Crime And Deviance - Realist Theories Of Crime Flashcards
How are realist theories of crime different from others?
- Crime is seen as a real problem to be dealt with
- Argues there has been a significant rise in crime
- Concern about the widespread fear of crime
- argue that other theories have failed to offer adequate solutions to crime
How did realist theories emerge and associated with whom?
Realist theories emerged with the political shift to the right in politics in the 70’s and 80’s, the right being associated with Thatcher and Reagan, the left being associated with Clinton and Blair.
What are the three right realist causes of crime?
- Biological differences
- Socialisation and the underclass
- Rational choice theory
Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and biology:
Biological differences make some people predisposed to crime, traits like aggression or extroversion, which are exacerbated by inadequate socialisation.
Murray (1994) and IQ:
The main cause of crime is low intelligence, which is biologically determined (yikes)
Murray (1990) and the underclass:
The crime rate is increasing because of the growing underclass of welfare-dependant lone parent (matrifocal) families that inadequately socialise their boys who turn to delinquent role models and gain status and identity off crime.
Give a criticism of the socialisation right realist explanation of crime.
Donzelot (1977) argues that this is just an excuse to over police w/c and black families as ‘inefficient’
Clarke (1998) and rational choice theory:
Criminals are guided by a rational cost-benefits calculation for committing crimes, if the perceived costs outweigh the benefits then they will be less likely to offend.
Based on rational choice theory, why do right realists believe crime is rising?
The perceived cost of crime is decreasing, with jail sentences (apparently) decreasing.
Give a criticism of the biological right realist explanation of crime.
Lilly et al (2002): IQ differences account for less than 3% of offending differences
Give a criticism of Clarke (1998):
It assumes that individuals are entirely free, ignoring the effect of structural influences that cause disproportionate offending rates such as patriarchy - convicted are 3x more likely to be men than women.
How is right realism unique in tackling crime?
Right realists see the causes of crime to be too varied and too difficult to change to be focussed on; instead they focus on control, containment, and punishment to decrease attractiveness of crime.
What is ‘target hardening’?
The attempt to increase the cost and decrease the benefits of crime, in line with rational choice theory.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) and zero tolerance:
In their article ‘Broke Windows’, they argue that crime moves into an area due to the lack of apparent social control, judged based on the level of disorder.
What is the practical applications of ‘Broken Windows’?
Crime can be reduced by maintaining an orderly neighbour: police should have a ‘zero tolerance policy’ towards deviant behaviour such as public drunkenness or homelessness.
What is the evidence for the success of ‘zero tolerance policing’?
NYC adopted zero tolerance policing in the 90’s in the forms of programmes such as their ‘clean car programme’ and graffiti removal. This led to a large reduction of crime, include a 50% reduction of homicide.
Young (2011) and the myth of NYC:
NYC didn’t reduce crime with ‘zero tolerance’, crime had been falling for 9 years beforehand. But police needed to justify their own existence amidst falling crime rate so ‘defined deviance up’ to increase their net.
Give two criticisms of zero-tolerance policing.
- It just pushes crimes into different areas
- It gives the police (who are institutionally racist (Casey)) free rein to discriminate against minorities on the basis of order.
How do left realists differ from Marxists?
Left realists are reformists that disregard Marxists claim that a revolution will solve everything as we don’t know when a revolution will occur and crime is a problem now.
Young (2011) and the aetiological crisis:
Left realists argue the crime rise from the 50’s on was real, which provided difficult for other theories of crime to explain - an ‘aetiological crisis’ or crisis in explanation.
How do left realists evidence the rising crime rate from the 50’s onwards?
The CSEW found that number of offences increased by more than 50% 1980 and 1990.
Lea and Young (1984) and the three causes of crime:
- Relative depravation
- Subcultures
- Marginalisation
How do Lea and Young (1984) dispute deprivation, itself, as a cause of crime?
Poverty was rife in the 30’s but there was very little crime, by contrast the 50’s saw living standards and crime rise in tandem.
Lea and Young (1984) and relative deprivation:
Despite greater societal prosperity, people are becoming more aware of inequalities due to media and advertising, then resenting those better off and resort to crime to take ‘what they deserve’.
