"Street" crime: a view from the left.

Platt, Tony

According to survey after survey, "street" crime ranks as one of the most serious problems in working-class communities. In 1948.only 4 percent of the population felt that crime was their community's worst problem. By 1972, according to a Gallup Poll, 21 percent of the residents of metropolitan centers reported crime as their major concern. (1)

People not only think that they are threatened by crime, they are also taking action to defend themselves. Several years ago, Chicago citizens formed the South Shore Emergency Patrol, composed of some two hundred black and white residents, to patrol the streets at night and on weekends; in Boston's Dorchester area, the community has begun crime patrols; in New York, Citizens Action for a Safer Harlem has organized blockwatcher programs, street associations, and escort services for the elderly, while an armed citizens' vigilance group patrols the streets of Brooklyn on the lookout for arson and burglaries; in San Francisco, a member of the Board of Supervisors recently urged the formation of citizen anticrime patrols to curb muggings; and in the relative peace and quiet of a college town like Berkeley, the Committee Against Rape and several neighborhood associations are meeting to plan ways of stopping violent attacks against women. (2)

The phenomenon of "street" crime has been largely ignored by the US left. On the one hand, it is treated moralistically and attributed to the parasitical elements in capitalist society, mechanically following Marx and Engels's famous statement in the Communist Manifesto that the "lumpenproletariat may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue." (3) On the other hand, "street" crime is either glossed over as an invention of the FBI to divert attention away from the crimes of the ruling class or romanticized as a form of primitive political rebellion. Whether it is a form of reactionary individualism, or a fiction promoted by the bourgeoisie to cause confusion and false consciousness, or another manifestation of class struggle, is not a matter of theoretical assertion and cannot be decided by dogmatic references to Marxist texts. What is first needed is a thorough investigation of the scope and nature of "street" crime, concrete information about its varieties and rates, and an appreciation of its specific historical context. This essay sets out to summarize and analyze the available information, thus providing a realistic basis for developing political strategy.

Reporting Crime

In 1931, the International Association of Chiefs of Police developed the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system and selected seven felony offenses for index purposes, on the grounds that the victims, or someone representing them, would more likely report such crimes to the police. The seven offense groups include: homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible rape, burglary, larceny (grand theft), and auto theft. These are the crime statistics from which trends in the incidence of criminality are regularly reported in the media. When these reported crimes are converted into rates per 100,000 population and comparisons are made across time, for example 1968 to 1973, each of the index crimes, with the exception of auto theft, increased 25 to 50 percent. In 1976, according to the UCR, nearly 11.5 million serious crimes were reported to the police, a 33 percent increase from 1972, and a 76 percent increase from 1967. (4)

Critics of the FBI's reporting system have pointed out that the dramatic increase in crime rates is exaggerated and misleading since it reflects higher rates of reporting crime, technological improvements in data processing, better record-keeping systems, and political manipulation by the police, rather than a real increase in the level of crime. While there is no evidence to support sensational media announcements about sudden crime waves, crime is certainly not exaggerated by the FBI. On the contrary, it is grossly underestimated.

The most accurate information about the scope of "street" crime is to be found in the federal government's Victimization Surveys. The Surveys, part of a statistical program called the National Crime Panel created by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) in 1973, are an attempt to assess the extent and character of criminal victimization by means of a representative probability sampling of households, businesses, and persons over the age of 12. The Surveys, which do not include homicide, kidnapping, "victimless" crimes (such as prostitution, pimping, sale of drugs, etc.), and business crimes (such as fraud, false advertising, tax evasion, etc.), are limited to personal (rape, assault, and armed robbery) and property (theft, auto theft, and burglary) crimes.

