Realist theories of Crime Flashcards
outline the context of the realist theory
- realists see crime as a real problem to be tackled, not just a social construction created by state agencies
- realist approach emerged in the 70s-80s in the context of a political shift to the right (Thatcher in UK, Reagan in USA)
- these govts favoured cutting welfare, strong commitment to law + order, tough stance on crime, increased use of prison + death penalty
- right realists: share the New Right/ Neo-Conservative political outlook
- left realists: are socialists + favour different policies for reducing crime
what do both left and right realists argue
all realists argue:
- there has been a significant rise in crime - esp in street crime, burglary, assault
- are concerned about the widespread fear of crime + impact of crime on its victims
- other theories have failed to offer a realistic solutions to crime
(RIGHT R) outline Right Realism
- RR sees crime as a real + growing problem that destroys communities + undermines social cohesion
- RR view corresponds with that of neo-conservative govts of the 70s-80s
- they carried the shift from finding the causes of crime to finding practical crime control measures - the best way is through control + punishment, rather than rehabilitating offenders or tackling causes of crime - e.g. poverty
(RIGHT R) why do Right Realists criticise other crime theories
- other theories fail to offer any practical solutions to the problem of rising crime
- theories such as labelling + critical criminology are too sympathetic to the criminal + too hostile to law and order
(RIGHT R) name the 3 RR causes of crime
1) biological differences
2) inadequate socialisation
3) rational choice theory
(RIGHT R) outline biological differences as a cause of crime
Wilson and Herrnstein:
- crime is caused by a combination of biological + social factors
- BD between individuals make some people innately more strongly predisposed to commit crime than others
- for example, personality traits such as aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking + low impulse control put some people at greater risk of offending
- Herrnstein and Murray: the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they see as biologically determined
(RIGHT R) outline the rational choice theory as a cause of crime
- this assumes that individuals have free will + power of reason
- Clarke: the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of the benefit + cost
- if the perceived costs of crime are low, then they are likely to commit the crime
- this explains why the crime rate has increased, there is often little risk of being caught + punishments are lenient
- Felson: for crime to occur, there must be a motivated offender + a suitable target + absence of a ‘capable guardian’ (e.g. a police officer)
(RIGHT R) outline inadequate socialisation/ the underclass as a cause of crime
- effective socialisation decreases the risk of crime, as it teaches self-control + internalising moral values of right + wrong - the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear fam
- Murray: high crime is due to the growing underclass who fail to socialise their children properly
- Murray calls the welfare state as being in a ‘generous revolution’ due to the inc number of people dependent on welfare
- this has led to the growth of LPFs who offer inadequate socialisation - esp for boys in matrifocal LPFs
- as a result, young boys turn to the street to gain status through crime
(RIGHT R) outline AO3 evaluations of the right realist explanation for causes of crime
- it ignores wider structural causes such as poverty
- it overemphasises offenders’ rationality + their cost-benefit calculations prior to committing a crime - doesn’t explain impulsive violent crimes
- their view of criminals as rational actors freely choosing crime contradicts their claim that their behaviour is predetermined by their biology or socialisation
- not all M act the same + commit crime - M are also more victimised by police
(RIGHT R) outline the general RR approach to tackling crime
- they seek practical measures to make crime less attractive
- their main focus is on control, containment and punishment rather than eliminating underlying causes of offending or rehabilitating them
- crime prevention policies should reduce the rewards + increase the sanction through ‘target hardening’, e.g. harsher use of prison
(RIGHT R) outline the RR zero tolerance approach to tackling crime
- Wilson and Kelling’s ‘broken window theory’: its essential to maintain the orderly fashion of neighbourhoods to prevent crime spreading
- any sign of deterioration (e.g. graffiti, vandalism) must be immediately dealt with to avoid escalation to more severe crime
- RRs advocate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward undesirable behaviour such as prostitution, begging, drunkenness, in which these petty crimes are treated harshly
(RIGHT R) is zero tolerance an urban myth?
