Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Right Realist View of Crime - Coggle Diagram
Right Realist View of Crime
Practical Solutions to Crime
Environmental improvement
:
Broken Windows Theory (Wilson and Kelling,1982):
it is essential to maintain the character of neighbourhoods so all signs of deterioration must be dealt with immediately- no graffiti, broken windows. These are physical symbols that suggest residents don't care about their environment and that low-level crime is tolerated.
Zero-tolerance policing
: The idea that low-level crime should not be tolerated and requires severe penalties to deter more serious crimes. Resulted in CJS taking low-level crime and anti-social behaviour much more seriously e.g. "Three Strikes and you're out" policies where people got serious custodial sentences for repeated minor offences.
Pro-active policing
: A stronger police presence on the ground, keeping streets clear of potential criminals such as drug abusers, beggars, prostitutes, thieves. Police working closely with local people and being involved in communities.
Community Bonds
: Strong social bonds and tight-knit communities help to prevent crime. Naming and shaming criminals results in less crime as they face disgrace and a loss of standing in the community, deterring them from crime. This clear boundary maintenance strengthens social solidarity and collective conscience.
Evaluation
Impact of Broken Windows Theory in New York
significantly reduced crime levels: 40% drop in overall crime, 50% drop in homicide
Correlation not causation:
Use of this policy coincided with period of economic growth and reduction in poverty- crime rates fell in NY because people social conditions improved, not due to implementations of Broken Windows Theory.
Achieved
control without justice
- crime rates fell but there were more people in prison serving very long sentences for minor crimes.
Policy impacted ethnic minorities (BA and HA) more than white people.
Police discretion
makes the implementation of broken windows unjust.
Right Realist Views
Traditional sociological theories of crime are too theoretical, too abstract and not useful in terms of developing social policy or actually curbing crime rates. In particular labelling theory and critical criminology are too sympathetic to criminals and too hostile to law enforcement.
Align with New Right views such as those of Murray and the underclass- the welfare state creating perverse incentives. Agree with Functionalists like Hirschi that firm social bonds and tight-knit communities help prevent crime.
Crime is a real problem which needs to be tackled through social policy- it is not just a social construct.
Right Realists favour a tough stance on tackling crime- through control and punishment rather than rehabilitation or tackling poverty. Favour increased use of police, zero tolerance policies, prisons, and the death penalty as well as "short, sharp, shock" approaches.
Biological Causes of Crime
Wilson and Herrnstein's Biosocial Theory (1985):
Some people are naturally more likely to commit crime due to their genetics. They suggest that criminals are risk takers, extroverts, have low impulse control, tend to be less intelligent and more aggressive than others. Links were made between low IQ and committing crime
Lily et al
: IQ accounts for less than 3% of differences in reoffending
Cultural Deprivation/ Lack of Socialisation
Murray (1990)
: The best agent of socialisation is the nuclear family. It is able to teach children self-control and internalise moral values. Decline of nuclear family= other family types are failing to socialise their children properly, resulting in an underclass - the "new rabble"- where there is higher welfare dependency and an inclination to crime.
The welfare state's revolution in the 1960s = more people relied on state benefits to survive = decline in marriage and increase in lone parent families as women were no longer financially dependent on a husband. Men do not need to take responsibility anymore = no longer work to earn money.
Children from lone-parent families are more likely to commit crimes than those from two-parent families by 10-15%
Lone mothers are ineffective agents of socialisation, especially for boys who need male role models. The absence of a father figure = they turn to alternative, delinquent role models to gain status through crime, such as older boys involved in gangs or drug dealing
Bennett, Dilulio and Walters (1996)
: Inadequate socialisation is what causes crime- growing up surrounded by deviant and criminal adults in a criminogenic environment results in crime.
Murray (1984) and Marsland (1989):
most crime is committed by a highly deviant, immoral, work-shy subculture called the underclass. It is made up of "problem families" living on welfare benefits, who socialise the next generation to turn to crime and also be dependent on the state.
Moynihan
: the main cause of ethnic minority crime is poor socialisation caused by ineffective family structures (40% of Afro-Caribbean families are lone parent). Absence of father= boys lack an adequate role model of male achievement= go on to fail at school and become inadequate parents themselves (cycle of cultural deprivation)
The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (1991)
looked at 411 w/c males born in 1953 who were studied until their late 30s. Found that offenders were more likely to come from poorer, single parent families with poor parenting and parents who were offenders themselves- suggests that good primary socialisation is essential in preventing crime.
Rational Choice Theory:
Effective punishment must be prompt, probable and deterring
Despite claims from gov that prisons work, they do not reduce offending: In 2018, 38.4% of young offenders reoffended, and 28.5% of adults.
Suggests that cost/risk of going to prison is not high enough to outweigh the rewards of committing crime
Cornish and Clarke:
Criminals have free will and they make a conscious choice to commit crime. The crime is committed based on a rational weighing up of the costs and benefits of crime- a cost/benefit analysis. When the chances of getting the maximum reward are high, with minimum risk involved, crime will increase.
Evaluation
Contradicts the socialisation and biological theory
- how can an offender have rational choice when their behaviour is determined by their genetics ?
Assumes that offender is a rational agent that makes a calculated decision to commit crime by weighing up costs vs benefits, but not always the case- what about
crimes of passion
?
Postmodernists
suggest that the
thrill of taking risks
is what is alluring about criminal activity. It is
not a cost/ benefit analysis
the bigger the danger, the more appealing the crime appears.
Felson, Routine Activity Theory
: suggests that criminals ‘size up’ their targets when going about their day to day business, so they know the areas which are the least effectively protected and the least risky
Felson
: Crime has increased because:
Quality of policing has deteriorated
(criminals know there is little chance of getting caught)
Community controls are weak
(ordinary people in high crime areas are too afraid to speak out against criminals)
Punishments have become too lenient
(prison itself is no longer a deterrent because conditions are allegedly too comfortable)