Crime and Deviance - Realism Flashcards
Realist perspectives on crime
- They attempt to take a more practical approach to crime and deviance, and look for solutions for what might be done to reduce crime
- They both see crime s a real and major problem, especially for victims
- Realist approaches can be seen as a reaction to labelling theory and radical criminology, that they suggest do not show concern for victims
- Left realism - concern for the vulnerable in society and worry about the impact of poverty (left-wing politics, socialist) - emphasise the importance of tackling deprivation
- Right realism - see law and order as the way forward; crime is a choice and we need to make it a tougher one (right-wing politics, conservative) - emphasises ‘zero tolerance’
Left Realism and statistics
- LR are less critical of crime statistics than most, and argue they do not reflect typical criminals; young, male, working class and disproportionately black
- From this, they focus on victims as well as offenders, recognising crime is concentrated in urban areas / inner-city and sink housing estates
- But they do not approve of how statistics are used to create fear of these people (Hall, ‘the black mugger’, and Cohen’s folk devils and moral panics’)
Left Realism on crime
- Jock Young, Lea, Matthews and Kinsey
- Left realist criminologists are critical of perspectives which see longer sentences and more prisons as the solution to crime - schools of crime, causes isolation socially, leads to more crime
What do left realists see as the solution?
- Better community relations
- Less deprivation
- More opportunities
Young - new criminology, disenchanted, wanted to be part of the solution by providing the government with evidence for why crime happens so they can fix it.
3 things Left Realists focus on as causes of crime and the problems to solve are which leads to street crime, violence and burglary: non-utilitarian crime -
1) Subculture
2) Marginalisation
3) Relative Deprivation
Left Realism - Subcultures as a focus
- Lea and Young argue the subculture of young blacks is distinctly different from their parents who largely accepted their marginalised position in society (Gilroy)
- Black youth subcultures have high material expectations and aspirations; money and status symbols like flash cars etc
- So because black male youth is so closely enmeshed in values of consumption, style and wealth, this is precisely why they engage in crime; because of blocked opportunities (status frustration, Cohen)
Left Realism - Relative Deprivation
- Lea and Young argue that frustration from this disparity between expectations and the reality of lifestyle leads to feelings of relative deprivation
- They argue that the reality for many young black males they have a choice of unemployment, training schemes or ‘white man’s shit work’ (Hall) - low-skilled, poor conditions
- They can feel unfairly denied the ‘glittering prizes’ offered to others, and this can developed into strategies which can involve deviant and criminal behaviour
Left Realism - Marginalisation
- Lea and Young argue that marginalisation means the process by which certain groups find themselves on the edge of society
- White and Black working class youths often feel alienated by schools, unemployment, low-wages, the police etc
- Young black males face marginalisation through prejudice and harassment - military policing (stop and search)
- They argue this may be the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’ - economic marginalisation is transferred into crime
Left Realism - The Square of Crime
In order to truly understand crime we need to look at 4 key factors - crime is a social construction and these help us to understand why it is committed
1) The state - state agencies; how do police deal with crime and what effect does this has, how does military style policing affect society and will focusing on petty crimes rather than major crimes affect people (prevents marginalisation)
2) Informal control (society welfare and infrastructure) - LR think that crime can be tackled by looking at society and providing better job prospects, better housing and this builds a sense of community (Hirschi)
3) The offender - why do people offend, what is the impact on society and what rules govern their behaviour
4) The victim - to understand crime we need to understand why is someone more likely to be a victim, and why do more people not report crime
Left Realism - Controlling crime through intervention
- Identifying groups at risk of offending and trying to limit that risk
- 2 year intellectual enrichment for disadvantaged black children aged 3-4 (Perry School Project)
- ½ group experienced free pre-school education, family support, high quality to tackle material deprivation
½ had basic education - Tracked the children throughout their life - By age 40, they had lower crime rates and higher graduation rates than a control group
- For every $1 spent, $17 spent were saved on welfare, prison etc
Left Realism - Controlling crime through improving policing
- Prefer community policing over right realist zero tolerance approaches
- The police should listen to local communities
- 90% of crime cleared up are a result of info from the public, thus ensuring public confidence in the police is important
Left Realism - Controlling crime through community approaches
- Involving the local community in controlling crime
- Involves improving communities in the long-term e.g. leisure facilities
- Reducing unemployment and creating jobs
- Improving standards of living for poor families
Evaluation of Left Realism
Criticisms:
- Long-term community policies may be scuppered by a change in government
- Do not address underlying structural inequalities
- More expensive and difficult to see results quickly
- It is hard to change policy as the current direction is dealing with the problem rather than solving it
Strengths:
- More cost-effective in the long term than right realism
- More victim centered approach
Left Realism and victims
Some sociologists say that the chances of being the victim of street crime are minimal.
- Lea and Young (1984) point out that, while the average chances of being a victim are small, particular groups face high risks.
-> It is not the rich who are the usual targets of muggers or thieves, but the poor, the deprived, ethnic minorities or inner-city residents. (intra-class crime!)
-> Crime is widely perceived as a serious problem in urban areas and this perception has important consequences.
-> Left realists have carried out a considerable amount of victimisation studies, examining such issues as the extent of crime and attitudes towards crime.
-> In the second Islington Crime Survey no less than 80.5% of those surveyed saw crime as a problem affecting their lives. Crime was unevenly distributed between social groups.
Jock Young (1993) argues there has been a real and significant increase in street crime since WW2. According to this view, there is an aetiological crisis (a lack of explanation) for why street crime goes up in both good and bad economic times. Young feels most crime is minor, sporadic and intra-class - if you fix injustice you can fix crime.
Right Realism
- Sought practical crime control measures - worry less about finding the causes of crime but concentrate on controlling it
- Control theory - ‘get tough’ - labelling and critical criminologists are far too sympathetic to criminals and excuse criminal behaviour with reference to police labelling and poverty / inequality / capitalism - too many excuses for crime
Wilson (1975):
- In the US in the 1960s, anti-poverty programmes were accompanied by enormous crime increases - therefore, poverty may not be the problem
Clarke:
- Since the end of World War II (1945), there have steadily been rising incomes in the UK - but this has been accompanied by rising not falling crime rates
This would be supported by Marxist theories, fulfilling the idea of a status frustration in capitalism and Merton’s strain theory in functionalism.
The causes of crime according to Right Realists
Although Right Realists say they are not as interested in finding the causes of crime as controlling it they argue that there are three factors which cause crime:
- Biological differences; Lombroso, limbic systems, gender and hormones
- Underclass and faulty socialisation
- Rational choice theory - people assess the risk and reward of their actions and make a choice about committing the crime
Biological differences - Right Realism
- Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argue that the main cause of crime is low intelligence that is biologically determined
- Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) - biosocial theory (crime is a combination of biological and social factors) - some people are more innately more strongly predisposed to commit crime, and they get this from personality traits like extraversion and aggressiveness which makes them risk-takers without self control who act on impulse
Eval - some crimes require a high level of intelligence (Anna Sorokin and Elizabeth Holmes) and personality traits are overly deterministic / avoid culpability