Most "street" crime is not reported to the police. The Census Bureau recently concluded that there were nearly four times as many crimes committed in 1975 and 1976 as reported to the police. (5) A 1973 victimization study found that fewer than one in five persons report larceny to the police. (6) Some experts estimate that only 10 percent of all rapes are reported; the reporting rate for wife beating is even lower. (7) A "self-report" study estimates that about one out of every 30 delinquent acts comes to the attention of the police. (8)

The primary reason for not reporting crimes is the belief that the police are either incapable of solving crimes or are likely to aggravate the situation by brutalizing or intimidating the victims. This distrust of the police is realistically based on the extensive experiences of working-class communities, especially racial and national minorities, with police brutality and ineffectiveness. According to a recent national public opinion survey, blacks think that the police are doing a poor job almost three times more than do whites. (9) (See Table 1 on the following page.)

According to a recent study by Paul Takagi, black males are killed by the police at a rate 13 times higher than for white males. (10) But police killings are only a small part of the total level of state brutality directed at the civilian population. It is not an exaggeration to say that millions of Americans now alive have been beaten by the police. Data cited by James Q. Wilson, a political scientist at Harvard, show that 5 percent of all blacks (over one million people) and 2 percent of all whites (over four million people) report themselves unjustifiably beaten by the police. And sociologist Albert Reiss, in an LEAA-financed study, found that the police used unnecessary force in 3 percent of all police-citizen encounters, representing hundreds of thousands of cases of brutality per year. When these data are understood in the context of peer and family relationships, a very large proportion of the population on a day-to-day basis faces or fears the possibility of police violence. (11)

Additionally, the police have a very poor track record in solving and prosecuting serious "street" crime. A two-year Rand study, released in 1976, reported that substantially more than 50 percent of all serious crimes reported to the police receive no more than superficial investigation by detectives and investigators. Unless the patrolman on the scene makes an arrest or a patrol car accidentally stops a burglar for speeding, concludes Rand, there is little chance of a successful prosecution. (12)

The selective recruitment and militaristic training of the police, aggravated by institutionalized racism and sexism, encourage them to regard "high crime" areas as either a combat zone requiring the dispassionate objectivity of a professional soldier or a "subculture" of violence and depravity where victimization is culturally inevitable. Not surprisingly, policing the ghettos and barrios vacillates from extraordinary violence to cynical resignation.

This does not mean that all rank-and-file police operate in this way. There are many individual officers and a small number of progressive caucuses, such as the Afro-American Patrolmen's League in Chicago and Officers for Justice in San Francisco, who are genuinely concerned about protecting working-class communities from crime. But their efforts are easily frustrated, partly because the roots of "street" crime are deeply embedded in social conditions over which they have no control, and partly because their efforts are continuously undermined and sabotaged by the political police and "red squads," who make it their business to destroy community and political organizations that are trying to combat drug pushing, pimping, rape, and other forms of parasitical criminality.

[TABLE 1 OMITTED]

Scope of Crime

According to a 1977 Gallup Poll and a survey of 70 countries, the United States has the highest crime rate of all capitalist and European countries. One of every five homes was victimized by crime; 15 percent of working-class communities reported that they were afraid of being victimized by crime in their own homes, while 43 percent thought that crime had increased in their neighborhood. (13)

During 1974, according to the Victimization Surveys, over 39.5 million persons over the age of 12 were victimized by selected, serious crimes, an increase of 7.5 percent over 1973. In 1975, there was another 2 percent increase to nearly 40.5 million estimated incidents of victimization. (14) And the latest Census Bureau study reports over 41 million for 1976. (15) This is almost four times higher than the FBI's UCR index. Moreover, it should be remembered that these estimates do not include homicide, "victimless" crimes (illegal drugs and prostitution, for example), or the "hidden" figures of "white-collar" crime--price-fixing, health and safety violations, tax fraud, embezzlement, false advertising, etc.--which cause immense suffering and untold deprivation in working-class communities.

