Slumped on the sofa flicking through the channels I happened upon an old episode of Kojak. It reminded me of what is missing from majority of recent police procedural/crime programmes and that is social and political context. The dialogue was hard boiled Chandler-esque, gritty realistic cinematography, no emphasis on youthful leads just ordinary looking people who can…funnily enough…act and with a storyline that powerfully exposed police brutality and institutionalised racism. Oh, those were the days of political consciousness and awareness. I suppose the only current contender for the social/political in crime writing is The Wire (stupidly being shown at the graveyard shift time on BBC2). And that popular culture phenomenon has entered the psyche of Tory Chris Grayling, who, misses the point big time, no surprise there .
Fast forward on nearly 40 years and crime/police prodedural programmes (both UK and USA) are entirely slick in production, the actors reflect the obsession with youth and the script never really stretches the imagination nor thinking beyond the limits. The denounment is presented usually where all the strands are neatly pulled and tied together, where everything has been explained in that Hercule Poirot manner. Though there are story arcs yet they too are finally tied together in a nice clean bow.
And many of these crime/police procedural series; Morse, Lewis, Midsommer Murders, Wire in the Blood, CSI, The Mentalist, Criminal Minds, Cold Case, The Bill….are places where you wouldn’t want to visit as the death toll is high (Midsommer… Oxford…) and where the characters in many of these series are insulated from the real world and where the crime(s) are shown as a case of ‘individual wickedness’. And with newer programmes like The Mentalist and Criminal Minds the stories hinge on, usually, a lead quirky and damaged character who can ‘read’ a person’s non-verbal communication and see inside their ‘criminal’ minds by scientifically classifying and labelling behaviour, traits and characteristics through the art of profiling. They are allowed to make mistakes; trial and error but again, this reliance on a composite of characteristics neatly delivers the criminal.
On one level these programmes are entertaining (indeed I enjoy watching them myself I especially like Numb3rs produced by Ridley and Tony Scott along with Cold Case and Without a Trace) and do contain the usual plot devices and characterisation that engage the viewer but many lack depth and an underlying lack of a social/political context, some do briefly but it is done fleetingly.
Much of crime fiction tends to rely on the individual and skirts a around social/political context, again many crime fiction writers have different writing styles, some more engaging in their language than others, characterisation, dramatic tension and identification. Yet it still comes back to the individual criminal though one writer who defies that trend, and possibly through his own knowledge of the criminal justice system, is Dexter Dias who writes about civil liberties, police corruption and racism constructed within a crime fiction framework.
What makes a criminal? Someone who fits the everyday definition of a criminal is someone who deals with their own comparative powerlessness by victimising those who are even more powerless than his or herself. Crime generally reflects the power structures in society.
The crimes of the powerful are legitimised while those of the powerless are punished. Take a kickback from a bribe to a Saudi official, launch an illegal war, trade in illegally logged timber or in goods produced by child labour and you are likely to prosper afterward. Sell drugs on the street, burgle a house or just be young male and Black and you are likely to go to prison.
