Right Realism on crime Flashcards
What is realism and what do they argue about crime?
By the beginning of the 1980s, Realist criminology emerged, which differed from previous approaches such as Marxism and Interactionism because it thought criminologists should abandoned grand theorising about the ultimate causes of crime.
They argued that criminology should work with governments to develop practical solutions to crime, as crime will always exist, as people are naturally selfish.
Therefore we need to take seriously the widespread public fear of crime.
They argue there has been a significant rise in crime, especially in street crime, burglary and assault.
How did realism emerge?
Realist approaches emerged in the 1980s in the context of right wing (conservative) neoliberalgovernments coming to power in both the United States and the United Kingdom.
How is realism different to other theories?
They abandon ‘Grand Theories’ such as Marxism. They are not interested in looking at the ‘deep structural causes’ such as Capitalism – It is not Criminologists’ job to get rid of Capitalism so it is pointless focussing on it.
They are more ‘pragmatic’. They ask how governments can reduce crime here and now, and work within the constraints of the social system.
They take a victim- centred approach to crime, putting victims and the public’s concern about crime at the centre of theorising and policy making.
What are the two types of realism, explain both:
Right Realists share the New Right and Conservative outlook and support polices that take a ‘get tough’ stance on crime that focuses on increased prison sentences and ‘short, sharp shock’ approach to dealing with young offenders.
Left Realists are socialists and have very different policies for reducing crimes.
What is right realism? (New Right)
Value consensus underpins society. They believe crime, especially street crime undermines social cohesion and threatens societies work ethic – it destroys communities.
They look for practical crime control measures by focusing on control and punishment, rather than rehabilitation or tackling the causes of crime i.e. poverty.
They see theories such as labelling and Neo-Marxist approaches as being too sympathetic to the criminal and too hostile to social control agencies.
What are the three causes of crime according to right realism?
- biological differences
- inadequate socialisation
- rational choice theory
What are biological differences in crime?
Wilson & Herrnstein (1985) put forward a bio-social theory - Biological differences make some people more predisposed to committing crime than others. For example, certain hormones and personality traits can lead to increased aggression, impulsivity and risk taking.
They also argue that one of the main causes of crime is low intelligence levels.
can lead to racist stereotypes in the CJS - BLM
Inadequate socialisation as a cause of crime:
Effective socialisation (primarily from the family) reduces the risk of criminality, as it ensures transference of norms, values, right and wrong and self-control.
Children who are socialised inadequately as a child have more risk of becoming offenders.
Murray (1990) argues that crime is increasing because of a growing underclass who are failing to socialise their children properly.
Increase in lone parent families, decrease in marriage. Men no longer have to take responsibility for supporting families.
Absent dads = lack of male role model – boys turn to role models on the street to gain status.
Rational choice theory as an explanation for crime:
The final element of crime is the rational choice theory – a theory that states everyone has free will and the power of reason.
Clarke (1980) argues the decision to commit crime is due to a choice based on a rational calculation of the consequences. If it is perceived the rewards outweigh the costs, then someone may turn to crime.
Right realists argue that at the moment in society, perceived costs of committing crime are low, which explains why crime has increased.
Routine Activity theory:
Routine activities theory states that crime occurs when a motivated offender encounters a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian. Rather than focusing on criminality, it examines how changes in routine activities of potential victims and offenders affect crime rates based on availability, proximity, and exposure.
Cohen and Felson found that 3 factors are needed for crime to occur:
a likely offender- the capacity and the willingness to commit wrongdoing
a suitable target - he availability of opportunities as well as the offender’s particular intention may incline him/her to choose a certain target over another
absence of a capable guardian - individuals or objects that effectively deter criminal conduct via their simple presence in time and space. i.e. police officers
Broken Windows Theory - Wilson and Kelling
visible signs of disorder and neglect, such as broken windows or graffiti, can encourage further crime and anti-social behavior in an area, as they signal a lack of order and law enforcement.
visible indicators of disorder, such as vandalism, loitering, and broken windows, invite criminal activity and should be prosecuted
On the other hand, a disordered environment, one that is not as safe and contains visible acts of lawlessness (such as broken windows, graffiti, and litter), sends the message that this neighborhood is not routinely monitored and individuals would be much more likely to get away with committing a crime.
With a decreased likelihood of detection, individuals would be much more inclined to engage in criminal behavior, both violent and nonviolent, in this type of area.
How can crime be tackled according to right realism?
Right realists argue they cannot deal with the causes of crime as they cannot be changed easily e.g. biology .
Instead, they seek practical measures to make crime less ‘attractive’ and raising the cost of committing crime.
They do this by focusing on control, containment and punishment of offenders RATHER than eliminating the causes of offending or rehabilitating them.
they focus on situational crime prevention
Situational crime prevention:
They focus on making it harder for criminals to commit crime and increasing the risk of getting caught committing a crime, thus making crime a less attractive to criminals.
Situational Crime Preventioninvolves protecting specific targets from potential criminals – by putting window locks on windows, or putting CCTV in a shop for example.
increasing the effort
increasing the risk
reducing the rewards
reducing provocations
removing excuses
Environmental crime prevention
Environmental Crime Preventionfocuses on making whole neighbourhoods or larger areas more crime-resistant, through putting more police on the streets.
These strategies tend to rely much more heavily on the police than situational crime prevention strategies.
Examples, include Zero Tolerance Policing, ASBOs, curfews, street drinking bans, dispersal orders and the three strikes rule in America.
These strategies are based on Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows Theory – the idea that signs of physical disorder give off the message that there is low informal social control which attracts criminals and increases the crime rate. They advocate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution, begging and drunkenness. The police need to focus on controlling the streets so law-abiding citizens feel safe.
policing strategy that involves relentless order maintenance and aggressive law enforcement, against even minor crimes.
Zero Tolerance policy
Supporters of zero tolerance policing claim that it achieved huge reductions in crime when it was introduced in New York in 1994.
In the UK, Liverpool claimed their crime rate fell by 25% since the introduction of zero tolerance in 2005, with violent crime falling by 38%.
HOWEVER
Young (2011) argues that its success was a myth pushed by politicians and police keen to take the credit for falling crime. In fact, the crime rate in New York has been falling since 1985, and was also falling in cities without zero tolerance policies!
Young argues police needed to justify their positions by making arrests. At the time, New York’s shortages of serious crimes led police to ‘define deviancy up’, which led to them arresting people for minor deviant acts.
The successes of zero tolerance was exaggerated and was just a product of the police’s way of coping with a decline that had already occurred.
Too preoccupied with petty crime whilst simultaneously ignoring corporate crime.
Zero Tolerance Policing in New York resultedin a lot more people being arrested for possession of marijuana – 25 000 a year by 2012 (one every ten minutes) – some of those people lost their jobs or rental houses as a result (the human cost of Zero Tolerance).
Gives the police free reign to discriminate.
Over-emphasises the control of disorder, rather than tackling the cause.
Zero tolerance just leads to displacement of crime in other areas.