- zero tolerance was first implemented in 90s New York
- Young: its ‘success’ was a myth given by politicians + police to take credit for the falling rate of crime
- however in NY, the crime rate had already been falling since the 80s - 9 years before ZT was introduced
- Young argues Police need arrest to justify their existence, and NY’s shortage of serious crime led to officials ‘making deviance up’ to which they claim has led to the decline in the crime rate
(RIGHT R) outline AO3 evaluations of the zero tolerance policy for crime
- its preoccupied with petty crime, and ignores corporate crimes which is more costly + harmful
- gives the police free rein to discriminate against ethnic minorities, youth, homeless and others
- it over-emphasises control of disorder, rather than tackling root causes of neighbourhood decline - such as lack of investment
- zero tolerance + target hardening just leads to displacement of crime to other areas
(LEFT R) outline Left Realism
- developed during the 80s-90s
- like Marxists, LRs see society as inequal + capitalist
- unlike Marxists, LRs are reformist not revolutionary socialists; they believe in gradual change rather than the violent overthrow of capitalism to achieve equality
- we need explanations of crime that will lead to practical strategies for reducing it, rather than waiting for a revolution/ a classless society to abolish crime
(LEFT R) which 3 theorists do LRs accuse of not taking crime seriously
- Marxists
- Neo-Marxists
- Labelling theorists
(LEFT R) outline Marxists as not taking crime seriously
- Marxists concentrate on crimes of the powerful, like corporate crimes
- LR agree this is important, but it neglects WC crime + its effects
(LEFT R) outline Labelling theorists as not taking crime seriously
- Labelling theorists see WC criminals as the victims of discriminatory labelling by social control agents - takes blame off criminal
- LRs argue this approach neglects the real victims - WC people who suffer at the hand of criminals
(LEFT R) outline Neo-Marxists as not taking crime seriously
- Neo-Marxists romanticize WC criminals as latter day Robin Hoods who commit crimes against the wealthy as an act of resistance to capitalism
- LRs point out how WC criminals mostly victimize other WC people, not the rich (intra-class crime)
(LEFT R) outline the Aetiological crisis
- part of the LRs project of taking crime seriously is recognizing that from the 50s, crime has increased - esp WC crime
- Young: this recognition led to an Aetiological crisis - a crisis/ inability to explain this rise for crime theorists
- e.g. critical criminology + labelling theory tend to deny that the increase was real - but it was the inc in reporting, or labelling the poor (inc was a social construction - not reality)
(LEFT R) what is the Left Realist view of the Aetiological crisis
- LRs argue that the inc of crime was too great to be explained as a social construction/ increase of reporting (not crime)
- more people were reporting crime because more people were victims
(LEFT R) outline LRs taking crime seriously
- tacking crime seriously also involves recognizing who is most affected by crime
- local victim surveys show that disadvantaged groups have a greater risk of being victims - esp of burglary, street + violent crime
- thus, disadvantaged groups are more fearful of crime - e.g. fear of attack may keep women from going out at night
- also, these groups are less likely to report crimes to the police - esp crimes like domestic violence, rape or racist attacks
(LEFT R) _ workers are _ more likely to be burgled as other people
- unskilled workers are 2x more likely to be burgled as other people
(LEFT R) what are LR’s 3 causes of crime
1) relative deprivation
2) subculture
3) marginalisation
(LEFT R) outline relative deprivation as a LR cause of crime
- Lea + Young: crime has its roots in deprivation - but in in itself isn’t directly responsible for crime
- e.g. poverty was rife in the 30s, yet crime rates were low - living standards had risen by the 50s, as did crime rates
- LRs draw on Runciman’s concept of relative deprivation to explain crime (how deprived someone feels in relation to others/ their expectations)
- this can lead to crime when people resent others for unfairly having more than them + resort to crime to obtain material goods
- Lea + Young: although people are better off, they are now more aware of their relative deprivation due to the media + advertising which raise peoples expectations for material possessions - people may resort to crime to obtain this
(LEFT R) outline subcultures as a LR cause of crime
- LRs draw on ideas from Merton, Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin and their concepts of blocked opportunities + subcultures as a group reaction to the failure to achieve mainstream goals
- thus for LRs, subcultures are a groups collective solution to relative deprivation
- different groups produce diff responses to RD; some may turn to crime to close the ‘deprivation gap’, while others may turn to religion for spiritual comfort (‘theodicy of disprivilege’)
- LRs; criminal S still subscribe to the values of mainstream society - e.g. consumerism - however their opportunities to achieve their goals legitimately are blocked, so they resort to crime
