In later writings, Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) explore the “cause” of crime. They argued that crime is something that is inevitable. Wilson argues that people are more likely to commit crime if they are not socialised into acceptable behaviour in their childhood by their family. He claims that families that have low intelligence are more likely to be “discordant” and are less likely to socialise their children correctly. Therefore they are giving their children anti-social values.
Right realism has been criticised by Platt and Takagi (1977). The approach ignores the ideas of justice and law enforcement and advocates instead of the maintenance of social order. It also fails to explain the causes of crime and absolves the government and economic system of any blame.
Right realists see that the rising crime rate is a real indicator of a real social problem. The problem is solved or tackled with practical methods. However, only part of the crime indicated by official statistics may result from changes in recording and recording crime. (Walklate 2003).
An advantage of right realism relates to the theory of “broken windows”. This points to the importance of relative deprivation.
Another advantage is down to “crime prevention”. According to Wilson (1975) “wicked people exist” and the only thing that works is to set them apart from innocent people. Also longer sentences and imprisonment are needed in order to reduce the crime rate. However, Walk late (2003) states that there is no sound evidence that it works. The main concern is to maintain order in society. For some, this is based on a “culture of control, situational control and self control”. But this could be seen as a threat to civil liberties. For example, surveillance techniques are intruding on people’s privacy. (Hughes, 2000).
Right realism has been criticised in many ways. They are focusing on young males and street crime and ignoring the fact that there are other types of offenders and crime in society, so how can they be accepting the picture of crime presented by the official crime statistics? However they have been placing too much emphasis on control which some can see this as a threat to civil liberties? Also they are rejecting the view the economic factors and social inequality can also generate crime in society.
New Right theorist Charles Murray argues the underclass is above all insufficiently included into society’s norms and values. He calls the deviant subcultural values of the underclass as ‘paternalism. Murray's views have been generally important in government policy in the 1980's and 1990's in the U.K. and U.S.A. His views have dominated debates about the family and crime he has had an impact on society.
However Steven Box is a Marxist and he argued that the criminal law is an ideological construct and that only some offences are criminalised, which is usually committed by the powerless(these are more likely to commit crime and sentenced to prison), while those committed by the powerful are excluded. He stated that “not all laws are passed to give the impression that the legal system is neutral, many do.”
Box believed that only some avoidable killing is defined as murder, only some property deprivation is defined as theft and only some violence is defined as assault. In these criminal offences box argues that as a result of the definitions of serious crime do not refer to a sub section that is more likely to be committed by young white collar males.
The main similarities with left and right realism are that they both take crime seriously and accept the official crime statistics. Left realism developed in response to the increasing influence of right realism over the policy makers in America and Britain. Left realism is a development from Marxist criminology which argues that it is better to work with capitalism to improve people’s lives, than to attempt wholesale social change.
The main writer was Elliot Currie and is also associated with Jack Young. (Realist criminologist) Lea and Young (1993), argue that sociological surveys indicate that the people who really suffer from crime are the poor and the powerless. Critical criminologists reject this, by saying that the approach deals with the symptoms of crime and not the causes. Scraton and Chadwick, say that it is a mistake to focus on the street crime committed by young men. These types of people engage in crime because they are marginalised by the capitalist system. Critical criminologists argue that realism ignores the “real damage” committed by corporations.
Left realism has four elements to the theory which are victims, offender, state and informal controls. The “victim” is the concern for the consequences of crime for victims and the neighbourhoods. The victim surveys attempt to find out what this exactly means at a local level or to a simple understanding. E.g Islington Crime survey.
Young (1984) argued that it was the role of criminology to provide relevant solutions for policy makers. He responded by labelling Marxist Criminology as “left Idealism” meaning that it was a good theory but had no practical solutions.
