Jock Young sees the problem of crime rooted in social inequalities and does not believe that crime can be dealt with by simple improving the efficiency of the police. Only when these inequalities are addressed will crime be reduced. Young suggests, among other things, that by providing improved leisure facilities for young people, improving living standards for poorer households, and reducing unemployment, social inequalities can be dealt with and in turn, crime can successfully be reduced. Young (1992) advocates a ‘multi-agency’ approach as he feels different agencies should be working together. Such as the local council improving housing estates, social services and other victim support schemes can help alleviate the problems of actual or potential victims of crime and families changing the ‘moral context’ which permits crime.
In order to understand and tackle crime, Young and Lea suggest it is necessary to examine the inter-relationships between four elements, and how they influence or interact with one another in influencing crime levels in a community.
Social factors and formal social control- as an agent of formal social control, law enforcements decide what is criminal and what is not. It is therefore vital to consider them when explaining crime, as all crimes happen in the context of the law enforcement. We must also consider social forces that influence the police.
The public and informal social control- How do people react to crime in their community? How criminals are looked upon by family, friends, and neighbours?
The role of the victim- the victim must also be considered, as ultimately, they decide whether a crime has taken place. It is important to consider what makes victims vulnerable in their position in society and their relationships to the offender.
The offenders- it is vital to consider why people offend. What motivates them, and what makes them continue to commit crime?
Offenders choose to commit crimes- but to what extent are they driven to it by outside factors and how is this choice influenced by the other three factors? These factors and how they interact is known as the ‘square of crime’.
Most sociologists have acknowledged that Left Realism has made some contribution to the development of theories of crime and deviance. Left realism attempts to take crime seriously, it uses a comprehensive approach which looks at both the criminals as well as the victims in much more depth than other theories. Left Realism also avoids the worst excess of both ‘the right’ and ‘the left’ as it does not glorify nor attacking the law enforcements and other agencies. Along with a different insight to the causes of crime and deviance Left Realism has also brought along terms such as Relative Deprivation. The social causes of crime are also explained and recognition that tackling crime means tackling social inequalities is also brought about and so community’s needs to find solutions to crime, as the police, the public, the victim and the offender are all involved in crime, they all need to be involved in reducing crime rates.
Along with the advantages of Left Realism it also has its weaknesses, the theory neglects to recognise other responses to relative deprivation and marginality other than crime and does not consider other theories such as Merton’s Retreatism, Ritualism or Rebellion. The research that Left Realism was founded on is based on Victim Survey’s to measure the extent of fear of crime within a community, a method that is not always reliable or accurate. Some crimes are either under- reported or over-reported, making the statistics and figures unreliable and crimes such as white-collar crime aren’t paid much attention. The Left Realism theory only explains why the relatively deprived turn to crime, yet it fails to explain why some individuals do not choice a deviant career despite how other could consider them relatively deprived.
Whatever its advantages or disadvantages, left realism has undisputedly shaped social policy much more profoundly than any other criminological theory. The Labour government’s slogan ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ mirrors the fundamental concepts of left realist thinking, and now, policies have been implemented so that the public can be employed to carry out routine police tasks; giving officers more time for investigation and follow-up work.
Right Realism is now, arguable, the greatest influence on currant Home Office Policy of all theories of crime, because of the practical policies for crime prevention which derive from it. The origins of Right Realism are found in the work of Wilson (1985), who argued that the most important way to tackle crime is to increase the risk of criminals been detected and caught. He was concerned that the attempts to tackle the causes of crime were pointless and the best solution was to reduce its impact on people’s lives. Heavier punishment for convicted criminals was not the answer, as potential criminals have little chance of been detected. Increase the chance of detected and potential criminals will be less inclined to carry out a deviant act.
The key features developed by Right Realism are:
Value consensus and shared morality underpin society-
People are selfish- People are naturally self-seeking and so agencies of socialisation regulate their need to take shorts cuts in society by committing crimes.
Community control- The most effective way of controlling crime is to strengthen the community bonds- kind of like the bonds in Hirschi’s control theory. A lack of community control and socialisation that lie behind crime and deviant behaviour, so reinforcing social cohesion and developing stricter socialisation are likely to be more effective when preventing crime rather then police control.
