EVA;IUT Flashcards
Paragraphy 1
Point - Left realist strategy for reducing crime is tackling the inequalities and structural causes of crime. Young argued tackling inequality in jobs market - discrimination, provide decent jobs and improve housing.
Explanation - Therefore, society should become more tolerant and diverse by ceasing stereotypes. As left realist argue one of the causes of crimes is relative dep in society. ppl feel deprived in comparison to others, so they have the pressure to have things that others have. The only to get this is through crime
AO2- This is criticised by other sociologist looking at historical context in 1930s poverty was high but crime was low this suggest whilst there was vast inequalities, there was low crime . Therefore, inequalities in society not the cause of the crime .
In contrast, since 80s living standards has risen and so has crime this shows crime is due to relative deprivation
= Other factors than inequalities that lead ppl to commit crime.
On the other hand, Labelling theorist like HOWARD BECKER would argue that it is not w/c are deprived that they appear to commit more crime, it is that they are labelled to be criminals. Therefore, tackling relative deprivation is pointless because the police will continue to stereotyping the w/c. As a result to tackle crime we need to remove institutional prejudice
Paragraph 2
POINT- In contrast to left realism solutions to crime. Right realist have different approach which is creating an environment where crime is not attractive to anyone, with biological difference or poor socialisation.
EXPLANATION - Wilson and Kelling put forward the ‘Broken Window’ analogy. This means in neighbourhoods where vandalism can occur, if the locals/ police provide immediate response such as cleaning it this would set boundary maintainer. (NYC)
AO2- However, left realist disagree as broken window analogy does not tackle crime adequately because its not preventing the root cause of crime. Although, Right Realist would respond arguing that in a capitalist society, crime is inevitable, its in very structure of the country so trying to prevent it direcly before making crime unattractive this would be pointless. As a reuslt Right realist are trying to deter criminal personalities and zero tolerance approach will remove criminals from society as a whole.
PARAGRAPH 3
POINT- However, Left realist disagree with right realist solutions crime through zero tolerance as it would just breed resentment towards the police. Left realist proposed reform in government policies to help the younger generation instead of them looking at crime for a career.
Explanation - As a result new labour was greatly influenced by left realist, therefore, new labour put forward new deal policy. This would aim in improving job opportunities for the young + unemployed by attempting to reverse exclusion of those at greater risk offending. Furthermore the introduction of ASBO’s which the conservative gov attempted to scarp. ASBO was meant to help and protect the vulnerable groups from crime.
A02- It produced the opposite as those who were target with ASBO were working class and live in deprivation. They can also get a max of 5yrs in prison,. Furthermore, in a 2005 survery nearly 4 of every 10 ASBO’s went to young ppl with mental health problems. In one case a child with Tourette’s was given ASBO for his complusive swearing. Therefore this produced the opposit effect of its aim as young, w/c youth end up creating subcultures in response of social inequalities.
paragraph 4
POINT - Right realist do not believe its useful to deal with the causes of crime since these cannot be easily changed. They put forward Target hardening in which individuals implement strategies to make it harder for crime to be committed.
EXPLANATIN- this can be done by fitting in better doors, alarms and secure locks. This can result in crime being harder to commit. As Right realist like Clarke Argued that Committing a crime is a rational choice. It is based on rational calculation of likely consequences. Therefore, by making the consequences unattractive this would discourage criminals from committing crime.
AO2- However, criminals will be able to adapt and find other ways and some commit crime to survive.
paragraph 5
A02- Furthermore, Left realist disagree as it is better to help individuals to stop offending through rehabilitation than constantly monitoring and restricting individuals behaviour. Therefore, though improved policing lea, young argued this would reduce crime. As it would improve the relationship between the police and community. Public should have more of say in shaping police policies. Officers should spend more time investigating then being on the ‘beat’ as a result , antagonising the community. Therefore, Zero Tolerance policies give police more power above the community leading to resentment among the community. As without the public the police could not survive. As a result, Zero Tolerance just gives the police more pwr to discriminate young ppl
Contemporary Example
The Stephen Lawrence case in which a teenager was killed by a white supremacist gang. The police failed to investigate the case properly this due to the met police being institutionally racist. Therefore, by giving the police more power through zero tolerance just like Right Realist recommended than this would result in further discrimination against Afro-Caribbean, working class young people
POSTMODERNISM
Postmodernist like LYNG argue the reason why crime is so seductive is because of the thrill of taking risks. Therefore, arguably by increasing the risk through target hardening like right realist proposed then this would increase the ‘buzz’. Therefore, right realist solutions to crime is doing the opposite of its purpose.
