Realist Theories And Crime Flashcards
Realists argue
Argue that there has been a significant rise in the crime rate, especially street crime, burglary and assault.
Are concerned about the widespread fear of crime and about the impact of it upon victims.
Argue that other theories have failed to offer realistic solutions to the problem of crime and they propose what they regard as practical policies to reduce it.
Right realism
Sees crime, especially street crime, as a real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion and threatens society’s work ethic.
Their views on crime correspond closely with those of neo-conservative governments during the 70’s and the 80’s. E.G: Policy makers argued that the ‘nothing works’ criminologists had produced many theories of crime, but no workable solutions to curb the rising crime rate.
This led to a shift away from the search for the causes of crime towards a search for practical control measures. It also led to the US and UK governments’ tough stance towards offenders and their view that the best way to reduce crime was through control and punishment rather than rehabilitating offenders.
Right realist’s criticise other theories for…
failing to offer any solution to the problem of rising crime.
They regard theories such as labelling and critical criminology as too sympathetic to the criminal and too hostile to the forces of law and order.
They are mostly concerned with finding realistic solutions to crime, but they do offer an explanation of the causes of crime…
The causes of crime for right realists
1)Individual biological differences
2) Inadequate socialisation
3) The individual’s rational choice to offend.
Biological differences- Wilson &Herrnstein
Wilson & Herrnstein (1985): Put forward a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour. (Crime is caused by a combination of biological and social factors.)
Biological differences between individuals make some people innately more strongly predisposed to commit crime than others. E.G: personality traits such as aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low impulse control put them at a greater risk of offending.
Herrnstein & Murray- biological differences
Herrnstein & Murray (1994): the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they also see as biologically determined.
SOCIALISATION AND THE UNDERCLASS: Charles Murray
The right realist Charles Murray (1990) argues that the crime rate is increasing because of a growing underclass or ‘new rabble’ defined by their deviant behaviour and who fail to socialise their children adequately.
For Murray, the underclass is growing as a result of welfare dependency!
The welfare state’s ‘generous revolution’ since the 60’s allows increasing numbers of people to become dependent on the state.
Socialisation and the underclass: Bennett et al (1996)
As Bennett et al (1996) argue: crime is the result of:
“Growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults in a practically perfect criminogenic environment- that is, [one] that seems almost consciously designed to produce vicious, predatory, unrepentant street criminals.”
Rational choice theory: Wilson
As Wilson (1975) puts it:
“If the supply and value of legitimate opportunities (i.e. jobs) was declining at the very time that the cost of illegitimate opportunities (i.e. fines and jail terms) was also declining, a rational teenager might well conclude that it made more sense to steal cars than to wash them.”
Rational choice theory
This assumes that individuals have free will and the power of reason.
Rational choice theorists such as Ron Clarke (1980) argue that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of the likely consequences.
If the perceived rewards of crime outweigh the perceived costs, or if the rewards of criminal behaviour seem to be greater than those of non-criminal behaviour, then people will be likely to offend.
Right realists argue that the perceived costs of crime are low and this is why the crime rate has increased. In their view, there is often little risk of being caught and punishments are in any case lenient.
Rational choice theory: Felsons routine activity theory
A similar idea is contained in Felson’s (2002) routine activity theory. Felson argues that for a crime to occur, there must be a motivated offender, a suitable target (a victim or property) and the absence of a ‘capable guardian’ (such as a policeman or neighbour).
Offenders are assumed to act rationally, so that the presence of a guardian is likely to deter them.
CRITICISMS OF THE RIGHT REALIST EXPLANATION:
It ignores wider structural causes such as poverty.
It overstates offenders’ rationality and how far they make cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime. While it may explain some utilitarian crime, it may not explain impulsive or violent crime.
Its view of criminals as rational actors freely choosing crime conflicts with its claim that their behaviour is determined by their biology and socialisation. It also over-emphasises biological factors: according to Lilly et al (2002), IQ differences account for less than 3% of differences in offending.
Right realism tackling crime
Right realists focus more on practical measures to make crime less attractive. Their main focus is on control, containment and punishment of offenders.
Crime prevention policies should therefore reduce the rewards and increase the costs of crime to the offender. E.G; by ‘target hardening’, greater use of prison and ensuring punishments follow soon after the offence to maximise their deterrent effect.
Broken window policy
Pro active policy
Strong communities
Target hardening
Situation management
Crime deterrence
Swift and lengthy ismprisionment
Broken windows policy: Wilson and Kelly
argues that it is essential to maintain the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking hold. Any sign of deterioration such as graffiti, vandalism or ‘broken windows’ must be dealt with immediately.
Zero tolerance: an urban myth?
A strategy that aims to reduce minor offences and more serious crime through relentless order maintenance and aggressive law enforcement, against even minor disorder and incivilities.Zero tolerance policing was first introduced in New York in 1994 and was widely applauded for reducing crime.
However, Jock Young (2011) argues its ‘success’ was a myth predicted by politicians and police keen to take the credit for falling crime.
In fact, crime rates had already been falling since 1985, nine years before zero tolerance- and was already falling in other US (and foreign) cities that didn’t have zero tolerance policies!
Young argues that police need arrests to justify their existence, and New York’s shortage of serious crime led police there to ‘define deviance up’. I.E. they took to arresting people for minor deviant acts that had previously fallen outside of their ‘net’, re-labelling them now as worthy of punishment.
Other critisms of zero tolerance policy
It is preoccupied with petty street crime and ignores corporate crime, which is more costly and harmful.
It gives police free rein to discriminate against minorities, youth, the homeless etc.
It over-emphasises control of disorder, rather than tackling the causes of neighbourhood decline such as lack of investment.
Zero tolerance and target hardening just lead to displacement of crime to other areas.
