Realist approaches are unlike any other approach. They don't concentrate on the causes or crime and why people commit crime, instead they emphasise solving crime, which requires practical solutions

Outline and Assess the contribution of realist theories to the study of crime

Realist approaches are unlike any other approach. They don’t concentrate on the causes or crime and why people commit crime, instead they emphasise solving crime, which requires practical solutions. They argue that other theories have made no contributions in trying to solve crime. They criticize other approaches for, sympathising and romanticising with the criminal, ignoring the victims of crime and the damage they suffer and failing to produce practical solutions to crime.

However, there are two approaches to realism. New right realism and new left realism. These two approaches are from very different roots.

Right realists believe that people make rational choices to commit crime. They suggest that people will choose to commit crime when the opportunity or situation is there and the benefits of the crime outweigh the costs. In support of these views is James Q Wilson, ‘In thinking about crime’ (1975). Wilson provides the practical solutions to these concerns by suggesting that harsher sentences and more police are the answer to crime. Therefore if punishments were greater and there was a greater chance of getting caught then less people would commit crime.

However, controversially Wilson believes that such an approach can have only a limited impact. In reality, the chances of getting caught for a particular crime are small. If offenders believe that they are not going to get caught, or if punishments only take place long after offences then even serve penalties will not discourage people.

Another contribution that the right realists make to the study of crime is the argument to prevent the disintegration of communities. Where strong communities exist, they can deter crime, because people who are disgraced by being involved in crime will loose their standing in the community. Where a community is strong this loss will be important to people and they will try and avoid it. The problem is that in the absence of a community, people no longer gain by conforming to the community’s values. These areas are characterised by anomie

Evidence to support this is provided by Wilson’s ‘broken window’ thesis. Here, Wilson argues that if a single window broken by vandals goes unmended and if incivilities on the streets go unchallenged, then problems will quickly grow. More windows will be vandalized, unruly youths will start hanging around on the streets and law-abiding citizens will be afraid to go out. On the other hand, if residents believe that attempts are being made to maintain law and order, then they will be more likely to report crime and discourage incivilities in public places. This in turn, encourages the police to clamp down on the first sign of undesirable behaviour and maintain public law and order in areas where it has yet to break down. Wilson believes that once law and order have broken down then the police are unlikely to restore it by arresting people. Therefore their time is better spent on concentrating in areas where there is still hope.

In support of this theory is Etzoni’s communitarianism, where the community sticks together. This involves practical solutions such as neighbourhood watch, curfew schemes and CCTV cameras.

However, criticising Wilson’s ‘broken window’ thesis is Matthews (1992). He found little evidence that tolerating the broken windows and public incivilities led to an increase in crime. In fact he found that the level of incivility was determined by the level of crime, and not the other way round.

Similarly, Stephen Jones (1998) also criticised Wilson’s theory. He argues that the broken window thesis would lead to an unfair justice system. The police would concentrate their attention on minor offences, and sometimes on people who have not broken the law but merely rude or unruly. Therefore more serious offenders would be given less police attention and would be more likely to get away with their offences. Furthermore if particular communities could be made more orderly, there is a danger that uncivil, disorderly and criminal members would simply move their activities to another area with a less strong sense of community.

Another contribution right realism makes to the study of crime is the role of the family. In support of this is Wilson and Hernstein (1985) argue that some people are born with a tendency towards crime and their potential for criminality is more likely to be realized if they are not properly socialized. If parents fail to teach their children from right or wrong, and particularly if they fail to punish the immediately for misbehaving, those who ate prone to crime become much more likely to commit criminal acts later in life. While, in close-knit nuclear families, children can be conditioned to have a conscience, which will keep them out of trouble with the law. Where such families are absent e.g. single-parent families, effective socialization is unlikely.

This view is also supported by functionalist Charles Murray, who found that rates of crime were high among boys who grew up in fatherless families. He argues that no discipline or a male role model is provided for the boys, which is likely to lead them to crime.

To try and solve these problems, right realists offered the practical solution of trying to encourage the formation of the ‘traditional family’ and promote family values.

Nevertheless, criticisms of this theory were that it focused too much on the blame of inadequate socialisation. The approach exempts the government and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

To try and solve these problems, right realists offered the practical solution of trying to encourage the formation of the ‘traditional family’ and promote family values.

