Key assumptions
· They largely accept official statistics on crime. They thus seek to explain the REAL problem of rising crime levels (particularly street crimes), committed in the main by working class, young (juvenile), often black males, in urban areas.
· They reject approaches that explain crime and deviance away as a social construction (e.g. Interactionist & partially Marxist).
· They offer instead a structural causal explanation of crime and deviance - focusing on the way society is organised, the offender’s social background, upbringing or social position.
· They believe in offering practical solutions to reduce real crime problems which have detrimental effects on victims and communities (especially poorer social groups – see findings of victims surveys LT2).
· They favour quantitative victim surveys as well as OCS when investigating crime and deviance – left realists favour local victim surveys and right realists national victim surveys (e.g. BCS).
Left realism (type of conflict theory) - Young (1997) / Right realism (New Right) / Evaluation of realist theories
Structural causes of crime – blaming society/inequalities/deprivation.
1. Marginalisation
· Young (1997) argues in late modern society (late modernity) growing numbers of working class and black youths are finding themselves marginalised or economically/socially excluded because of insecurity (recessions, unemployment, temporary low paid jobs, cuts in welfare benefits etc) and family instability (e.g. divorce).· Marginalisation (not able to take an active part in society due to unemployment, lack of money etc.) is seen as an underlying pressure for crime and deviance amongst the powerless.
· However, left realists stress that marginalisation is not in itself a direct cause of crime - they reject simplistic links between poverty, unemployment and crime.
2. Relative deprivation
· Young argues that crime is most likely to follow when individuals or groups feel relatively deprived.· This is when the marginalised feel worse off than other groups and feel social injustice.
· Young suggests that feelings of relative deprivation have increased in late modern society because expectations regarding consumption/cultural inclusion (e.g. ipods, latest mobiles etc.) have increased due to media pressures.
· However, Young also stresses that relative deprivation alone does not necessarily lead to crime. Relative deprivation is most likely to cause crime when coupled with a strong sense of individualism (concern for oneself rather than others),
3. Subcultures
· Criminal and deviant subcultures emerge as a group response to marginalisation and relative deprivation.· Subcultures allow groups of individuals to feel socially included and facilitate crime and deviance by making such behaviour seem acceptable.
· Young suggests that an increasing variety of subcultures exist (e.g. religious, criminal, conflict and retreatist etc.) and shape the type of deviant activity engaged in. For example, criminal subcultures may deal in drugs to close the ‘deprivation gap’.
Extension
· Young argues in late modernity relative deprivation has spread to the middles classes.
· He also claims there is ‘relative deprivation downwards’ where the middle classes feel resentful of the underclass.
· Relative deprivation downwards also explains ‘hate crimes’ e.g. racist attacks against asylum seekers.
Practical solutions
Left realists believe that government intervention and community involvement are necessary to reduce the spread of crime. They favour ‘justice’ policies:
· Anti discrimination policies.
· Reduce economic inequality.
· Create more training and employment opportunities.
· Build police community partnerships e.g. neighbourhood watch to improve reporting rates. Avoid military policing (aggressive/random stop and search).
· Greater use of community service sentences instead of custodial sentences. / Causes of crime – right realists largely blame the individual/deviant (although they partly blame society). They see inadequate social control as the key to understanding growths in crime.
1. Biological differences
· Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) believe crime is caused by a combination of biological and social factors (biosocial factors).
· Biological traits such as aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low IQ predispose such people to commit crime.
2. Socialisation and the underclass
· Murray (1990) sees the growth of the underclass as the key cause of crime.
· He argues children from fatherless single parent families are inadequately socialised and controlled as they lack a male role model and authority figure.
· Murray also suggests that over-generous welfare has served to create a dependency culture where the underclass have become content to live off benefits and crime as their work ethic has been eroded.
· Murray believes some young males turn to criminal role models on the street and gain status through crime rather than supporting their families through a steady job.
3. Rational choice
· Cornish and Clarke (1986) also believe that crime can be understood as a rational choice, where the benefits outweigh the costs.· They argue that crime is seen as attractive, especially amongst juvenile offenders, because of a ‘lenient’ criminal justice system which offers ‘soft’ social control.