The Victimization Surveys have caused considerable embarrassment to the government, which had hoped to use them to demonstrate that LEAA's "war on crime" was winning some major battles. The Surveys, however, have instead demonstrated that the rate of "street" crime has gradually increased, despite the 55 percent increase in criminal justice expenditures, from $11 billion in 1971 to $17 billion in 1975; despite the fact that the number of police almost doubled in the decade between 1965 and 1975; despite a flourishing criminal justice-industrial complex that has upgraded the technological capacity of the police and introduced computers, weapons systems, data retrieval devices and modern communications equipment to a hitherto "backward" bureaucracy; despite the advice and thousands of research studies conducted by the "best and brightest" scholars from the most privileged universities and corporate think tanks.

Not surprisingly, the federal government recently called a halt to the Victimization Surveys, even though they were widely regarded as one of the very few worthwhile and reliable projects initiated by LEAA. The reasons for this action are quite obvious. Not only did the Surveys expose the bankruptcy and incredible waste of the government's "war on crime." They also supported the conclusion that "street" crime is not simply a by-product of the capitalist mode of production, a logistics problem to be solved by technocrats trained in "systems analysis." Rather, it is shown to be a phenomenon endemic to capitalism at its highest stage of development.

Victims of Street Crime

"Street" crime is primarily an intra-class and intra-racial phenomenon, media stereotypes to the contrary. (16) White women are most likely to be raped by white men; young black men are most likely to be robbed by other young black men; and working-class families are most likely to have their homes vandalized or ripped off by strangers living only a few blocks away.

The victims of "street" crime are overwhelmingly poor people, particularly blacks and Chicanos living in metropolitan areas. LEAA's 1973 Victimization Surveys found that, with the exception of theft, families with annual incomes under $3,000 were the most likely to be victimized by serious crimes of violence and property loss. (17) Another study, using the same indices, reported that the unemployed were more likely to be victims of crime in rates two to three times higher than those employed. (18)

Racial and national minorities, especially blacks, have the highest rate of victimization. A 1975 LEAA study in the five largest cities found that:

* Blacks and Chicanos in Philadelphia and Los Angeles are most likely to be victimized by assault and robbery.

* Blacks in Philadelphia and Chicago are the most victimized by theft.

* Black family households in all five cities suffer the highest rates of burglary and auto theft.

* In Philadelphia, blacks are twice as likely as whites to be burglarized.

* In Chicago, blacks are twice as likely as whites to be victimized by auto theft. (19)

Follow-up nationwide studies, released in 1976, similarly found that the highest incidence of violent and property crime is among the poor and unemployed, specifically, the superexploited sectors of the working class, young men, and single or separated women. Blacks have higher victimization rates than whites for rape, robbery, and assault. Moreover, blacks over age 20 are robbed at two to three times the rate of their white counterparts. (20) (See Table 2.)

While crimes of violence account for less than 10 percent of "street" crimes, they are an important source of demoralization and victimization in working-class communities. Rape, assault, child- and wife-beating, and homicide not only cause great personal suffering to the victims and their relatives and close friends, but also undermine collective solidarity.

This is not a recent phenomenon. Family life under industrial capitalism, as Engels observed in The Condition of the Working Class in England, was "almost impossible for the worker." Impoverished living conditions, long hours of work and little time for recreation made family life a continuous round of problems and tensions. Wives and children, doubly exploited by economic dependency and male supremacist ideology, are regular targets of brutal assaults. "Yet the working man," noted Engels in 1845, "cannot escape from the family, must live in the family, and the consequence is a perpetual succession of family troubles, domestic quarrels, most demoralizing for parents and children alike." (21)

Under monopoly capitalism, social and family life is particularly difficult in the superexploited sectors of the working class, where economic hardship, a chaotic labor market, uprooted community life ("urban renewal"), and deteriorating social services provide a fertile environment for individualism and demoralization. A recent study, prepared for the W.E.B. DuBois Conference on Black Health in 1976, reveals for example that about 95 percent of blacks victimized by homicide are killed by other blacks.

   In 1974, almost 11,000 of the 237,000 deaths of nonwhites in the
   United States, the overwhelming majority of whom were black, were
   from homicide. More than six percent of the black males who died
   during this year were victims of homicide as were over two percent
   of the black females. Among blacks homicide was the fourth leading
   cause of death, exceeded only by major cardiovascular diseases,
   malignant neoplasms, and accidents. All of the infectious diseases
   taken together took a lesser toll than did homicide.