(LEFT R) outline marginalisation as a LR cause of crime
- marginalised groups both lack clear goals + organizations to represent their interests
- groups like workers have clear goals (better pay, conditions) + have organizations (trade unions) to put pressure on employers + politicians - thus, they don’t need to resort to crime to achieve their goals
- however, Young: unemployed youth are marginalised - they have no organisations to represent them + no clear goals - just resentment and frustration
- being powerless to use political means, they express their frustrations through crime (e.g. rioting)
(LEFT R) outline relative deprivation and individualism as a LR cause of crime
- relative deprivation alone doesn’t necessarily lead to crime
- Young: the lethal combination is relative deprivation and individualism (a concern with the self + ones individual rights)
- it causes crime by encouraging the pursuit of self interest at the expense of others
- LRs argue increased individualism causes the disintegration of families + communities by undermining the values of mutual support + selflessness
- this weakens the informal control held by this institution over people - leading to anti-social, aggressive behaviour
(LEFT R) outline religious subcultures as a LR cause of crime
- R subcultures may encourage conformity to mainstream values
- Pryce: identified several subcultures within Bristol’s black community; e.g. ‘saints’ were a hard working, law abiding group whose collective self help aided them in coping with life in a racist society
(LEFT R) outline late modernity, exclusion and crime
- Young: we are now in late modern society; where instability, insecurity + exclusion exacerbate crime
- this contrasts to 50s-60s which were the ‘golden age’ of capitalism - a period of stability, security + social inclusion + general consensus with low crime rates
- since the 70s, insecurity + exclusion has increased - deindustrialisation increased unemployment + many jobs are now short term/ low pay
- these changes have destabilised family + community life + increased exclusion of those at the bottom
- greater inequality between rich + poor and the spread of free market values encouraging individualism have increased the sense of relative deprivation
(LEFT R) outline Young’s cultural inclusion and economic exclusion
- Young: notes the growing contrast between cultural inclusion + economic exclusion as a source of relative deprivation;
- media-saturated late modern society promotes cultural inclusion; even the poor have access to the media’s materialistic, consumerist messages
- greater emphasis on leisure, personal consumption + immediate gratification leads to higher expectations for the ‘good life’
- simultaneously; despite the ideology of meritocracy, the poor are denied opportunities to gain the prizes of a wealthy society
- Young’s concept of this is similar to Merton’s ‘anomie’: society creates crime by setting cultural goals (material wealth) whilst denying people the opportunity to achieve them by legitimate means (legitimate jobs)
(LEFT R) what is a trend for late modernity
- a trend for late modernity is for relative deprivation to become generalised throughout society rather than being confined to those at the bottom
(LEFT R) outline relative deprivation downwards + upwards
- relative deprivation downwards: where the MC, who have to be hardworking + disciplined to succeed in increasingly competitive work environments, resent the underclass who they stereotype as idle, irresponsible + living off undeserved state handouts
- relative deprivation upwards: the WC who resent the MC/RC for their wealth
(LEFT R) outline the result of exclusion
- the result of exclusion is that the amount + types of crimes are changing in late modern society
- crime is found increasingly through the social structure - not just at the bottom
- crime has become increasingly violent - with more hate crimes (can be the result of relative deprivation downwards) - e.g. racist attacks against asylum seekers
(LEFT R) outline changing reactions to crime
- reactions to crime are changing
- late modern society is more diverse + there is less public consensus, so socially acceptable behaviour becomes blurred
- as well, informal control agents such as the family + communities disintegrate, leading to harsher penalties + increased criminalisation of unacceptable behaviour
- late modern society is a high crime society with a low tolerance for crime
(LEFT R) outline the falling crime rate
- Young: points to a ‘second aetiological crisis’, or crisis of explanation
- the first crisis was the failure of theories to explain the causes for inc crime
- since the 90s, the crime rate has fallen - this is a problem for realist explanations, as it suggests that crime is no longer the major threat they had originally claimed
- but as Young notes, crime is a social construction - it may continue to be seen as a problem
(LEFT R) outline the rising ‘anti-social behaviour rate’
- crime surveys also show a high level of public concern about anti-social behaviour
- Young: sees this as a result of ‘defining deviance up’; since the 90s, Govts have aimed to control a widening range of behaviours through measures - e.g. ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders)
