The realist approaches

The realists view of crime differes markedly from approaches like labelling and the new criminology which regard crime as socially constructed- the result of the way the police and others label, stereotype and criminalise members of certain groups Instead, they see crime as a real problem to be tackled and not just a social construction created by crime agencies

The agree on (a03) That there has been a consistent level of crime in Britain Theories have failed to offer solutions to crime There is a widespread fear of crime about the impact of crime on its victims- as demonstrated by regular crime watch programmes Need to go tough on crime

The realist approaches have been divided along political lines Right realists who favour a tough stance to crime with the increased use of prison, short, sharp shocks and the death penalty Left realists favour greater accountability of the police, and building relationships with local communities

Right realists

See crime as destroying communities and undermining social cohesion They have moved away from looking at the causes of crime and deviance and more to solutions to deal with rising crime The right realists see labelling theory and the Marxists as too sympathetic towards the criminal and too hostile to the forces of law and order However, although their main emphasis is on crime reduction they do offer an explanation of the cause of crime They do not accept that economic factors such as poverty and inequality are the cause of crime

The right realists offer three causes of crime

1: The individual biological differences According to Wilson and hernstein the main cause of crime is low intelligence Certain personality traits like aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low impulse control put some people at greater risk of being offending

2: inadequate socialisation and the underclass Even if the offending individual has low intelligence, the risk of committing a crime according to the right realists can be decreased by effective socialisation This relates to the work of murray who argues that there is a growing underclass who are defined by their deviant behaviour that fail to socialise their children properly Murray argues that due to the decline of marriage and the nuclear family and the growth of lone parent families because of welfare benefits, men no longer have to take responsibility for their families However, murray states that lone mothers are ineffective socialisation agencies for their children, especially boys and are married to the state Absent fathers mean that boys lack paternal discipline and appropriate male role models As a result, young males turn to other more delinquent role models on the streets and gain status through crime rather than supporting families through a steady job A03: feminists: mothers work hard o try and provide the best for their children- may work multiple jobs, can provide inadequate socialisation

3: rational choice theory (Clarke) This assumes that people have free will and the power of reason. This has been an important element of the right realist approach and is key to understanding their work The right realists argue that the decision to commit is a choice based on a rational calculation of the likely consequences If the rewards of the crime appear to be greater than those of non criminal behaviour then people will be more likely to offend Right realists argue that currently the perceived costs of crime are low, because the risk of being caught is unlikely, thus people will choose to offend

A03 of causes of crime Marxists: may have been experiencing deprivation as a result of being failed by the education system that promotes bourgeoisie ideas Ignores m/c fathers who also abandon their children Marxists: capitalism is criminogenic – oppression causes people to have no choice but to turn to crime in order to live The right realist is a victim blaming approach

Right realist approaches to crime prevention

Wilson: zero tolerance/broken windows Crime flourishes in situations where social control breaks down. In any community there are people who will commit non utilitarian crime, if the crimes go unchecked then the entire social order of the area breaks down and gradually there is more frequent crime Crime prevention of any kind should be at the top of the agenda to prevent so that individuals feel safe again eg non utilitarian crimes must be dealt with immediately They advocate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution, begging and drunkenness The police should focus on controlling the streets so that law abiding citizens feel more safe

Evaluation of right realism Strengthens community bods Victim centred Provides realistic, practical, preventative measure to deal with crime Scapegoats lone parent families Ignores root causes of crime Ignores white collar and corporate crime

Left realism

Left relists are reformist rather than revolutionary socialists They believe in gradual change, not trying to overthrow the capitalist system The central idea is that crime is a real problem and affects disadvantaged groups who are not its main victims They accuse other sociologists of not taking crime seriously: By interactionists focusing on w/c criminals they neglect the real people who suffer most at the hands of criminals in the w/c Marxists concentrate on the crimes of the powerful and neglect w/c crime and its effects Neo Marxists over-romanticises w/c criminals when they see stealing from the rich as an act of political resistance to capitalism. w/c commit crimes to w/c

Young: the crisis of explanation According to young there was a crisis of explanation that arose with theories of crime Eg the suggestion that any increase in crime is a social construction, ignored the fact the increase was real -> that more people have fallen victim to crime Victim surveys not only show increases in crime but they also show w/c are more likely to be victims of crime Understandably, disadvantaged groups have a greater risk of being burgled than other people

