Right realists share the New Right or neo-conservative political outlook and support the policies described above.

Left realists are socialists and favour quite different policies for reducing crime.

Right realism sees crime, especially street crime, as a real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion and threatens society's work ethic. Right realist views on crime correspond closely with those of neo-conservative governments during the 1970s and 1980s.

Focus on thinking of a search for practical crime control measures. It also dovetailed with the US and UK governments' tough stance towards offenders and their view that the best way to reduce crime was through control and punishment, rather than rehabilitating offenders or tackling causes of crime such as poverty.

Right realism reflects this political climate. Right realists criticise other theories for failing to offer any practical solutions to the problem of rising crime. They also regard theories such as labelling and critical criminology as too sympathetic to the criminal and too hostile to the forces of law and order.

less concerned to understand the causes of crime and more concerned to provide what they see as realistic

Right realists reject the idea put forward by Marxists and others that structural or economic factors such as poverty and inequality are the cause of crime. Crime is the product of three factors: individual biological differences, inadequate socialisation and the individual's rational choice to offend.

Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) put forward a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour. In their view, crime is caused by a combination of biological and social factors.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argue that the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they also see as biologically determined.

Biological differences between individuals make some people innately more strongly predisposed to commit crime than others. Ex: personality traits such as aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low impulse control put some people at greater risk of offending.

Effective socialisation decreases the risk of people committing crime, since it involves learning self-control and internalising moral values of right and wrong. For realists, the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear family.

Charles Murray (1990) claims that the crime rate is increasing because of a growing underclass who fail to socialise their children properly. The underclass is growing as a result of welfare dependency.

Murray identifies 'generous revolution' since the 1960s allows increasing numbers of people to become dependent on the state. It has led to the decline of marriage and the growth of lone parent families, because women and children can live off benefits. This also means that men no longer have to take responsibility for supporting their families, so they no longer need to work.

Murray claims, lone mothers are ineffective socialisation agents, especially for boys. Absent fathers mean that boys lack paternal discipline and appropriate male role models.Resulting in young males turn to delinquent role models on the street and gain status through crime rather than supporting their families through a steady job.

However, critics point out that there is no evidence that young people raised in lone parent families are more likely to commit crime.

-Assumes that individuals have free will and the power of reason.

Rational choice theorists such as Ron Clarke (1980) argue that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of the likely consequences. If the perceived rewards of crime outweigh the perceived costs, or if the rewards of crime appear to be greater than those of non-criminal behaviour, then people will be likely to offend.
Right realists argue that the perceived costs of crime are low and this is why the crime rate has increased.

As Wilson (1975) puts it:
'If the supply and value of legitimate opportunities (i.e. jobs) was declining at the very time that the cost of illegitimate opportunities (i.e. fines and jail terms) was also declining, a rational teenager might well conclude that it made more sense to steal cars than to wash them.'

Felson's (2002) routine activity theory. He argues that for a crime to occur, there must be a motivated offender, a suitable target (a victim or property) and the absence of a 'capable guardian' (e.g. a police officer). Offenders are assumed to act rationally, so that the presence of a guardian is likely to deter them.

Right realists do not believe in trying to deal with the causes of crime (such as biological and socialisation differences) since these cannot easily be changed. Instead they seek practical measures to make crime less attractive.
Their main focus is on control, containment and punishment of offenders rather than eliminating the underlying causes of offending or rehabilitating them.
Crime prevention policies should therefore reduce the rewards and increase the costs of crime to the offender

Zero tolerance- Wilson and Kelling's (1982) article Broken Windows argues that it is essential to maintain the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking hold.
Any sign of deterioration, such as graffiti or vandalism, must be dealt with immediately.
They advocate a 'zero tolerance' policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution, begging and drunkenness.

It is preoccupied with petty street crime and ignores corporate crime, which is more costly and harmful
It gives the police free rein to discriminate against minorities, youth, the homeless and others.
It over-emphasises control of disorder, rather than tackling the causes of neighbourhood decline
Zero tolerance and target hardening just lead to displacement of crime to other areas.

Marxists have concentrated on crimes of the powerful, such as corporate crime. Left realists agree that this is important, but they argue that it neglects working-class crime and its effects.

Neo-Marxists romanticise working -class criminals Left realists point out that in fact working-class criminals mostly victimise other working-class people, not the rich.

