Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Realist theories of crime - Coggle Diagram
Realist theories of crime
Right realism
Crime (especially street) real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion, threatens society's work ethic
Wilson - adviser on crime to President Reagan, provided justification of widely adopted policies - zero tolerance of street crime and disorder
Close view to neo-conservative gov during 70s and 80s - policy makers argued 'nothing works', criminologists produced many theories of crime but no workable solutions to curb rising rate
Shift official thinking towards practical crime control measures, control and punishment to reduce rates
Criticise other theories for failing to offer practical solutions to problem of rising crime.
Labelling and critical criminology = too sympathetic to criminal and too hostile to forces of law and order
Causes of crime
Biological differences:
Wilson and Hernstein (1985) - biosocial theory of criminal behaviour - crime combination of biological and social factors
Some more innately predisposed to commit crime
Personality traits like aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking, low impulse control put people are greater risk of offending
Hernstein and Murray (1994) - main cause of crime is low intelligence - biologically determines
Socialisation and the underclass:
Murray (1990) - crime rate increasing due to growing underclass who are defined by their deviant behaviour and fail to socialise children properly - underclass growing both USA and UK as a result of welfare dependency
Murray - welfare state's 'generous revolution' - since 60s allows increasing number people become dependent on state.
Led to decline marriage, growth lone parent families, men don't have to take responsibility to look after families
Lone mothers ineffective socialising agents, boys.
Absent fathers= lack parental discipline and male role model - young males turn to other, delinquent role models on the street and gain status through crime
Bennett et al (1996) - crime result of 'growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults in a practically perfect criminogenic environment'
Rational choice theory:
Free will and power of reason
Clarke (1980) - decision to commit crime is choice based on rational calculation of likely consequences
Perceived costs are low = crime rate increased. Often little risk of being caught and punishments are lenient
Wilson (1975) - 'if the supply and value of legitimate opportunities was declining at the very time that the cost of illegitimate opportunities was also declining, a rational teenager might well conclude that it made more sense to steal cars than wash them'
Felson (2000) - routine activity theory - for crime to occur must be motivated offender, suitable target, absence of capable guardian.
Criticism:
Ignores wider structural causes i.e. poverty
Overstates offenders' rationality and how far they make cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime. May explain some utilitarian crime but not violent or impulsive crime
Rational choice conflicts biological and socialisation explanations.
Over emphasises biological factors - Lilly et al (2002) - IQ differences account for less than 3% of differences in offending
Tackling crime:
Seek practical measures to make crime less attractive - Focus on control, containment and punishment of offenders
Crime prevention policies should reduce rewards and increase costs of crime to the offender - 'target hardening', greater use prison, ensuring punishments follow soon after offence to maximise deterrence
Zero tolerance
Wilson and Kelling (1982) - Broken windows - essential to maintain orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime - any sign of deterioration must be dealt with immediately
'Zero tolerance' policy towards undesirable behaviour. Police should focus on controlling the streets so law-abiding citizens feel safe
Supports claim achieved huge reductions in crime after intro in NY
Zero tolerance: urban myth?
First introduced NY 1994 and widely applauded for reducing crime
Young (2011) - its 'success' was a myth peddled by politicians and police keen to taken credit for falling crime
Crime rate already falling in NY since 1985, also falling in other US cities without zero tolerance policies
Young - police need arrests to justify existence and NY shortage of serious crime led police there to 'define deviance up' - took to arresting for minor deviant acts previously fallen outside their 'net', relabelling as punishment worthy
After intro in 1994, police and politicians wrongly claimed cracking down on these minor crimes had been cause of decline - 'success' of policies just product of police's ways of coping with decline already occurring
Preoccupied with petty street crime and ignores corporate crime, more costly and harmful
Gives police free reign to discriminate against minorities, youth, homeless etc
Over-emphasises control of disorder, rather tackling causes of neighbourhood decline
Zero tolerance and target hardening lead to displacement of crime to other areas
Left realism
Taking crime seriously:
Other sociologists haven't:
Marxists - concentrate on crimes of powerful, important but neglects WC crime and effects
Neo-marxist - romanticise WC criminals as Robin Hoods, steal from rich as act of political resistance to capitalism - WC mostly victimise other WC
Labelling - see WC criminals as victims of discriminatory labelling by social control agents - neglects real victims, WC who suffer at hands of criminals
Aetiological crisis - from 50s increase in crime, (crisis in explanation) - Young (2011)
Critical criminology + labelling - increase stats social construction not reality
Increase too great to be explained and was real - more crime as more falling victim to crime - victim surveys i.e. British Crime Survey
Taking crime seriously = who's most affected - local victim surveys show scale of problem greater than shown by official stats. Disadvantaged groups greater risk of being victim - greater fear of crime, less likely to report
Causes of crime: - Lea and Young
Relative deprivation:
Runciman (1966) concept of relative deprivation - how deprived someone feels in relation to others or compared to own expectations - crime when people resent others unfairly having more, crime to get what they feel entitled to
Lea and Young - paradox of today's society both prosperous and more crime-ridden - people are better off but are also more aware of relative deprivation due to media and advertising - raise expectations for material possessions
Young (1999) - 'the lethal combination is relative deprivation and individualism' - encourage pursuit of self-interest at expense of others
Increase individualism causes disintegration of families and communities by undermining values of mutual support and selflessness - weaken informal controls, spiral of increasing anti-social behaviour, aggression and crime
Subculture:
Groups collective solution to relative deprivation.
