Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Left Realism - Coggle Diagram
Left Realism
The explanation of crime
RELATIVE DEPRIVATION: Lea and Young (1984) believe that deprivation will only lead to crime where it is experienced as relative deprivation (feels so in comparison to others). It is not the state of being deprived, but the feeling of deprivation that is important.
The media in modern societies stress the importance of economic success and the consumption of consumer goods. All individuals are exposed to values that suggest that people should aspire to middle-class lifestyles and patterns of consumption.
Young (1992) stresses that relative deprivation is experienced in all social strata and that anybody can feel deprived. This can explain the theft of luxuries as well as necessities, and white-collar criminals who crave the lifestyle of those better off than themselves, and frustration associated with violent crime.
SUBCULTURE: Lea and Young see subculture as the collective solution to a group's problems. But they argue that a particular subculture is not an automatic inevitable response to a situation. Human creativity will allow a variety of solutions to be produced.
Pryce (1979) showed the example of the formation of Rastafarian religions from second-gen immigrants from the Caribbean as well as 'hustling' for money and street crime.
MARGINALISATION: Marginal groups are those that lack organisations to represent their interests in political life, and that also lack clearly defined goals. Lea and Young argue that these groups are particularly prone to use of violence and riots as a form of political action.
Lea and Young argue that ;participation in the process of production' is key to avoiding marginality. Workers have clearly defined objectives like higher wages and improved working conditions, and are a part of workers unions and so have no need to resort to violence.
Young and unemployed members of minority ethnic groups do not have clearly defined aims or groups to represent them. They feel a general sense of resentment that the future lacks an interesting, rewarding and worthwhile life.
Dealing with crime
Kinsey et al argue that the key to police success lies in improving relationships with the community so that the flow of information on which the police rely increases, given that over 90% of crimes known to the police are notified to them by the public.
Research suggests that the public's confidence in the police has declined, causing the flow of information to dry up. Lacking information necessary to solve crimes, they drift towards military policing, resorting to tactics like stop and search.
Kinsey et al see little need for stop and search because it antagonises the public, because they very rarely discover crime. They should instead spend as much time as possible investigating crime. They can regain the trust of the public and become more effective in clearing up crimes that are of most public concern.
Young (1992) identifies areas in which he sees are over-policed and under-policed (police and state devote too much time to certain types of crime (drug offences, juvenile status crimes) and not enough to others (racially motivated, corporate, domestic, sexual/ physical abuse)).
Young (1992, 1997) does not believe that crime can be dealt with simply by improving the efficiency of the police. He and other left realists see the problem of crime as rooted in social inequalities. He suggests improving leisure facilities for the young, reducing income inequalities and unemployment, raising living standards for poorer families, improving housing estates and community cohesion.
Young (1992) advocates a 'multi-agency' approach. E.g. While councils improve leisure facilities and housing estates, the family, mass media and religion have a role in improving the 'moral context' which permits so much crime. Social services, victim support schemes and improved security can help alleviate problems for victims.
The problem of crime
Jock Young (1993) argues there has been a real and significant increase in street crime since WW2, resulting in alarming rises in police-recorded crime. This has led to a crisis of explanation (aetiological crisis) and Young argues that the increase in crime is not just a reflection of the changes in police recording of crime, but a reflection of an increase in victims.
Lea and Young (1984) point out that while the chances of being a victim are low, particular groups face high risk. They calculate that unskilled workers are twice as likely to be burgled as other workers (victimisation studies).
Young (1997) has calculated that in the mid-1990s black Americans were 8.6 times as likely to be murdered as white Americans.
Lea and Young (1984) attack the idea that offenders can sometimes be seen as promoting justice. They deny that muggers can be seen as stealing from the rich and redistributing income to the poor. Most victims of crimes such as burglary and robbery are themselves poor.
Left realists take white-collar and corporate crimes seriously but think some criminology takes the focus away from street crimes by doing this. They claim to have re-addressed the balance by taking all types of crime equally seriously (domestic abuse, racially motivated etc).
The Square of Crime
There are four elements to this: the state and its agencies, the offender and their actions, informal methods of social control (society/ the public), and the victim.
Left realists like Matthews (1993) argue crime can only be understood in terms of the interrelationships between these four elements.
Left Realism claims to go beyond labelling theory and The New Criminology in that it pays more attention to victims and public opinion. Matthew and Young (1992) claim many other theories concentrate on just one part of the square of crime: labelling theory on the state, control theory on the public, positivism on the offender, and victimology on the victim.
Young calls this principle the MULTIPLE AETIOLOGY as each of these four elements are crucial and together will determine crime, what causes it and how it might be dealt with. It is important to try and understand why people offend, what makes the victims vulnerable, the factors that affect public attitudes and responses to crime, and the social forces that influence the police, and they should not be studies independently of each other.
For example, for crime to exist, laws must exist to prohibit behaviour. The existence of these laws is influenced by the public. For this interaction to take place, there must be an offender and usually a victim. Victims will be influenced by prevailing social values in deciding whether they think the offence is moral, illegal and worth reporting, and even their relationship with the offender affects their willingness to report the crime (e.g. a wife reporting a partner). The response of the police determines whether the offender is defined as criminal or not. Decisions made by the CJS influence future behaviour of those convicted of crime (labelling theory).
Evaluation
Hughes (1991) argues that left realism's major failing is in its attempts to explain the causes of street crime. The concentration on victimisation studies has prevented them from gathering their own data on motives of offenders.
Stephen Jones (1998) argues left realism fails to explain why some people who experience relative deprivation turn to crime, while others do not. He also believes this is explanation is more relevant to property crime than violent crime. He does not believe that reducing inequality would get rid of relative deprivation, as many people may still feel deprived even if the gap is narrowed.
Jones (1998) sees flaws in their over-emphasis on victims. While they take victims' accounts of their fear of crime, they do not ask victims about the causes of crime, they instead impose their own explanations.
Ruggiero (1992) argues left realists have neglected the investigation of corporate and organised crime, and that this type of crime cannot be readily understood within the framework of their theory. He says they do not consider how crime can be integrated into work carried out for corporations. Victims tend to be seen as the victims of aberrant individuals within the square of crime, not as the victims of corporations or authorities.
Influential policies: neighbourhood policing (dedicated groups of police officers who are directly responsible for local communities) and police community support officers (work in collaboration with police officers to provide low-level community policing- eyes and ears rather than enforcers).