Phew! So I am not the only one. I thought I was very dumb while reading it. lol

See this is class difference. This reminds of my Conflict criminology's contrasting conflict view. In book theoretical Criminology it is presented as the following.
"... that societies are composed of groups with conflicting values and interests. However, the organized state is not said to represent the values and interests of society as large. Rather, it is said to represent the values and interests of groups that have sufficient power to control the operation of the state. Thus the basic argument of conflict criminology is that there is an inverse relation between power and official crime rate: people with less power are more likely (and people with more power are less likely) to be officially defined and processed as criminals." [sic]

So this follows the third frame reference of positivist criminology i.e. behaviour of law. They usually focus on why some people are termed criminal and some who do similar stuff avoid the tag. One of the things I read yesterday was about different degrees of murders esp. felony murder. If a person dies of heart attack during a bank robbery, the whole gang that comes to rob the bank gets hanged even if one of them is sitting in a car outside while when corporates that neglect or hesitate to enforce proper government codes of conducts go free even if their negligence result in deaths of hundreds of people. Most of the time the punishments they get are in the form of fines and often symbolic in nature. So why law is how it is. Then of course they check legislation process and all the steps.
Your example comes, imho in this section. But I am open to suggestion. Theoretical criminology overlaps a lot of theories. Frankly sometimes I go oh so this can go hand in hand with that other theory too.

Marxism comes under critical criminology that disregard traditional theories and tries to find answers elsewhere. What I understand about it is that it is like a room filled with people who just want to challenge everything that exists outside the room may it be laws, justice system, crime or even society. Everything is on the table.
Anyways I just went back to re-read that small chapter on Marx. So he talked about industrial revolution and how it was affecting social relations of production and then feudalism to capitalism change. He talks about how capitalism is survival of the fittest and keeps gobbling up the less fit so they keep getting smaller and smaller and richer and more and more powerful. Then he talks about polarization of society.
Ok here is what it talks about Marx and his idea of crime:
"Marx did not discuss the problem of crime or its relation to the economic system at length, although he did address the subject in several passages. Hirst argues that Marx's idea of crime centered on the concept of demoralization. Marx believed that it was essential to human nature that people be productive in life and in work. But in industrialized capitalist societies there are large number of unemployed and underemployed people. Because these people are underproductive, they become demoralized and are subject to all forms of crime and vice. Marx called these people "the lumpen-proletariat."
In another passage, Marx argued against the classical philosophy that was dominant in his day, which held that all people freely and equally joined in a social contract for the common good, and that the law represented a consensus of general will. Marx maintained that this view ignored the fact that unequal distribution of wealth in a society produced an unequal distribution of power. Those with no wealth have no power in the formation of the social contract, whereas those with great wealth can control it to represent their own interest. Thus Marx did not see crime ass the willful violation of common good, but as "the struggle of the isolated individual against the prevailing conditions." [sic]

There are few criminologists that based their work on his ideas mainly Bonger. So that's that.
I typed it all while copying it from paper copy and I am like ok what point I was making. Lol
May be that Marx, himself wasn't interested in crime and that there are many other criminologists that went around investigating on crime via socio-economic factors along with others.



White collar crime seems such a huge portion. I shall finish this theoretical portion first then move on to that. It is scary, how much there is to read. wow
Ecology of crime I guess talks in detail about it. I loved reading about it. So interesting. Please do share your observations, in fact, hold on, I am back to basis. Let me tell you when I reach there so what you say makes sense to me. I have a feeling I messed up above but hey, will learn this way. lol
I'll try.

__________________
...Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do.