Lea and Young put forward a theory of crime to suggest why the working class community and Afro-Caribbean’s may actually commit more crime. Relative deprivation is a term used to describe the experience of being deprived of something to which you think you are entitled. Relative deprivation could easily lead to crime. Working class youths often compare themselves with middle class youths, due to a break out of status ambiguity and confusion due to a lack of informative social content that should be delivered to the youth, but isn’t due to a large amount of unintelligent parents and an education system controlled by the bourgeoisie; therefore keeping a strong sense of false class consciousness within our society.
Afro-Caribbean youths compare themselves with white youths, making them feel they do not have a chance to share the standard of living of the majority due to restricted opportunities and racism within Britain. Young black youths born in Britain have been socialised by the media into aspiring middle class life styles, only to find they are denied by them at some point in life. This is not the case for every black youth but it most certainly is for the majority.
Certain groups may feel pushed out of society with little chance to protest against capitalism or improve their lives. This is due to the lack of organisations to represent their interests in political debate. Also the unemployed have no access to trade unions meaning they have no say in control over the standard unemployed wage packet. Negative treatment by people sustaining a higher authority or by the police may well increase chances of resentment within society. Lea and young argue that marginal groups within our society are prone to the use of riots and strong violence as forms of political action. A great example of this can be found in the London riots of 2011. A police officer supposedly shot a man (Mark Duggan) on false intentions. A lot of the public saw this as an opportunity to fight back against this state of anomie, where a breakdown of social bonds between an individual and their community ties, with fragmentation of social identity and rejection of society’s values.
Subcultures may be created as a response to relative deprivation and marginalisation. This provides a collective solution to many problems encountered by youths in our society; the solution enables the youths to cope.
It is likely that the working class and ethnic minority groups may turn to crimes such as drug pushing and robbery to help fund living costs alone.
The combination of these three factors enables us to explain such petty crimes as theft, mugging and potentially violent crimes; as relative deprivation can cause frustration and stress. An insight into relative deprivation can also explain white collar crime, as it can occur in all social classes. This shows that as a person becomes wealthier, it is likely they will become greedier, so they still want more expensive investments which they may not be able to afford.
A solution that Kinsey, Lea and Young produced enabled them to make police aware of the fear of crime in certain geographic areas. They argue stop and search policies are largely ineffective as the officers rarely find anything and merely antagonise the public sphere as a whole, on which the police rely. They also suggest that the police should work with the young people to solve the criminal activity problems in their local areas. Priorities need to be made correctly in problematic areas. There needs to be more investment in these areas to improve the living standards of poorer families and to provide jobs for the unemployed. An improvement on leisure facilities would be ideal, to “keep kids off the streets” and making something of their teenage years rather than thieving or fighting.
When coming to evaluative conclusions of the Left Realist approach, you will find that they offer practical solutions to the criminal activity problems within society. More than other theories do, they focus on the victims of crime to get more of an idea as to why the criminals are offending in the first place. Left Realists also put forward a theory of why poorer groups in society are likely to commit crime. They also draw on other theories to get a more accurate picture as to why people commit more crime in certain areas. However, there are negative points to be made about the Left Realist approach. They do not actually offer evidence to support their theory of crime, which makes you wonder if what they are saying is valid. They also ignore crimes of the rich and powerful, meaning they are not explaining crime within all financial areas of society. Left realists are also criticised for their emphasis on subcultures. It is doubtful whether there is just one set of mainstream values.
The other Realist approach became popular in the 1990’s. It shares several assumptions with the political right and of functionalism. Again like the left realists, they are attempting to address problems by providing solutions to crime.
They follow the functionalist theory that a consensus of values upholds itself within our society, and that laws reflect this consensus. People are being harmed by others of the same social class; this is why Right Realists have little sympathy with criminals.
People are naturally selfish and greedy and as most crime is opportunistic, people will commit crime if the opportunity is there. If a family teaches its children to have a strong conscience and a strong moral code to control their selfish nature, crime rates would decrease. To do this a two parent family is adamant for correct socialisation; according to Right Realists. If this fails they believe stronger formal punishments are needed.
They also do not accept that poverty is a cause of crime. They argue that when poverty was highest in the 1930’s, crime rates were low.
Durkheim suggests that at times of great social change, people may not follow collective norms, especially if the norms are seen as out of date and irrelevant. It is likely that society will turn into a state of anomie until the same or new norms have been reinforced. Hirschi backs up Durkheim’s work. He states that people commit crime when the relevant amount of social control is removed. So if there is more social control present, there will be less crime committed.
People with strong bonds to society are very unlikely to commit crime, because their livelihood is at stake. There are four bonds to society, attachment, commitment, involvement and a belief in right and wrong. The strength of the bonds determines the extent to which a person will conform to norms and values within or engages in criminal activity. If these attachments become absent, people are freed from control and are more likely to commit crime. Hirschi stresses the importance of drawing people into society to help prevent criminal activity taking place.
Right realists believe a stronger nuclear family will prevent people committing crime. Murray links the rise in crime to the growth of lone parent families in contemporary Britain. The characteristics of the underclass such as members who are happy to live on state benefits, unemployed and bringing up children as a lone parent show that these people have no respect for traditional values such as marriage. Young boys within the underclass are more likely to commit crime due to a lack of a bread winner role model, making them work out their masculinity through crime.
Wilson argues that if children are not socialised adequately, personality traits and a lack of regard for others will lead to criminal activity. Wilson also found that families of low intelligence were less likely to socialise their children adequately.
A sense of community can help prevent crime. Wilson and Kelling found that the neighbourhood effect intertwined with a reluctant amount of social control can also help reduce crime. They also found that vandalism attracts further vandalism; this is known as the broken windows effect. Another way to reduce crime would be for the public could report local nuisances and any forms of criminal activities.
New Right theorists suggest that individuals will make a rational decision to commit crime if the opportunity is there and it is easy to commit crime. They will also consider if the potential benefits outweigh the potential costs. They therefore argue it should be made difficult to commit crime and the costs of committing crime should be higher.
A big problem with this theory is that it fails to look at unequal opportunities and the causes of crime such as poverty. The theory is also based on assumptions that may not be accurate, such as lone parent families being a factor of crime. Jones states that factors such as a lack of investment are far more important in preventing decline in of an area than tolerance of a few broken windows. He also points out that the theory ignores the three strikes and out rule that the American law system uses.
Interactionists would say that this theory ignores the notion of the typical offender, because it focuses on all races. Right realism has had a considerable amount of influence on policymaking in Britain, yet it has led out society to preoccupation with retribution and punishment, making a rise in prison population.