Labelling theorists see working-class criminals as the victims of discriminatory labelling by social control agents. Left realists argue that this approach neglects the real victims- working-class people who suffer at the hands of criminals.

Young (2011) argues that the increase in crime in the 1950s led to an aetiological crisis (a crisis in explanation) for theories of crime.
Left realists argue that the increase was too great to be explained in this way and was real: more people were reporting crime because more people were actually falling victim to crime. As evidence, they cite victim surveys such as the British Crime Survey and many local surveys.
Local victim surveys show that the scale of the problem is even greater than that shown by official statistics. They also show that disadvantaged groups have a greater risk of becoming victims, especially of burglary, street crime and violence.
Therefore disadvantaged groups have a greater fear of crime and it has a greater effect on their lives. At the same time, these groups are less likely to report crimes against them and the police are often reluctant to deal with crimes such as domestic violence, rape or racist attacks.

Part of the left realist project to take crime seriously- explaining the rise in crime from the 1950s.
Lea and Young identify 3 related causes of crime; relative deprivation, subculture and marginalisation

For Lea and young, crime has its roots in deprivation. However deprivation in itself is not directly responsible for crime. Ex: poverty was rife in the 1930s, yet crime rates were low . by contrast since the 1950s living standards have risen but so too has the crime rate
Left realists draw on Runciman's (1966) concept of relative deprivation to explain crime. This refers to how deprived someone feels in relation to others, or compared with their own expectations. This can lead to crime when people resent others for unfairly having more than them and resort to crime to obtain what they feel they are entitled to.

Lea and Young explain the paradox that today's society is both more prosperous and more crime-ridden. Although people are better off, they are now more aware of relative deprivation due to the media and advertising, which raise everyone's expectations for material possessions. Those who cannot afford them may resort to crime instead.

However, relative deprivation alone does not necessarily lead to crime. For Young (1999), 'the lethal combination is relative deprivation and individualism'. Individualism is a concern with the self and one's own individual rights, rather than those of the group. It causes crime by encouraging the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others.

For left realists, increasing individualism is causing the disintegration of families and communities by undermining the values of mutual support and selflessness on which they are based. This weakens the informal controls that such groups exercise over individuals, creating a spiral of increasing anti-social behaviour, aggression and crime.

The left realist view of criminal subcultures owes much to Merton, A.K. Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin, especially their concepts of blocked opportunity and subcultures as a group's reaction to the failure to achieve mainstream goals. Thus for left realists, a subculture is a group's collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation.
However, different groups may produce different subcultural solutions to this problem. Some may turn to crime to close the 'deprivation gap', while others may find that religion offers them spiritual comfort and what Weber calls a 'theodicy of disprivilege - an explanation for their disadvantage.

Religious subcultures may encourage conformity. Ken Pryce (1979) identified several subcultures within Bristol's Black community. These included the 'saints' or Pentecostal churchgoers, a hard-working, law-abiding group whose collective self-help aided them in coping with life in a racist society.

For left realists, criminal subcultures still subscribe to the values and goals of mainstream society, such as materialism and consumerism.

Marginalised groups lack both clear goals and organisations to represent their interests. Groups such as workers have clear goals (such as better pay and conditions) and often have organisations (such as trade unions) to put pressure on employers and politicians. As such, they have no need to resort to violence to achieve their goals.
By contrast, Young argues, unemployed youth are marginalised. They have no organisation to represent them and no clear goals, just a sense of resentment and frustration. Being powerless to use political means to improve their position, they express their frustration through criminal means such as violence and rioting.

Crime is found increasingly throughout the social structure. It is also nastier, with an increase in 'hate crimes' - often the result of relative deprivation downwards.

Late modern society is more diverse and the divide of right and wrong is disappearing, so that the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour becomes blurred.

Since the mid 1990s the crime rate has fallen substantially. This a problem for realist explanations, because it suggests that crime is no longer a major threat. Young notes because crime is socially constructed it may continue to be seen as a problem.

Left realists' argue that we must both improve policing and control, and deal with the deeper structural causes of crime.

Left realists also argue that crime control cannot be left to the police alone, this would involve agencies such as local councils' social services, housing departments, schools and leisure services. As well as voluntary organisations and victim support and the public.