Final answer:
Critics of neo-Marxist critical criminology claim it lacks sufficient evidence and specificity, is divisive due to 'us versus them' mentality, and may result in questionable outcomes in society. Critics emphasize the need for empirical studies to test the validity of these theories.
Step-by-step explanation:
When discussing the weaknesses of critical criminology, particularly with a focus on neo-Marxist perspectives, several criticisms arise. One identified weakness is the insufficient evidence to support the main ideas effectively. Neo-Marxists emphasize the importance of addressing structural issues causing inequality and recognize the power structures influencing knowledge and societal norms. However, critics argue that these theories often rely on generalities and lack specificity, which could be due to trying to address complex societal issues in a limited scope.
Additionally, the New Right critiques critical criminology by pointing out the perceived divisive nature of cultural Marxism. As William Barr argued, the "us versus them" mentality and the emphasis on social change are seen as socially destructive forces. Critics argue that this perspective overlooks the complexity of culture and reduces a multitude of social dynamics to simple binary oppositions.
Furthermore, the critique extends to the outcomes of implementing neo-Marxist policies in areas such as values, crime, financial strength, and mental health. The question arises as to whether the anticipated outcomes align with reality, and critics often call for empirical studies to test these theories.