Causes of crime (MRS)

Marginalisation This 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 well known- young people living in inner cities and social housing estates are likely to suffer from higher levels of deprivation than those from much 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

Relative deprivation The concept of relative deprivation derives from the writings of Kunciman who argued that political revolutions only occurred when the poor became aware of the sheer scale of the differences between themselves and the rich Without the knowledge, they generally accepted their poverty and powerlessness It is not therefore, poverty that leads to revolution, but awareness of their relative poverty Applying this concept to crime, lea and young pointed out that it is not poverty or unemployment that directly causes crime, as despite the high unemployment experienced in the economic depression in Britain from the late 1920s-30s crime rates were considerably lower than they were in the boom years of 80s According to lea and young the expectations of the 30s youth were much lower than those of contemporary young people, who feel resentful of what they could actually earn compared with their aspirations

Subcultures Subculture develops amongst groups who suffer relative deprivation and marginalisation Specific sets of values, forms of dress and modes of behaviour develop that reflect the problems that their members face 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 it as a direct ‘decodable’ link For lea and young, one crucial element of subcultures is that they are still located in the values of wider society

Young (2000)

Since the 70s young argues that instability, insecurity and exclusion has increased This is due to unemployment and poverty, and young argues has destabilised family and community life, and contributed to rising divorce rates This has increased marginalisation and exclusion for those at the bottom Young notes that growing contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion is a source of relative deprivation due to: 1: the media saturated images of materialism and consumerism 2: greater emphasis on leisure and personal consumption 3: despite the notion of meritocracy, the poor are denied opportunities to gain flattery prizes This is very similar to mertons notion of anomie that society creates crime by setting cultural goals (such as material wealth), while denying people the opportunity to achieve them by legitimate means (ie decent jobs) A further trend is generalised through society, that the m/c also feel relatively deprived rather than being confined to those at the bottom There is a widespread resentment of the undeservingly high rewards that some receive There is also resentment downwards where the m/c who have to be hardworking and disciplined to succeed in a competitive environment, resent the idle, living off state handouts/benefits The result is the trend towards crime that is more widespread in society, at the bottom as well as top This has generated an increase in hate crimes, often the result of relative deprivation downwards eg racist attacks against asylum seekers Reactions to crime by the public and state are also changing. With late modernist society becomes more diverse and there is a public consensus on right and wrong Informal crime controls become less effective such as families and communities. This makes the public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher controls by the state

Left realism approaches to crime prevention

Kinsey, lea and young Argued in, that police clear up rates are too slow to act as a deterrent to crime (police don’t spend enough time investigating them) Hence they noted that the police rely on ‘military policing’ such as swamping an area, and using random stop and search tactics This alienated communities and must deal with local concerns Thus they argued that police should spend more time investigating crime, change their priorities (they under investigate racist attacks, and domestic abuse and over police minor drug crime) and invoke the pubic in policing policy

Social and community crime prevention New labour took a firmer approach to the policing of hate crimes, sexual assault and domestic violence along with the introduction of anti social behaviour orders (ASBOS). They fostered the introduction of community policing asbos: which were introduced to control behaviour have been used alongside irnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance 2015) Asbos have been used against people wearing hoodies, making noises, letting off fireworks, fly posting or begging. However, it is seen as a subjective definition and can be generated for endless infringements In contrast, zero tolerance policing suggested by the new right, new labour also placed emphasis on the potential offender and social context The aim of these strategies was to remove the conditions that turned individuals to crime in the first place These were longer term strategies, since they attempt to tackle the root causes of offending, rather than simply removing opportunities for crime Under new labour, because the causes of crime were often rooted in social conditions such as poverty, unemployment and poor housing, more general social reform programmes addressing these issues may have a crime prevention role, even if this is not their main focus Eg new labours ‘new deal’ policy for unemployed youths and their anti truanting policies attempted to reverse the exclusion of those young people who are at greater risk of offending Young saw these are failing to create secure permanent jobs However, he has only addressed the symptoms, such as anti social behaviour

Evaluation of left realism Has succeeded on drawing attention to the reality of street crime and its effects Fails to explain corporate crime and merely focuses on street crime Relative deprivation cant fully explain crime because not all who suffer relative deprivation commit crime