Topic 7b: Right Realist Solutions to Crime Flashcards
Situational crime prevention 1
Situational crime prevention (SCP) refers to Right Realist measures aimed at reducing opportunities for crime. It is focused on encouraging potential victims to ‘design out’ crime by making themselves ‘harder targets’ by investing in more security and surveillance and therefore increasing the risk of the criminal being caught and/or deterring criminality by reducing the opportunity for crime.
Situational crime prevention 2
There is some evidence that car manufacturers’ investment in satellite technology, computerised locking systems and disabling devices has reduced the level of car theft in the UK. It is also argued that increased surveillance in shops via CCTV or security guards and store detectives increases the likelihood of shoplifters being caught.
Situational crime prevention eval
- Felson and Clarke argue that SCP strategies displace crime rather than reduce it. Criminals simply move to where targets are softer. For example, a crackdown on subway robberies in New York merely displaced them to the streets above.
- Marxists note that SCP often creates a new type of social inequality – the poor are disproportionately the main victims of crime because the middle-class can afford to invest in making themselves harder targets and therefore design crime out of their lives
Wilson – ‘Broken Windows’
(start with intro from explanations)
Any sign of environmental decline such as broken windows, graffiti etc must be tackled immediately otherwise neighbourhood deterioration will follow.
All public housing building should not exceed three floors and all residents should be encouraged to take responsibility for communal space in order to protect it from outsiders.
The police should aggressively tackle all types of crime and disorder rather than reacting only to serious crime. This type of zero tolerance was famously adopted in New York to tackle graffiti on the subway, fare dodging, drug dealing, begging etc. Between 1993 and 1996, all types of crime declined dramatically.
‘Broken Windows’ Kelling and Wilson
Kelling and Wilson spell out how to avoid the collapse of community as a consequence of criminality. They believe that it is crucial to try to maintain the character of neighbourhoods and prevent them from deteriorating. If a single window, broken by vandals, goes unfixed; if incivilities such as rudeness and rowdiness on the streets go unchallenged; then problems will quickly grow. More windows will be vandalized, unruly youths will start hanging around on the streets, and law-abiding citizens will become afraid to go out.
‘Broken Windows’ eval
Jones believes factors such as lack of investment are far more important in determining whether a neighbourhood declines. He argues that the approach advocated by Wilson and Kelling would lead to an unfair criminal justice system. The police would concentrate their attention on minor offenders, and More serious offenders would be given less police attention and would therefore be more likely to get away with their offences.
Matthews conducted research comparing zero tolerance programmes with more liberal approaches and found that there was little difference between them in terms of their impact on crime rates.
Retributive justice and incarceration 1
Retributive justice refers to the punishment fitting the crime. Right Realists argue that criminals should be punished by being excluded from society, i.e. by being incarcerated in prison or be being electronically tagged. The emphasis is also on deterring people from committing crime.
Retributive justice and incarceration 2
In the USA, the policy of ‘three strikes and you are out’ is a good example of retributive justice. Right Realists are critical of the UK justice system because they argue that the costs of crime in terms of prison sentences are too low. They argue that the costs of crime in terms of the chances of being caught and in terms of more effective punishment need to be increased so that they outweigh the benefits of crime.
Incarceration - The Right Realist position suggests ‘prison works’ because it deters many potential offenders away from crime while taking as many persistent and serious offenders as possible out of circulation.
Retributive justice and incarceration eval
garland notes that this approach, although still popular, is increasingly undermined by the fact that more than 60% of those sent to prison re-offend. The interactionist sociologist, Braithwaite, is critical of this approach which he calls ‘disintegrative shaming’ because it involves stigmatizing the individual. Studies of ex-prisoners document their difficulties in re-integrating themselves back into society because of the power of the ‘criminal’ label. Braithwaite argues that it is this social rejection and negative labelling that causes re-offending.
Intro
During the 1980’s Marxist and interactionist approaches were criticized for ignoring the fact that crime was actually a problem for many people and that crime rates were increasing. This lead to the creation of realist approaches. Right Realism is influenced by right-wing Conservative thinking. Right Realists emphasise the individual – they note that people choose to commit crime because the benefits of crime outweigh the costs. Society therefore needs to look at ways of increasing the costs of crime.
Conclusion
Jones is critical of right realist solutions. He argues that he ignores issues of class, ethnicity and gender, fail to consider the role of inequality and unemployment in causing crime, and neglect white-collar and corporate crimes (many of which can be very harmful). He points out that, in the USA, elements of a right realist approach have been adopted. However, despite such measures and a rapid increase in levels of imprisonment, the crime rate has risen inexorably in the USA.