The left realist explanation of crime has three elements, in order terms the offender avoids the criminal by explaining behaviour in terms of marginalisation, relative deprivation and sub-culture. The meaning of relative deprivation is when people are content if everyone around them is in a similar situation. However, when the most deprived are put in a situation where they can compare their same situation with each other. The concept of relative deprivation comes from Runciman (1966), who argued that political revolutions occurred when the poor become aware of the differences between them and the rich. Marginalisation refers to the people living on the margins of society, in particular lacking in any say over decision making. Therefore they feel powerless.
Sub-cultures develop because their group of people subscribe to the dominant values of society but are blocked off down to marginalisation; therefore they are cut off from success. However the state is losing the fight against crime and there is a loss of public confidence in the police because of the military style of policing. Informal controls are when the fears of stigmatisation and rejection are more likely to reduce crimes than the use of formal sanctions.
Left realism has been criticised by Feminist Criminologists, such as Pat Carlen (1992) have argued that left realist criminology accepts the view of what crime is and concentrates its issues to do with street crime and burglary. They argue instead that one role of criminology ought to be the exploring the way society harms women. For example, there needs to be much greater stress upon issues of domestic violence. In response young claimed that left realism has been very concerned with domestic violence and sees it as one of the main problems. Both right and left realism have had considerable influence on New Labour policy since 1997, with many of their ideas being brought into law.
Left realism is a genuine attempt to take crime seriously. Its approach looks at both victims and offenders and informal and formal methods of social control. Despite these advantages, it has been criticised in various ways.
Left realism has been criticised for the following points. They have been paying too much attention to street crime and they have been largely ignoring white-collar crime and corporation crime where most of the crime is related to fraud. Also left realists are “over- predicting” the level of crime which doesn’t help to reduce the rate of crime or make it any better. In a way it is not showing validity. Furthermore they are relying too much on victim studies as a source for information. Therefore it is ignoring the trends towards inclusion in late modern society.
Within radical criminology this has taken the form of the argument that crime 'may or may not' have been increasing but it is certainly not part of an explanation of changes in the behaviour of the criminal justice system or the media. This was the position adopted in mid 1970's by Stuart Hall.
Stuart hall associates in a massive study of the role of the state and media in the development of a moral panic over the involvement of black youth in street robbery ('mugging') during the early seventies. The main argument suggested that crime exists but that it is a normal part of working class life. However, the argument had its expression and proceeded to admit that the involvement of young blacks in crime was a clear response to economic removal. The position of black labour subordinated by the processes of capital and is failing and will get worse, according to its own specific reason. Crime is one perfectly predictable and quite understandable result of this process.
In conclusion, the only way to prevent crime is through local people feeling able to maintain order, as minor problems escalate into bigger ones. Initially stricter policing should be given to people to give them the confidence to impose informal control. Another assumption of right realism is that poverty and unemployment does not cause of crime, as crime rates have gone up in times due to the economic -rate/prosperity. The state has become ineffective to constrain and control the criminal, so that is the reason why there are more penal sanctions needed in society. The left and right share the same view that crime is a real problem and a solid solution is needed to solve this issue. But the left has long accused the right of inequality and social control. The left gives a good account of victim and offenders, while the right provides good stats on victim and crime. There are however same drawbacks, the right is focused to much on young males who commit crime rather than focusing on other offender in society. The left is not able to explain and evaluate street crime and has focused too much on victims therefore it is not taking a notice towards the trends inclusion late modern society.
Word count: 2468
References
-
‘crime as social control’ [Online]
Available at:
(Accessed at: November 23rd 2007)
-
‘ left and right realism’ [Online]
Available at:
(Accessed at: November 23rd 2007)
-
J.lea and J.Young, ‘What is to be done about law and order?’ crisis in the nineties
-
J.Q Wilson and George L. Kelling 1982 broken windows, the police and neighbourhood safety. Published by Offprint from the Atlantic Monthly
-
S. Investigating crime and deviance, Published by London: Collins Educational
-
P.Taylor,’Sociology in focus, Ormskirk: Causeway Press, 1995.
-
S.Walklate,’ understanding criminology,’2nd edition (2003)
-
M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner,’The Oxford handbook of criminology,’ imprint Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002