- these measures have 3 key features: blurring the boundaries of crime, subjective definition, flexibility
(LEFT R) outline the Govt measure of blurring the boundaries to control anti social behaviour
1) blurring the boundaries of crime:
- ‘incivilities’ (hateful speech) become crimes. breaching an ABSO is itself a crime, thus ‘manufacturing’ more crime
(LEFT R) what do LRs think should be improved to tackle crime
- policing and control
- dealing with the deeper structural causes of crime
(LEFT R) outline improving policing and control as a means of tackling control
- Kinsey, Lea, Young: conviction rates are too low to act as a deterrent to criminals - police spend too little time solving crime
- the public must become more involved in determining the policies priorities + style of policing
(LEFT R) outline military policing
military policing:
- the police depends on the public to provide information about crimes - however the P are losing public support, esp amongst EMs + the young
- thus, Ps intel of information dries up and P resort to ‘military policing’, such as ‘swamping’ an area + using random stop and search
- this method alienates communities + results in a vicious cycle; locals not trusting the P + not providing them with information, so the police resorts to military policing
(LEFT R) outline tackling the structural causes
- LR don’t see improved policing + control as the main solution
- the causes of crime lie in the unequal structure of society + major structural changes are needed in order to reduce crime
- we must deal with the inequality of opportunity, unfairness of rewards, discrimination, provide decent jobs for everyone and improve housing + community
- we must also become more tolerant of diversity + cease stereotyping whole groups as criminal
(LEFT R) outline the LR solution to military policing
- LRs argue that policing must be made accountable to local communities + deal with local concerns
- routine patrols are ineffective + stop and search causes conflict
- Police need to:
- improve their relationship with local communities by spending more time investigating crime
- changing their priorities (they over-police minor drug crime + under-police racist attacks + DV)
- involve the public in making policies
- multi-agency approach is needed; involving social services, housing departments, schools, victim support, the public etc
(LEFT R) outline LRs and government policy
- LRs have had more influence on policy than most crime theorists
- e.g. their views have similarities with the 1997-2010 New Labour govt stance of being ‘tough on crime, tougher on the causes of crime’
- e.g. New Labour’s firmer approach to policing hate crimes, sexual assaults, DV, ASBOs all echoed LRs concern to protect vulnerable groups from crime
- BUT, Young: regards many of these polices as poor attempts to recreate the ‘Golden Age’ (low crime rate) of the 50s
- also, Young criticises Govts, including NL, as they have been tougher on crime than its underlying causes, such as the insecurity, inequality + discrimination that produce relative deprivation + exclusion
(LEFT R) outline AO3 evaluations of Left Realism
- LR focuses on high crime in inner cities, giving an unrepresentative view + makes crime seem like a bigger issue than it is
- Marxists: it fails to explain corporate crime, which is much more harmful
- relative deprivation + marginalisation cant explain crime as not all those who experience it commit crime
(LEFT R) outline the Govt measure of flexibility to control anti social behaviour
3) flexibility:
- ASBOs have been used against people; wearing hoodies, making a noise etc - its subjective definition gives it flexibility to constantly be widened to generate an endless amounts of infringements
(LEFT R) outline the Govt measure of subjective definitions to control anti social behaviour
2) subjective definition:
- anti-social behaviour has no objective definition; its in the eye of the beholder
_% of all crimes + _% of sexual crimes are committed by men
- 95% of all crimes + 99% of sexual crimes are committed by men
(RIGHT R) outline an AO2 example of an evaluation for using zero tolerance as a solution to crime
- a 29 yr old man choked to death when a police officer in NYC arrested him for playing street football
- in the homicide trial the defence claimed the officer was ‘simply following orders to focus on quality of life crimes such as loitering’
- this prompted criticism that police had become too aggressive in handling petty offences
when I’ve gone through all flashcards
- DO I NEED TO MAKE A SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION ONE/ TRAGET HARDENING AS A RIGHT R SOLUTION TO CRIME
- BUS TERMINAL EXAMPLE
- also do i need to make one for the perry pre school project - yes
(LEFT R) outline Young, Lea and Matthew’s ‘square of crime’
- Young, Lea + Matthew: to truly understand crime, the interplay between micro + macro factors must be studied (in the square of crime)
1) the state: decides what is criminal or not - all crimes happen in the context of the state - they define it
2) offender: why do people offend - their motivations, reason for re-offending
3) public: what influences public attitudes + responses to crime, e.g. fear of stigmatisation
4) victim: they decide whether a crime has taken place - what makes victims vulnerable