Extension
4. Breakdown in the moral fabric of society
· Marsland (1988) argues that crime and deviance is linked to a breakdown in the moral fabric of society.
· It is suggested that schools and religion have become less effective agencies of social control.
· Marsland believes that this has led to a decline in morality (e.g. knowing right from wrong) and as a consequence crime has increased.
5. Breakdown in social order
· Wilson (1975) suggests that crime is linked to a breakdown in social order in some communities.
· He argues that disorder in certain neighbourhoods (e.g. where unruly behaviour, drug dealing etc are common.) leads to more crime and deviance as sense of community is lost, and with it informal social control (e.g. people fear reporting crime).
6. Opportunity
· Cornish and Clarke (1986) suggest that crime is linked to the situations in which deviants find themselves.· They argue that individuals commit crime when opportunities present themselves which involve little risk. For example when there is a lack of social control/crime prevention e.g. no window locks.
Practical solutions
Right realists favour tougher social control polices that help to deter crime and punish criminals (nb - points match up with suggested causes).
1. No suggested solution.
2. Cuts back welfare benefits.
3. More and longer prison sentences.
4. Citizenship education.
5. Zero tolerance policing.
6. Target hardening e.g. security locks. /
Empirical evaluation of left realism
J Left realist theories have gained empirical support. Jones et al.’s (1986) local Islington crime survey shows that crime is real problem for inner city residents. They found that levels of victimisation and fear of crime were high, especially amongst women. This suggests there is some validity in the left realist ideas.Empirical evaluation of right realism
J Right realist theories have gained empirical support. Research by Flood-Page et al. (2000) offers partial support for Murray’s views on ‘family decline’. They found children (especially males) from lone parent backgrounds and step-families were more likely to offend than those who lived with two natural parents. This suggests there is some validity in the right realist ideas.Extension of empirical evaluation of right realism
L Although Flood-Page et al. (2000) show a correlation between family structures and offending, they stress that single parenthood/step-families is not a cause of crime. What is key, is the quality of family relationships and levels of parental supervision.
Response to OCS
L Left realist theories too readily accept official statistics (although they do acknowledge they have problems). Therefore they fail to explain adult white-collar crime and neglect female subcultural delinquency. This suggests that the left realist response to official statistics is not adequate.
L Theoretical evaluation (minimum of 1)
· Interactionist/labelling theory criticise realist theories for underestimating the way in which the extent (amount) and distribution (who does it) of crime and deviance is socially constructed.
· They argue that male, working class, black, juvenile crime is due to selective law enforcement, labelling, self-fulfilling prophecies and consequent subcultural formation/membership. They therefore reject the structural (LR) and individual (RR) causes suggested by realist explanations
Feminism
· Feminists criticise realists for failing to consider how patriarchy shapes gender patterns of crime.
· Radical feminists claim that both in the private sphere (family) and public sphere (work and leisure) men exert power and social control over women.
· As a consequence women have fewer opportunities to commit crime (e.g. white collar crime).
Marxists
· Marxists argue that realists fail to explain how the extent of crime and deviance is socially constructed.
· Marxists claim that selective law enforcement against the powerless working class creates the distorted crime patterns seen in OCS and directs attention away from crimes committed by the powerful middle class.
· Marxists also argue that realists fail to consider the real underlying structural causes of crime and deviance. Marxists blame crimogenic capitalism (economic inequality and capitalist values) rather than marginalisation etc.
Functionalism
· Functionalists question realists for misunderstanding the structural causes of crime.
· They argue that young, male, working class, black crime can better be understood as a wider response to anomie/blocked opportunities which then lead to subcultural formation.
However, there are strong similarities between functionalist and LR ideas.
NB – if you are asked a question on left or right realism you could use the other one to criticise/evaluate.
In conclusion perhaps the greatest strength of realist approaches is that they recognise that crime and deviance cannot be explained away as a social construction. They are aware that crime and deviance is a real problem in contemporary society and demands causal explanation.
Moreover, realists put forward a complete approach to crime and deviance, as they not only consider the offender, but victims and agents of social control (the square of crime). However, realists can be attacked for neglecting to explain white-collar crime, which can be much more harmful & costly than street crime.