left realist explanations of crime Flashcards
intro
Left realists are interested in shaping policies to tackle and solve crime problems and differ from traditional and Neo-Marxists in their focus on the impact of crimes on individual victims and communities.
point 1
The Left Realist explanation of crime has three key concepts: Relative deprivation, Subculture and Marginalisation
evidence 1
Marginalisation refers to the situation where certain groups in the population are more likely than others to suffer economic, social and political deprivation. The first two of these elements of deprivation are fairly well known, young people living ‘in inner cities and social housing estates are likely to suffer from higher levels of deprivation than those from more affluent areas. The third element - political marginalisation - refers to the fact that there is no way for them to influence decision makers and thus they feel powerless.
furthermore 1
This draws partially upon the Marxist subcultural approach and the ideas of Merton. However, whereas the Marxist subcultural writers seek to explain the styles of dress, and forms of language and behaviour as forms of ‘resistance’ to capitalism, Lea and Young do not see a direct, link. For Lea and Young, one crucial element of subcultures is that they are still located in the values of the wider society. Subcultures develop precisely because their members subscribe to the dominant values of society, but are blocked off from success.
eval 1
Hughes argues that it fails to explain the real causes of street crime. Left Realists have not gathered empirical data about offenders’ motives. He also attacks Left Realism for its reliance on sub -cultural theory which has been heavily criticised. Jones argues that Left Realism fails to experience why some people who experience relative deprivation turn to crime while others do not. He also argues take accounts of victims’ fear of crime at face value and never ask their views about the causes of crime.
point 2
Without the support of the community, the police drift towards what Kinsey et al. call military policing and have to resort to tactics such as stopping and searching large numbers of people in an area or using surveillance technology to find suspects. This leads to the mobilization of bystanders where local people gather in groups to support those members of the community that they feel have been unfairly picked on. This can lead to major social disturbances.
evidence 2
Kinsey et al. argue the key to police success lies in improving relationships with the community. To achieve this, they propose that minimal policing should be used. They identify areas which are over-policed and under-policed. In other words, they think that the police and the state devote too much of their time and energy to dealing with certain types of crime, and not enough to others. This ‘approach’ to policing distorts the statistics as to the true nature of crime.
furthermore 2
Kinsey et al. argue that improved police performance will only come if their relationships with the community they serve are improved. They say that only with effective police community relationships do the police obtain a flow of information upon which they rely to crack down on crime.
eval 2
It is not surprising that there is a lot of policing in inner city areas as these are the places where there is most violent crime, fear of crime and social disorder. The police are protecting the public and responding to public concerns.
The police have worked hard at improving their approach to policing inner city areas, especially after the McPherson Report into the Stephen Lawrence murder where the police were accused of institutional racism. For example, more officers from minority ethnic backgrounds have been recruited.
point 3
A further trend in late modernity is that there is widespread resentment at the undeservedly high rewards that some receive. There is also relative deprivation downwards where the middle class who have to be hard working to succeed resent the stereotypical underclass as irresponsible and living of undeserved state handouts. The result of the trend towards exclusion is that the amounts and types of crime are changing in late modern society.
evidence 3
Firstly crime is more widespread and is found increasingly throughout the social structure, not just at the bottom of it. It’s also nastier with increase in hate crimes, often the result of relative deprivation downwards, for example attacks against asylum seekers.
furthermore 3
Reactions to crime by the public and state are also changing. With late modernity society becomes more diverse and there’s less public consensus on right and wrong, so that the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour becomes blurred. This, along with rising crime, makes the public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher formal controls by the state and increased criminalisation of unacceptable behaviour. Late modern society is thus a high crime society with a low tolerance of crime.
eval 3
Despite Young’s dire predictions, the crime rate is falling according to both official statistics and the CSEW.
Divorce rates are decreasing, suggesting there may have been something of a reduction in social breakdown.
conclusion
In conclusion left realists identify as critical causes of crime as deprivation and marginalization. Merton, Lea and Young argue that rising crime is partly the result of rising expectations for high standards of living, combined with restricted opportunities to achieve this success because of unemployment.