White men are killed by homicide at a rate of 9.3 per 100,000 compared to a rate of 77.9 per 100,000 for black men of comparable age. To put it another way, "the difference in life expectation between white and black males is seven years. Almost a fifth of that is due to homicide.... More than twice as many blacks died from homicide in 1974 as from automobile accidents, and homicides accounted for about 40 percent as many deaths as cancer." (22)

While the Victimization Surveys and other studies show that minorities are responsible for a higher incidence of violent "street" crimes, such as rape, robbery, assault, and homicide, than whites, this does not mean that crime is simply a racial phenomenon. (23) Historically, "street" crime has tended to be concentrated in the marginalized sectors of the labor force and in the demoralized layers of the working class, irrespective of skin color or ethnic origin. (24) Today, it is those families with annual incomes below the poverty line which fill the police stations, jails, and hospital emergency rooms. Since blacks, Chicanos, Native Americans, and Puerto Ricans are disproportionately concentrated in the superexploited sectors of the working class, they are also disproportionately represented in police records and as victims of crime.

The risk of victimization is closely tied to the material conditions of life. Black women suffer a higher rate of rape than white women because they are more exposed to the insecurities of public transportation and poorly policed streets; the elderly, living on fixed incomes in downtown rooming houses, are much more physically vulnerable than their counterparts in suburban "leisure" communities; families that cannot afford to install burglar alarms or remodel their homes into fortresses are easier prey for rip-offs and thefts; small businesses, unable to buy the protection of private security agencies, are more likely to be burglarized; apartment buildings, guarded by rent-a-cops, doormen, and security fences have a lower rate of burglary than do public housing projects and tenements; and working parents, hustling low-paying jobs with erratic hours in order to pay the daily bills, cannot hire tutors, counselors, and psychiatrists or turn to private schools when their children become "delinquency" problems.

Crime and Class

The current high level of crime and victimization within the marginalized sectors of the working class can be partly understood in the context of the capitalist labor market. The "relative surplus population" is not an aberration or incidental by-product. Rather, it is continuously reproduced as a necessary element of the capitalist mode of production and is, to quote Marx, the "lever of capitalist accumulation.... It forms a disposable industrial reserve army that belongs to capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost. Independently of the limits of the actual increase of population, it creates, for the changing needs of the self-expansion of capital, a mass of human material always ready for exploitation." (25)

For this population, the economic conditions of life are unusually desperate and degrading. The high level of property crime and petty hustles cannot be separated from the problems of survival. Commenting on the process of primitive accumulation in 15th- and 16th-century England, Marx observed that the rising bourgeoisie destroyed the preexisting modes of production through the forcible expropriation of people's land and livelihood, thus creating a "free" proletariat that "could not possibly be absorbed by the nascent manufactures as fast as it was thrown upon the world." Thousands of peasants were "turned en masse into beggars, robbers, vagabonds ... and 'voluntary' criminals...." (26) For these victims of capitalism, crime was both a means of survival and an effort to resist the discipline and deadening routine of the workhouse and factory. (27)

But crime was not only a manifestation of early capitalism, with its unconcealed plunder, terrorism, and unstable labor market. Crime was endemic to both the rural and urban poor in 18th-century England. (28) And at the peak of industrial capitalism in the mid-19th century, Engels vividly described the prevalence of theft, prostitution, and other types of widespread victimization in working-class communities. "The British nation," he concluded, "has become the most criminal in the world." (29)

With at least 41 million persons annually victimized by serious "street" crimes in the United States, it is clear that monopoly capitalism has aggravated rather than reduced the incidence of crime. Recent studies, prepared for the United Nations report on Economic Crises and Crime, support the argument that the rate of criminal victimization is not only correlated with crises and "downturns" in the capitalist economy, but also with the "long-term effects of economic growth," (30) thus giving support to Marx's "absolute law of capitalist accumulation--in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse." (31) The economic underpinnings of "street" crime are underscored by the findings of the Victimization Surveys that over 90 percent of serious offenses are property related (theft, burglary, robbery, etc.). (32) Not surprisingly, most "street" crime is disproportionately concentrated in the superexploited sectors of the working class, where unemployment rates of 50 percent are not uncommon.

