Right realists reject the idea put forward by Marxists and others that structural or economic factors are the causes of crime. Instead they argue crime is the product of three causes: individual biological differences, inadequate socialisation and the underclass, and rational choice to offend.
As it says in Item A, right realists like James Wilson believe some individuals are biologically predisposed to commit crimes. Wilson and Hernstein (1985) put forward a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour. An example of this theory is the idea that some people possess innate personality traits such as aggressiveness, low intelligence, and low impulse control that could put them at greater risk of offending. Inadequate socialisation may also contribute to the risk of an individual offending, since it is supposed to teach self-control and internalise values of right and wrong. For right realists, the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear family.
The right realist Charles Murray (1990) argues that the crime rate is increasing because of a growing underclass who fail to socialise their children properly. According to Murray this underclass is growing in both the US and UK as a result of welfare dependency. This has led to a decline of marriage and increase in lone parent families, as women can survive off benefits. However, Murray says lone mothers are inadequate socialisation agents, especially for boys (who hold biggest proportion of crime). Boys lack paternal discipline and appropriate male role models. As a result, young males turn to others in the same position for help and gain status through crime. However, this is rejected by Jane Mooney (1998) who claims ‘there is not a single substantial scrap of evidence’ that there is a link between single parenthood and crime.
As the Item says, right realists advocate increasing the costs of crime and reducing the benefits. In other words they aim to make crime seem less attractive and their main focus is on control, containment and punishment for offenders. Crime prevention policies should reduce the rewards and increase the costs of crime to the offender, for example tougher prison sentences and ensuring punishments follow soon after the offence to maximise the deterrent effect.
This links in with the right realist theory of rational choice, which assumes that everyone has free will and the power of reason. Rational choice theorists such as Ron Clarke argue that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of the likely consequences. However this view has been criticised as it overstates offenders’ rationality and how far they make cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime. While it may explain some utilitarian crime, it may not explain much violent or non-utilitarian crime. Furthermore this narrow-minded theory ignores wider structural causes such as poverty and assumes everyone is equal.
In addition, its view that criminals are rational actors freely choosing crime conflicts with its view that their behaviour is determined by biology and socialisation. It also over-emphasises biological factors. For example, according to Lily et al. (2002), IQ differences account for less that 3% of differences in offending.
A further critique of the right realist approach of crime and deviance is that it is preoccupied with petty street crime and ignores corporate crime, which may be more costly and harmful to the public. This is the Marxist thinking on crime, which sees powerless groups such as the working class and ethnic minorities as criminalised, while society tends to ignore the crimes of the powerful.
In conclusion, right realism is a valuable theory of crime and deviance. It offers a more practical approach to tackling crime than its mainly theoretical predecessors such as Marxism or labelling theory. It has shown that taking crime seriously is an important issue in reducing and preventing it, rather than just attempting to identify the underlying causes or wider structural explanations. However, as with many Neo-conservative approaches, too much focus is placed on ‘controlling’ the working class rather than trying to help them. While at the same time, doing little to target white collar crimes of the middle class. The ultimate test of a theory is its success in real life application. This has been the case for right realist theories since the 1980s and there is still much debate surrounding crime rates that have arguably been made worse, so it remains undecided whether right realism is the best way to approach crime and deviance in society.