Different groups have different solutions to problem - turn to crime to close 'deprivation gap', others find religion comforting, Weber 'theodicy of disprivilege' (explanation for their disadvantage)
Religious subcultures encourage conformity - African Caribbean community Bristol, Pryce (1979) - variety of subcultures: hustlers, Rastafarians, saints, WC respectables
Criminal subcultures subscribe to values and goals of mainstream society - materialism and consumerism - Young (2002) - ghettos in USA where there is full immersion in American dream - resort to crime to achieve goals
Marginalisation:
Lack clear goals and organisations to represent interests
Unemployed youth marginalised - no organisation and no clear goals - just sense of resentment and frustration
Powerless to use political means to improve their position - express frustration through criminal means (violence, rioting)
Late modernity, exclusion and crime:
Young (2002):
Contrast 50s and 60s (Golden Age) with later modernity - golden age features stability, security, social inclusion, full employment, strong welfare and low crime
Since 70s, insecurity and exclusion increased. Deindustrialisation and job loss led to unemployment. Increased short-term and low-paid destabilised families and communities. Reduced welfare spending exacerbated exclusion
Greater inequality and free-market individualism increased feelings of relative dep. Cultural inclusion contrasts economic exclusion. Median promotes consumerism and 'good life' ideals, poor denied access - Merton Anomie theory
Relative dep widespread, resentment towards higher earners
Relative dep downward - MC resent perceived underclass
Crime occur throughout social structure. Hate crimes increase due to relative dep downwards
Reduced public consensus on right and wrong due to societal diversity, weakening informal controls, increased public intolerance and demands for harsher penalties
Late modern society characterised by high crime rates and low crime tolerance
Falling crime rate:
Young (2011) - 'second aetiological crisis' - crime fallen since mid 90s, crime mo longer major threat realists originally claimed
because crime is a social construction, it may continue to be seen as a problem
Crime Survey England and Wales (2014) - 61% thought crime had risen not fallen
Rising 'anti-social behaviour rate':
Crime surveys show high level public concern about anti social behaviour
Young - result of defining deviance up
Since 90s gov aimed to control widening range of behaviour, introducing ASBOs (anti social behaviour orders) in 1998 and IPNAs (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance) in 2015
Blur boundaries of crime - incivilities become crimes, manufacture more crime
Subjective definition
Flexibility - subjective definition = net constantly widened to generate endless number of infringements
Tackling crime:
must improve policing and control, and deal with deeper structural causes of crime
Policing and control:
Kinsey, Lea and Young (1986) - police clear up rates are too low to act as a deterrent to crime and police spend too little time actually investigating crime - public must become more involved in determining the police's priorities and style of policing
Military policing - police depend on the public to provide them with info about crimes (90% crimes known to police are reported by public)
Police losing public support, flow of info dries
Rely on military policing - 'swamping' an area, using random stop and search tac tics - alienates communities and result in vicious cycle - locals don't trust police, don't provide info, military policing
Policing must be made accountable to local communities and deal with local concerns - improve relationship with local communities by spending more time investigating crime, changing priorities, involving public in making policing policy
Crime control cannot be left to police alone - multi-agency approach needed
Tackling structural causes:
Causes lie in unequal structure of society and major structural changes are needed to reduce crime
Deal with inequality of opportunity and unfairness of rewards, tackle discrimination, provide decent jobs for everyone, improve housing and community facilities
Become more tolerant of diversity and cease stereotyping whole groups as criminal
Left realism and gov policy:
Strong similarities with 1997-2010 New Labour gov - 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'
New Labour - firmer approach to policing hate crimes, sexual assaults, DV as well as ASBOs - protect vulnerable groups from crime and lower level of disorder.
New Labour New Deal for unemployed youth and anti-truanting policies - reverse exclusion of young people at risk of offending
Young - policies doomed attempts to recreate Golden Age
New Deal didn't lead to secure, permanent jobs
ASBOs didn't recreate sense of community
Criticises record of govs - they have largely addresses the symptoms, they have been tougher on crime than on its underlying causees
Evaluation:
Henry and Milovanovic (1996) - it accepts authorities definition of crime as being street crime committed by the poor, instead of defining the problem as being one of how powerful groups do harm to the poor - marxists argue fails to explain corporate crime
Interactionists - left realists rely on quantitative data from victim surveys - cannot explain offender motives
Use of subcultural theory means they assume value consensus exists and crime only occurs when this breaks
Relative dep cannot fully explain crime as not all those who experience it commit crime - over-predicts amount of crime
Focus on high-crime inner-city areas gives unrepresentative view - crime appear greater problem
Both see crime as a real problem and fear of crime as rational
Come from different ends of political spectrum - right = neo-conservatives, left = reformist sociologists
Reflected on how they explain crime - right blame individual lack of self-control, left blame structural inequalities
Reflected in aims and solutions - right prioritise social order achieved through tough stance against offenders, left prioritise justice achieved through democratic policing and reforms to create greater inequality