But "street" crime is not only related to economic conditions; nor is it solely restricted to working-class neighborhoods. A series of national studies, conducted by Martin Gold and his colleagues, found little difference in rates of juvenile delinquency between blacks and whites or working-class and petty bourgeois families. (33) Their latest study reports that "white girls are no more nor less frequently or seriously delinquent than black girls; and white boys, no more nor less frequently delinquent than black boys; but white boys are less seriously delinquent than black boys." (See Table 3.) Moreover, when delinquency is correlated with socioeconomic status, it is found that "higher status" boys (i.e., the sons of the petty bourgeoisie for the most part) are more likely than working-class boys to commit thefts, steal cars, and commit assaults. (34)

"Street" crime, like white chauvinism and male supremacy, is most brutal in (although by no means limited to) the superexploited sectors of the working class. Monopoly capitalism emiserates increasingly larger portions of the working class and proletarianizes the lower strata of the petty bourgeoisie, degrades workers' skills and competency in the quest for higher productivity, and organizes family and community life on the basis of its most effective exploitability. It consequently makes antagonism rather than reciprocity the norm of social relationships 35

Under monopoly capitalism, family and peer relationships become even more brutal and attenuated. The family as an economic unit is totally separated, except as a consumer, from the productive processes of society. Adolescents are denied access to the labor market and forced to depend on their parents, who bear the costs of their subsistence and education. As a result, millions of youth, including many of the children of the petty bourgeoisie, "become subject to an extraordinary variety of social problems that accompany the statuses of dependent able-bodied persons in our society." (36)

"It is only in its era of monopoly," writes Harry Braverman in Labor and Monopoly Capital, "that the capitalist mode of production takes over the totality of individual, family, and social needs and, in subordinating them to the market, also reshapes them to serve the needs of capital." While more and more of the population "is packed ever more closely together in the urban environment, the atomization of social life proceeds apace.... The social structure, built upon the market, is such that relations between individuals and social groups do not take place directly, as cooperative human encounters, but through the market as relations of purchase and sale."

As more family members are required to work and the pressures of urban life intensify, the family is required to "strip for action in order to survive and 'succeed' in the market society." Thus, urban life, governed by capital and the profit motive, "is both chaotic and profoundly hostile to all feelings of community." The "universal market," to use Braverman's appropriate term, not only destroys the material foundations of cooperative social relations, but also permeates even the most private domain of personal life, setting husband against wife, neighbor against neighbor. (37) "In short," as Engels observed over a century ago, "everyone sees in his neighbor an enemy to be got out of the way, or, at best, a tool to be used for his own advantaee." (38)

Crime as Rebellion?

There is a tendency within the New Left to glorify crime as "primitive rebellion" and interpret it as a form of spontaneous, anticapitalist revolt. There is definitely some support for this position when we examine previous historical eras.

According to Eric Hobsbawm's well-known study of criminality in precapitalist and agrarian societies, "social banditry" was a form of class struggle and often a precursor or accompaniment to peasant revolutions. "The point about social bandits," he writes, "is that they are peasant outlaws whom the lord and state regard as criminals, but who remain within peasant society, and are considered by their people as heroes, as champions, avengers, fighters for justice, perhaps even leaders of liberation, and in any case as men to be admired, helped, and supported." This respect for "social bandits" was based on their defense of the oppressed and their selective theft of the oppressor's crops and property. (39)

"Social banditry" or its equivalent persisted throughout at least 200 years of primitive accumulation, as displaced peasants asserted their traditional communal rights to subsistence through poaching, smuggling, and shipwrecking against bourgeois claims to the supremacy of capitalist private property. (40)

But not all criminality was a blow to class rule in agrarian and early capitalist societies. Peasant society was also victimized by "professional" criminals and "common robbers" who did not make any class distinctions between their victims; and the rural and urban poor in 18th-century England were regularly demoralized by theft, robbery, and other types of intra-class victimization.