Nevertheless, criticisms of this theory were that it focused too much on the blame of inadequate socialisation. The approach exempts the government and economic system of any blame.

Also contributing to right realism in the role of crime is Hirschi, who emphasises the importance of social control. However, instead of asking why people commit crime, he asks the question why people do not commit crime. He suggests the people do not commit crime when they have strong bonds to society. The bonds are known as attachment, which is to what extent we care about other people’s opinions and wishes. Commitment, which is what we have got to loose if we commit crime. Involvement, which is how busy we are and if we have enough time to commit crime. Belief, which is how strong a person’s sense, is that we should obey the rules of society.

Therefore Hirschi stresses the importance of drawing people into society to strengthen bonds and thus prevent crime, which reinforces Wilson’s ideas.

However criticising the right realists contributions to crime is the left realists. They argue that crime is due to poverty and not the lack of social control. In particular evidence of the left realism view on crime has been provided by Jock Young (1993).

A contribution Young makes is that there has been a real and significant increase in street crime. However, Young believes that the rises have been so great that changes in reporting and recording cannot account for all of the increase. He points to evidence from the British Crime Survey, which provides evidence that crime is real and there is more reporting of crimes and also more victims.

From the results of the victim surveys Lea and Young (1984) point out that while the average chances of being a victim are small, particular groups face high risks. For example, unskilled workers are twice as likely to be burgled as other workers. While in some of the poorer areas of London, the chances of being mugged might be four times the average for the city as a whole.

Other results the victimisation studies showed were that the fear of crime was widespread. In the Islington Crime survey, no less than 80.5% of those surveyed saw crime as a problem affecting their lives. While 35% felt unsafe in their own homes.

They also found that many people altered their behaviour to avoid becoming victims of crime. This was particularly true for certain groups such as women. Young concluded that ‘women are not only less likely to go out after dark, but also stay in more than men because of fear of crime.’

However, criticising these victimisation surveys is Stephen Jones (1998). Jones believes that the emphasis on street crime means that left realists are neglecting corporate crime. Therefore they are in fact helping to continue the capitalist system by ignoring the crimes of the rich and powerful and co-operating with the government.

Similarly feminists criticise left realists for ignoring particular problems of crime for women.

Nevertheless left realists do not deny the importance of white-collar crime and corporate crime and accept that they are commonplace and serious. Therefore Lea and Young answered their criticisms in recent victimization studies by including questions on such crimes. However, in return they attack back at Marxist views by suggesting they concentrate too much on these types of crimes and exclude others.

Left realists have also answered feminist criticisms by including questions in victim studies on crimes such as sexual assaults, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

Another contribution that left realists make to the role of crime is their explanation for ethnic crime. Just as they believe that the official statistics on the rise in crime reflect a real change, they also believe that statistics on ethnic offenders are not entirely untrue. Evidence of this is supported by Lea and Young, who attack Gilroy’s statement that the disproportionate number of black males convicted of crimes in Britain was caused by police racism. Lea and Young argue that it is difficult to believe that the predominance of blacks in the official figures is entirely a consequence of discrimination by the police.

To provide evidence of this Lea and Young make use of the work of the home office researchers, Stevens and Willis. They calculate that to explain the differences between whites and blacks convicted of offences in 1975, it would have bee necessary for the police to have arrested 66% of all black offenders, but only 21% of all white offenders. They argue that it is more likely that blacks do commit some crimes more often than whites.

Another contribution left realism has made, is providing an explanation of crime. This has been based around three key concepts: relative deprivation, subculture and marginalization.

Firstly, left realists explain relative deprivation, as when a group/ individual feels deprived in comparison to other similar groups, or when their expectations are not met. In modern societies, the media stress the importance of economic success and the consumption of consumer goods. All individuals are exposed to the values that suggest that people should aspire to middles class lifestyles and patterns of consumption. Young also stresses that relative deprivation is experienced in all social strata. Anybody can feel deprived and crime can therefore occur anywhere in the social structure and a t any period – affluent or not. Therefore it can explain the theft of luxuries as well as necessities, while also explains the reasons of white- collar crimes. To Young, relative deprivation can also help explain violent crime, as relative deprivation can cause frustration, which in turn can cause violence.