Young (1999) and individualism:
Relative deprivation does not cause crime alone, ‘the lethal combination is relative deprivation and individualism’ which weakens communities and informal social control agencies that discourage crime.
What is the left realist perspective on subcultures?
Subcultures arise in response to relative deprivation, building on Cloward and Ohlin (1960), arguing that different groups provide different responses.
Pryce (1979) and Bristol:
The African Caribbean Bristol community contains a variety of subcultures ranging from hustlers and Rastafarians to Pentecostal ‘Saints’.
How are left Realists and strain theorists similar?
Both argue that criminal subcultures still subscribe to mainstream goals, like materialism and consumerism. Young (2002) identifies ghettos in the US where there is ‘full immersion in the American Dream’
How does marginalisation lead to crime?
Marginalised groups lack the organisation to represent their interests, nor the clear goals to pursue - this frustration and lack of agency leads them to crime as a means of channel.
Young (2002) and the 50’s and 60’s:
Young sees the 50’s and 60’s as a ‘golden age of capitalism’, with strong value consensus, full employment, social inclusion, and low crime rates.
Young (2002) and the growth of relative deprivation:
The deindustrialisation of the 70’s (the late modern era) and the loss of low skilled manual labour caused many young people and minorities to lose their jobs. This combines with the greater ‘cultural inclusion’ (emphasis on the ‘good life’ that the poor can’t achieve) and ‘economic exclusion’ to create greater tension between the top and bottom.
Young (2002) and the spread of relative deprivation:
RD has spread from just the bottom of society to widespread resentment of ‘fat cats’, mounting in things like the Occupy Wall Street movement. There has also been growth in ‘downwards relative deprivation’, where the middle-class resents that stereotypical idle and welfare-dependant underclass.
Young (2002) and reactions:
Reactions to crime have changed in late modernity, the value consensus has weakened due to weaker informal social control and greater diversity, leading to more crime and greater intolerance towards it, developing ‘tough-on-crime’ politics.
Young (2011) and the ‘second aetiological crisis’:
Left realist explanations fail to explain the fall in crime rate since the mid-90’s as it suggests crime is no longer a major threat. However, Young notes that this doesn’t affect perceptions as crime is socially constructed: in the CSEW (2013), 61% thought crime was rising.
Young (2011) and ASBOs:
The growing use of ASBOs has helped governments widen the net of ‘crime’ and maintain fear of ‘crime’, ASBOs have several key features:
- Blurring the boundaries between crime and ‘incivilities’
- Subjective definitions led public perceptions run rampant
- Flexibility allows the net to constantly widen to include things like wearing hoodies, or rough sleeping
Lea et al (1986) and military policing:
Police rely on the public for information (90% of the crimes the police know about are reported by the public), but they are very quickly losing support, especially in minority ethnic and urban areas. This causes them to rely on military policing techniques such as stop an search, which further alienate the community and cycles.
What do left realists see as the best way for police to act?
Police need to mend relations with the community by spending more time investigating, changing their priorities (from minor drug crime to racist hate crime and domestic violence) and involve the public in policy decisions.
What is the ‘multi-agency approach’
Given the structural nature of crime, multiple agencies, such as social services and public housing, need to be involved in mitigating crime.
What is the wider tactic for left Realist crime prevention?
Given that structures like relative deprivation and marginalisation lead to crime, tackling inequality of opportunity and discrimination will reduce crime rates.
What was New Labour’s Left Realist motto:
“Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”
How did Young criticise the New Labour government?
Although in favour of their structural reforms like the New Deal for unemployed youth and greater policing of hate crimes and domestic violence, young sees it as a futile attempt to recreate the ‘Golden Age’ and failing to deal with the actual underlying causes of crime like inequality.
Give two criticisms of the Left Realist theory of crime.
- Relative deprivation over-predicts working-class crime, with Trust For London finding that the least deprived areas in London actually experience 50% more theft and shoplifting crimes than the most deprived areas
- Lea and Young (1992): second aetiological crisis