Criminality as an effective, though limited, method of waging class warfare began to decline with the development of industrial capitalism. There were two important reasons for this. First, modernization reduced the means of protection and survival. The technology of communications and rapid forms of transportation, combined with economic development, public administration, and the growth of the state, deprived banditry of the technical and social conditions under which it flourishes. Second, and more importantly, the organized working class developed collective, political associations that were far superior to individual criminality or even the organized self-help of banditry. As Engels observed:

   The earliest, crudest, and least fruitful form of rebellion was
   that of crime.... The workers soon realized that crime did not help
   matters. The criminal could protest against the existing order of
   society only singly, as one individual; the whole might of society
   was brought to bear upon each criminal, and crushed him with its
   immense superiority. Besides, theft was the most primitive form of
   protest, and for this reason, if no other, it never becomes the
   universal expression of the public opinion of the working-man,
   however much they might approve of it in silence. (41)

Under monopoly capitalism, "street" crime bears little resemblance to the social banditry of Sicilian peasants, of the pastoral nomads of Central Asia, or even of the rural poor in mercantile England. Contemporary "bandits" are more likely to rip off their neighbor or rob the local mom-and-pop store than to hold up a bank or kidnap a corporate executive. And they are more likely to be regarded as pariahs in the community than to be welcomed as heroes. Nor can theft from supermarkets and chain stores (which is widespread) be considered a modern equivalent of banditry, because bourgeois rule is not weakened by such activity, and the cost of such theft is generally passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices or inferior commodities. It is only among ultra-leftist sects, which have no base of support within working-class communities, that such banditry is still practiced and glorified.

Conclusion

The political solution to "street" crime does not lie in mystifying its reality by reactionary allusions to "banditry," nor in reducing it to a manifestation of "lumpen" viciousness. The former is utopian and dangerous because it defends practices that undermine the safety and solidarity of the working class (and glorifies spontaneity and putschism); the latter objectively legitimates the bourgeoisie's attack on superexploited workers, especially black and brown workers.

While "street" crime is associated with the most demoralized sectors of the working class, we must be careful about making mechanical and ahistorical generalizations about the "lumpen" and "dangerous class." As Paul Hirst has correctly pointed out, Marx and Engels took a very harsh and uncompromising attitude to "street" crime, not from a moralistic perspective, but out of concern for building a disciplined and principled workers' movement. "Their standpoint," notes Hirst, "was uncompromisingly political and based on the proletarian class position. Marx and Engels ask of any social class or sociopolitical activity, what is its effectivity in the struggle of the proletariat for socialism, does it contribute to the political victory of the exploited and oppressed?" (42)

Marx and Engels based their evaluation on both a class analysis of criminality and a concrete investigation of the role of the "lumpenproletariat" in specific political struggles. Thus, they argued that the "lumpen" weakens the workers' movement by living off the workers' productive labor, for example by theft, as well as by serving the bourgeoisie as informers, spies, collaborators, and adventurists. (43)

The contemporary workers' movement must take an equally uncompromising stand against organized, parasitical forms of victimization and against "criminals" and prisoners who become "snitches" and agents of the political police. Pimping, gambling rackets, illegal drug operations, etc., are just as damaging to working-class communities as any "legal" business that profits from people's misery and desperation.

But we must be careful to distinguish organized criminality from "street" crime and the "lumpen" from the superexploited sectors of the working class. Most "street" crime is not organized and not very profitable. Most theft, for example, is committed by individuals, and each incidence of "street" theft amounts to much less than $ 10044 Moreover, there is typically no direct economic advantage associated with crimes of personal violence--rape, homicide, assault, etc.

