Explaining differences in offending Flashcards
Right realism
argues that the statistics represent real differences in rates of offending. Murray argues that black people do have a higher rate of offending & that because black boys are more likely to be brought up in lone-parent, welfare-dependent ‘underclass’ families, they lack the ‘right’ socialisation. Boys are therefore more likely to join delinquent street gangs for role models & status as they lack an effective father figure in their lives.
However, even if this is true, it doesn’t explain why black boys are more likely to be brought up in lone-parent families in the 1st place. Some suggest that the pressures of a lower income, racism, etc. puts more black families in a position where relationships break down which is not accounted for by right realists. Once again, it could be argued that they are blaming the victims of an unfair & unequal society.
Left realism
also argues that the statistics represent real differences in rates of offending BUT left realists such as Lea & Young see crime as the product of relative deprivation, criminal subcultures, marginalisation & social exclusion.
Lea & Young acknowledge the existence of police racism, but do not believe that discriminatory policing fully explains the differences in the statistics as over 90% of crimes known to the police are reported by the public rather than discovered by the police themselves. They also point out that black people have a considerably higher rate of criminalisation than Asians
However, their views on police racism can be criticised. For example, arrest rates for Asians may be lower than for the black community because police stereotype the two groups differently, seeing black people as dangerous & Asians as passive. Furthermore, these stereotypes may have changed since 9/11 & subsequent terrorist attacks, because police now regard certain Asian groups as dangerous too which helps to explain the rising criminalisation rates for this group.
Neo-Marxism
argue that official statistics are a social construct resulting from racist labelling & discrimination in the criminal justice system.
Stuart Hall et al argue that the 1970s saw a moral panic over black ‘muggers’ that served the interests of capitalism. In the early 1970s, British capitalism faced a crisis & there was a lot of civil unrest. The myth of the black mugger served as a scapegoat to distract attention from the true cause of problems such as unemployment. The moral panic served to divide the working class on racial grounds & weaken opposition to capitalism as well as winning consent for more authoritarian policing.
However, Hall et al also acknowledge that black crime was not solely
a product of media & police labelling as an increasingly marginalised
black youth often turned to hustling & petty crime as a means of survival. However, this can be criticised for seeming contradictory –
was black street crime rising or not, you can’t have it both ways?
Functionalism & Strain Theory
Due to a lack of institutional means to achieve culturally approved goals, ethnic minority groups innovate due to the racism & blocked opportunities they experience. Merton argues that ethnic minorities experience anomie due to the strain they feel in society & this helps to explain higher crime rates for some groups.
However, this explanation makes the mistake of taking crime statistics at face value, trusting in their validity without question.
Neighbourhood & deprivation
Fitzgerald et al (2003) examine the role of neighbourhood factors in explaining the greater involvement of black youths in street robbery. They found that rates were highest in very poor areas & where very deprived young people came into contact with more affluent groups. Young black people were more likely to live in these areas & to be poor.
However, white people affected by these factors were also more likely to commit street crime. Therefore, ethnicity as such was not the cause. However, black people may be more likely to live in poor areas because of racial discrimination in the housing & job markets.
Increased likelihood of getting caught
Some groups run a greater risk of being caught than others. Sharp & Budd (2005) found that black offenders were more likely than white offenders to have been arrested. Reasons included that they were more likely to commit crimes such as robbery, where victims can identify them, & to have been excluded from school or to associate with known criminals – factors that raised their ‘visibility’ to the authorities like the police.
Cultural explanations
Parmar points out that at least some Asian groups (particularly those of Bangladeshi & Pakistani origin) have, like Black British ethnic groups, experienced high levels of deprivation, however they are less likely to be convicted of offences. Furthermore, self-report studies also indicate lower rates of offending among disadvantaged Asian ethnic groups when compared with Black ethnic groups. This has led a number of researchers to suggest that cultural differences, & particularly differences in family life, may be responsible for the apparent differences in criminality.
Webster (2007) suggests that high rates of single parenthood in black ethnic groups mean that boys from these groups were more likely to offend because their behaviour was not ‘governed’ by fathers & they lacked male role models. He suggests that Asian ethnic groups generally have more stable family structures & larger families which help to monitor behaviour.
A03 However, Parmar argues that it is dangerous to generalise about family structure in particular ethnic groups. Most black families are not headed by lone parents & single parenthood is rising in British Asian families. Also the differences in recorded offending are likely to be linked to a variety of factors including educational achievement