However, criticising relative deprivation is Stephen Jones. He argues that left realism fails to explain why some people who experience relative deprivation turn to crime, while others do not. Furthermore, Jones believes that the theory serves better as a theory for property crime than of violent crime. It is easy to understand why the sufferers from relative deprivation might turn to theft of burglary to solve their material problems, it is less easy to see what they might gain from violence. Also Jones does not believe that the left realist solution to reducing inequality would get rid of relative deprivation. Many people might still feel deprived even if the gap between them and the better off had narrowed.

The second concept left realists make to the explanation of crime is the formation of subcultures. Evidence of this is again provided by Lea and Young, who see subcultures as the collective solution to a group’s problems. Thus, if a group of individuals share a sense of relative deprivation they will develop lifestyles, which allow them to cope with this problem. For example, 2nd generation West Indian immigrant’s sub-cultural solutions to their problems include the Rastafarian and Pentecostalist religions as well as hustling for money and street crime. Lea and Young see West Indian crime as a response to conditions in Britain rather than a continuation of traditions from the West Indies.

However, Hughes has provided criticisms of the left realists sub-cultural theory. He argues that it assumes that there are shared values throughout society and that it is only when these break down that crime becomes likely. Hughes believes that it is equally possible to argue that crime stems from the existence of many different sets of values, some of which tolerate different types of crimes. Furthermore Hughes suggests left realism tends to concentrate on the criminal subculture in terms of Merton’s approach. However, in doing so it neglects other responses to relative deprivation such as retreatism or ritualism. Hughes also claims that Lea and Young concentrate upon the criminal subculture n relation to ethnic minorities leads to a further emphasis of the stereotype. That is black equals criminal.

Finally the last concept that the left realists make to the explanation of crime is that of marginalization. Lea and Young provided evidence that marginal groups are those which lack organisations to represent their interests in political life, and which also lack clearly defined goals. In addition, Lea and Young argue that marginal groups in society are particularly prone to the use of violence and riots as forms of political action.

To try and solve these problems of crime, left realists offer practical solutions. One of the main solutions is to improve policing. This is supported by Kinsey, Lea and Young, who argue that the key to police success lies in improving their relationships with the community.

Kinsley, Lea and Young see little role for stopping and searching suspects and little point in having police on the beat. Such police practices either antagonize the public on whom the police rely, or are ineffective. It is only very rarely that police on the beat actually discover crimes. Instead, the police should spend as much as their time possible actually investigating crime. Kinsley, Lea and Young believe that if police act in these ways they can regain the trust of the public and become more efficient in clearing up the crimes that are of most public concern.

Other practical solutions suggested by Young to reduce crime are improving leisure facilities for the young, reducing income inequalities, raising the living standards of poorer families, reducing unemployment and recreating jobs with prospects, improving housing estates and providing community facilities which enhance a sense of cohesion and belonging.

On the whole, since left realism is highly critical of many existing theories to the study of crime it is not surprising that it has its own criticisms. It is attacked again by Hughes, who argues that its major failing is in its attempts to explain the causes of street crime. Hughes suggest that the concentration on victimization studies has prevented left realists from gathering their own data on the motives of offenders. The data they have collected is largely quantitative and statistical and cannot reveal the subjective reasons why the offenders commit crime.

Likewise, Stephen Jones argues that left realists only listen to victims on certain issues. He suggest that there is an element of interview bias as Lea and Young only ask the questions on what they want to hear. While also, they take the victim’s accounts of their fear of crime and do not ask the victims of the causes of crime, where instead they impose their own explanations. Furthermore, left realists only really take account of the views of certain types of victims. Their studies have been concentrated on urban areas where crime rates are high. This might give a misleading impression of how harmful crime is, since it neglects suburban and rural areas where crime has much less of an impact on people’s lives.

Also criticising left realists are right realists. In particular Wilson, attacks of what he took to be a conventional view about crime amongst social scientists and denies that trying to get rid of poverty will lead to major reductions in crime. He points out the many poor people, e.g. those who are sick or elderly do not commit crimes, and so poverty itself cannot be considered a cause of crime.

In conclusion, the contribution realist theories make to crime is a very complex one. Left and Right realism both emphasise that it is why people commit crime and the practical solutions to crime that is important, but they both stem very different ideas. Right realism focuses on the emphasis of social control, the legal system being too weak and the victims not protecting themselves enough. While left realism stresses the importance of finding the real reasons why people commit crime and the role of poverty and crime. Therefore even though left and right realists both concentrate on the victims of crime and how to solve crime there solutions couldn’t be more different.