The conditions of life in the superexploited sectors create both high levels of "street" crime and political militancy. The urban black community, for example, is hit the hardest by "street" crime, but it is also the locus of tremendous resistance and struggle--as witnessed by the civil rights movement, the ghetto revolts of the 1960s, and the anti-repression struggles of today. Moreover, of the thousands of blacks who annually go to prison for serious crimes of victimization, many have become transformed by the collective experience of prison life and participate in numerous acts of solidarity, self-sacrifice, and heroism--as witnessed by the conversion of Malcolm X, George Jackson, and countless other anonymous militants in the strikes and uprisings at Soledad, San Quentin, Attica, etc.

While the link between "street" crime and economic conditions is clearly established, we must guard against economism. Crime is not simply a matter of poverty, as evidenced by the unparalleled criminality and terrorism of the ruling class. Nor is "street" crime explained by poverty, for petty bourgeois youth in the United States are probably just as delinquent as their working-class counterparts, and there are many impoverished nations in the world that do not in any way approach the high level of criminality in this country. The problem of "street" crime should be approached not only as a product of the unequal distribution of wealth and chaotic labor market practices, but also as an important aspect of the demoralizing social relations and individualistic ideology that characterize the capitalist mode of production at its highest stage of development.

NOTES

(1.) Center for Research on Criminal Justice, The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove. San Francisco: Institute for the Study of Labor and Economic Crisis (1977): 14.

(2.) Christian Science Monitor (November 13, 1973); New York Times (April 16, 1977; July 21, 1977); San Francisco Chronicle (January 25, 1978). According to the Law Enforcement News (January 3, 1978), the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is now funding some 600 anticrime projects at a cost of $37 million.

(3.) Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (1955): 20-21.

(4.) "The Politics of Street Crime," Crime and Social Justice 5 (Spring-Summer, 1976): 1-4.

(5.) San Francisco Chronicle (February 20, 1978).

(6.) Michael Hindelang et al., Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics: 1974. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1975): 233.

(7.) Center for Research on Criminal Justice: 14.

(8.) Jay Williams and Martin Gold, "From Delinquent Behavior to Official Delinquency," Social Problems 20(2) (Fall, 1972): 209-229.

(9.) James Garofolo, Public Opinion about Crime. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1977): 28.

(10.) "The Management of Police Killings," Crime and Social Justice 8 (Fall-Winter, 1977): 34-43.

(11.) "The Management of Police Killings": 42.

(12.) U.S. News and World Report (October 10, 1977).

(13.) San Francisco Chronicle (December 22, 1977).

(14.) Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Comparison of 1973 and 1974 Findings. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1976).

(15.) San Francisco Chronicle (February 20, 1978).

(16.) Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Criminal Victimization in the United States: 1973. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1976).

(17.) See note 16 above.

(18.) John E. Conklin, The Impact of Crime. New York: Macmillan (1975): 26.

(19.) Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Criminal Victimization Surveys in the Nation's Five Largest Cities. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1975).

(20.) LEAA, Criminal Victimization in the US: 1973.

(21.) Frederick Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England. Moscow: Progress Publishers (1973): 168.

(22.) Yongsock Shin, Davor Jedlicka, and Everett Lee, "Homicide among Blacks," Phylon 38(4) (December, 1977): 398-407.

(23.) For data on the high homicide rate among Native Americans, see Charles Reasons, "Crime and the Native American," in Reasons and Kuykendall (eds.), Race, Crime and Justice. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear (1972): 79-95; for data on alcohol-related deaths among blacks in Georgia, see George Lowe and Eugene Hodges, "Race and the Treatment of Alcoholism in a Southern State," Social Problems 20(2) (Fall, 1972): 240-252; for a discussion of the high rates of rape, robbery, and assault among blacks, albeit from a cultural and "racial" perspective, see Michael Hindelang, "Race and Involvement in Common Law Personal Crimes," American Sociological Review 43(1) (February, 1978): 93-109.