Rational choice and opportunity- People have rational choice and choice to commit crimes as the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of their actions. They see the opportunity for crime and consider the risk to be worth it. If you decrease these opportunities and further the risk of being caught, then criminal acts will decrease.
Crime will always exist- There will always be selfish people in the world that will commit crime and trying to find the cause of this, such as the Marxist and Left Realist do, will have no effect of the rate of crime. What we can try and achieve is to lessen the impact of crime on the victims, particularly crimes like burglary where there are major concerns for the public.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) developed what has become known as the ‘Broken Window’ thesis. This suggests that unless deviant and criminal behaviour be kept to a minimal then there will be a gradual deterioration of neighbourhoods, with growing anti-social behaviour like noise, litter, graffiti and vandalism and growing crime rates as a sense of ‘anything goes’ attitude develops. This growing disorder weakens the social bonds with the community and so a zero tolerance approach should be taken by the police. This would prevent a lack of social cohesion and the sense of community.
This ‘broken windows’ thesis has been criticised as a zero tolerance approach can cause resentment towards the police in the community if they are targeting trivial offences such as littering and could infarct have a rebound effect and make disorder problems worse instead of better.
In a more recent book written with Richard Hernstein (Wilson and Hernstein, 1985), Wilsons work takes a slightly different root in explaining crime and deviance and he and Hernstein claim that there is substantial biological element in causing crime. They argue that some individuals are born with a predisposition towards crime and a lack of or incorrect socialisation as a child could mean that their potential for criminal behaviours is more readily realised. A lack of discipline and teachings of what is right and wrong as a child could mean that those who are already prone to crime become much more likely commit to criminal acts later on in life. In a traditional nuclear family with strong family bonds children can be condition to have a conscious, knowing what is right and wrong and preventing them from getting in trouble with the police. But in a family where this close-knit relationship is lacking adequate socialisation is unlikely. So, Wilson and Hernstein believe that with the development of a more permissive society the quality of a Childs socialisation has declined, pushing them in the direction of a criminal career.
Yet despite the role they see for biology and socialisation, Wilson and Hernstein still believe people possess free will. This free will means that ultimately people still choose to commit a criminal or deviant act. These people see the benefits of their behaviour greatly outweighing the negatives and consequences of it.
Perhaps the greatest strength of Right Realist is that is recognises that crime and deviance can not be explained as a social construction. They recognise that crime and deviance is a real problem in contemporary society and demands casual explanations. Right Realists also put forward a complete approach to crime and deviance as they not only consider the offender, but the victims and agencies of social control. Recognition is gained that if minor crimes, such as anti-social behaviour or a broken window, are not quickly taken care of they can escalate and destroy a sense of community.
Right Realist readily accepts official statistics, despite knowing the problems they have. They fail to explain adult white-collar crime and neglect female subcultural delinquency, so this suggests that Right Realist response to official statistics is inadequate. Their theories also assume that all criminal acts are thought out and that the offender has carefully weighed up the benefits and cost of their actions, yet some acts are irrational and impulsive having no gain or objective, such as vandalism and violence. The ‘zero tolerance’ approach taken by police can cause an over-emphasis on minor crimes and divert crucial resources away from tackling more serious offences that cause greater harm to people. The increase policing in an area also has the possibility of just displacing the crime into another area, moving it around instead of reducing it.
Despite being two different theories on the explanation of crime and deviance Left and Right Realism do converge, or agree, in certain policy areas. Both sides recognise that there exists an actual crime problem which has destructive effects on communities and take on a pragmatic view, agreeing that as well as discovering the theory behind criminal and deviant behaviour you also need a practical approach applied to tackle the problem. Furthermore, Left and Right Realists address the role of the victim in crime, unlike other theories.
In conclusion both left and right realism are good at explaining crime and deviance as they both take on different approaches to look at the subject. Although both are weak theories on their own, if they are used together or are merged, they can be used to give a fuller view on the causes of crime and deviance.