it was a removal of those religious understandings that conflicted with the development of the capitalist economy. The capitalist state, once a source for solving problems derived from the capitalist system, has exhausted its abilities to contend with the social problems that exist. The population has not been able, as it once was, to gain any spiritual rewards from the "spirit of capitalism." Advanced capitalism leaves us with no other alternative but to sift understanding through historical perspective, which will lead us back to the question of Purpose. Quinney adds, we will never hide from the question of why we exist, what is our purpose. To attend to the social world outside of this as our focus, is futile. He states it is within our consciousness to ask, and we all do (1982/p.27).

He emphasizes numerous times that religion, which transcends life itself, must be a part of culture. They cannot be separated. The confusion and strain comes from trying to create distinct boundaries between secular and religious being. Religion cannot be separated and is the very base of culture, from which comes modes of production (Quinney, 1980.b/p.19).

Quinney argues with those who, like George Gilder, propose that "the deepest truths of capitalism are faith, hope, and love, and then make the fantastic leap of joining these values with the business of capitalism"(1981/p.55). He contends that this line of thought requires the dismissing of the consequences of capitalism, the exploitation of one class by another.

He reminds us that reality is a human construct. In order to understand human nature, we must question our assumptions of reality. He states that suffering is ubiquitous in our world, it is everywhere. Whether psychological, or physical pain, pollution, hunger, homelessness, or poverty in general, it is all suffering. All of this suffering, says Quinney, is a result of the reality we have constructed. A reality that is within a framework that only exists within our minds. So, he states, it is there that we need to turn to transform human being, and our "...webs of meaning" (Quinney, 1991/p.4). He quotes a number of Buddhists, and a couple Christian spokespersons in constructing his idea of transformation. Simply put, it is an emptying out of all that you think you know, and understand, and realizing that reality is only what man has constructed. He states "True reality is emptiness." Human nature as we understand it, as common knowledge proposes, is only human nature within this framework. Transcendence is going beyond the framework, going beyond what is "known." He quotes a Zen master; "In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind there are few". He stresses the phenomenon of taking in ideas and thoughts, becoming attached to them, and consequently assuming them to be reality (Quinney, 1991/p.5).

However, he argues that the only true way to obtain true awareness of human reality is to lose the condition of the human ego. A separation from self-centeredness, a realization that all is one. "The truth is that no amount of theorizing and rational thinking can tell us much about reality" (Quinney, 1991/p.6). Zen Buddhism refers to the true reality as "nothingness, emptiness, the void" (Quinney, 1991/p.7). He asserts that criminology has been a distortion of the reality, as has many other bodies of knowledge. He uses the words of a humanist (Skolimowski) who stated that objective, scientific approaches to understanding, over a number of years has become "..cold, dry, uncaring, always atomized, cutting, analyzing." Explicitly he states that spiritual preparation is key to dealing with social issues. The problem he proposes is that our constructed reality is that of separation and consequently suffering (Quinney, 1991/p.8). He believes that we are coming around to regaining our original purpose as humans.

When all of social science fails us, we will turn to Hermeneutical understanding of the world (one that has special emphasis on biblical interpretation). We will begin to reconstruct our symbols and language, in order to better interpret the world, one that includes religion. We need to end the two world split between the sacred and the secular (Quinney, 1982).

Quinney declares that social science has failed us by systematically excluding the metaphysical understandings that guide us. It has led us to a systematic justification of the established order, and not to a needed understanding of human existence that includes the metaphysical. We exist within old theories that serve the present practices of capitalism, a structured, deliberate paradigm (Quinney, 1982). In a recent article of his Crime, Law, and social Change (1995) Quinney argues that the criminal justice system stresses the use of what he calls "negative peace - the threat and application of force to deter or process acts of crime," instead of "positive peace - elimination of the structural sources of crime and violence within society such as, poverty, inequality, racism, and alienation, all of which lay the foundation for crime."

He also asserts that Marxist theory is making its way into the minds of contemporary sociology. It is "forging its way past the barricades of the left and right polity." It is within Marxist thought that we can be reunited with everyone, and everything, all becoming one. Harmony will then prevail, and the only question left is why do we search for meaning/purpose. When faced only with a mortal understanding and anticipation of death, as the current moral structure organizes our conscience, we are at a loss in finding any meaning or connection to the world/universe. It is a part of human anxiety over the finality of our existence (Quinney, 1982).

There is much, much more to Quinney’s humanist/religious perspective. He has written publications that speak solely on this issue. In fact, at one time he had spent two weeks in a monastery in Iowa and presented his experiences in an essay. The above only touches on some of his religious perspectives that deal with critical philosophy. It was enough to serve the purpose of providing a little background to his way of thinking, and the issues he contemplates. In the next section, Quinney develops what he considers so necessary to criminological thought, a framework for change and solution.

Quinney has worked to develop an understanding of how the current political and economic system in America, capitalism, has been destructive to social harmony, and has stated that other criminological perspectives failed, because they did not suggest any alternatives to the established order. This section explains what he suggests we should do to solve the problem of crime. It is no small order.

Quinney proposes there is but one answer. We must move toward a socialist society. He states that with every advance in capitalism, there is an opposition that works against the advancement. As we progress within capitalism, more is needed from the "machinery of the criminal law.." to maintain order, and quell opposition (Quinney, 1974.a/166).

According to Quinney’s argument, crime will continue as long as capitalism exists (Quinney, 1974.a/168). Moreover, it is capitalism itself that has created contemporary crime problems. The system cannot work to solve it’s own problems that it creates as it advances. However, to rid of the sources of contradiction, oppression, and manipulation that result in crime, is to dissolve the capitalist system. Furthermore, those who stand to lose a lot, the ruling class will not go quietly into the night. They will continue to attempt to mystify reality, and work to promote legitimizing increased coercion through legal order to protect itself (Quinney, 1974.a/168).

Moreover, you will not find adequate change in liberal reforms. Whether from republican or democratic origin, reform programs only work to maintain capitalism. From the beginning with the change from laissez-faire to corporation regulation, including FDR’s New Deal, and to contemporary liberal policy, maintaining the established order was the objective. Quinney states, "Capitalism itself is the problem. Liberal reforms, therefore, can do little more than support the capitalist system, which is also to say that the capitalist problem (and it’s associated forms of exploitation) cannot be solved within the liberal reformist framework."(1974.a/170).

No where else, according to Quinney, is the lack of attention to the capitalist system in reform efforts, and the resulting consequences of neglect more apparent than in the criminal justice system. Crime commissions, interests groups, business leaders all rally around reform of policing, courts, and corrections to address the needs of our changing society. Each of these reforms does little to solve problems. They only work to stifle problems that are created by a capitalist system that is advancing (Quinney, 1974.a/171).

The socialist alternative to capitalism, and its resulting legal order, is not a Utopia. Quinney first explains that it can take on various forms as it is created. The very process of its creation will shape its full form. However, fundamental socialist ideas are;

Internet. (Extracted August 27, 1998) www.nwmissouri.edu/nwcourses/martin/deviance/critcrim/tsld002.htm. (A presentation of critical ideas outline "slides.")

Internet(2). (Extracted August 28, 1998). www.sonoma.edu/cja/wsc/awards.html. (Recipients Of Western Society Of Criminology Awards 1974-1998).