(24.) See, for example, Edward Green, "Race, Social Status, and Criminal Arrest," in Reasons and Kuykendall: 103-123.

(25.) Karl Marx, Capital. Vol. I. New York: International Publishers (1975): 632.

(26.) Marx: 734.

(27.) Dario Melossi, "The Penal Question in Capital," Crime and Social Justice 5 (Spring-Summer, 1976): 26-33.

(28.) See, for example, Douglas Hay et al., Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England. New York: Pantheon (1975).

(29.) Engels: 168.

(30.) United Nations Social Defense Research Institute, Economic Crises and Crime. Rome: UNSDRI (1976).

(31.) Marx: 645.

(32.) LEAA, Criminal Victimization in the US'. 1973.

(33.) Williams and Gold: 209-229; Martin Gold and David Reimer, "Changing Patterns of Delinquent Behavior among Americans 13 through 16 Years Old: 1967-1972," Crime and Delinquency Literature 7(4) (December 1975): 483-517.

(34.) Williams and Gold: 215-218. These findings have been confirmed by Paul Takagi in a current (unpublished) study of delinquency among Chinese youth in San Francisco. For a methodological critique of the Gold studies, see Hindelang. "Race and Involvement in Common Law Personal Crimes": 103-104.

(35.) See, for example, David Harvey, Social Justice and the City. London: Johns Hopkins University Press (1973).

(36.) Herman Schwendinger and Julia Schwendinger, "Delinquency and the Collective Varieties of Youth," Crime and Social Justice 5 (Spring-Summer, 1976): 7-25.

(37.) Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press (1974): 271-283.

(38.) Engels: 170-171.

(39.) Eric Hobsbawm, Bandits. New York: Delacort (1969): 13-23.

(40.) See, for example, Douglas Hay et al.

(41.) Engels: 250-251.

(42.) Paul Hirst, "Marx and Engels on Law, Crime and Morality," in Taylor, Walton, and Young (eds.). Critical Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

(43.) See note 42 above.

(44.) LEAA, Criminal Victimization in the US: 1973.

Tony Platt *

* Tony Platt is a member of the Editorial Board of Social Justice (formerly Crime and Social Justice). He thanks Paul Takagi for his help with the research and analysis. Originally printed in Crime and Social Justice 9 (Spring 1978): 26-34.

Table 2:
Type of Victimization

                                                    Race of Victim

                                                  White     Black and
                                                           Other Races

Base                                         143,217,000   19,019,000
Rape and attempted rape                              90           158
  Robbery                                           599         1,388
    Robbery and attempted
       robbery with injury                          207           473
      Serious assault                               108           294
      Minor assault                                  99           179
    Robbery without injury                          213           589
    Attempted robbery
      without injury                                179           326
Assault                                           2,554         2,929
  Aggravated assault                                954         1,656
    With injury                                     301           599
    Attempted assault with weapon                   653         1,057
  Simple assault                                  1,600          1272
    With injury                                     399           289
    Attempted assault without weapon              12201           983
Personal larceny with contact                       267           678
  Purse snatching                                    57           126
  Attempted purse snatching                          44            47
Pocket picking                                      166           504
Personal larceny without contact                  9,209         7,671

Source: Michael Hindelang et al., Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics, 1974, US Department of Justice, LEAA, 1975,

Table 3:
Frequency and Seriousness of Delinquent Behavior
by Race and Sex

                            Median

                     Less         More
                   Frequent     Frequent

White Boys           36%          64%
(408)
Black Boys           38%          62%
(53)
White Girls          68%          32%
(328)
Black Girls          65%          35%
(*8)

                     Less         More
                   Serious      Serious

White Boy            58%          42%
(408)
Black Boys           47%          53%
(53)
White Girls          78%          22%
(32B)
Black Girls          73%          27%
(48)

Source: Jay Williams and Martin Gold, "From Delinquent
Behavior to Official Delinquency," Social Problems 20(2)
(Fall, 1972).