Download
1 / 27
280 likes | 343 Vues
Realist Criminology. Objectives. That the Right Realism developed out of a failure of sociology to explain and solve the problem of crime. That Right Realism sees crime as stemming from the greedy nature of people, poor socialisation and too easy opportunities.
E N D
Objectives • That the Right Realism developed out of a failure of sociology to explain and solve the problem of crime. • That Right Realism sees crime as stemming from the greedy nature of people, poor socialisation and too easy opportunities. • That Wilson 's 'broken window thesis' argues that minor incivilities, if unchecked, quickly lead to more serious crime. • That Lea and Young developed Left Realism as a response to Right Realism and the neo-Marxist ideas of Radical Criminology. • That Left Realism takes the view that crime is a real problem, especially to the poor and derived, minority ethnic groups and inner-city residents. • That Left Realism explains crime in terms of subculture, relative deprivation and marginalisation. Crime and Deviance Chapter 7: Realist Criminology
Right Realism Right Realism originated in the 1970s particularly by James Q. Wilson (1975, pictured left) and Ernst van den Haag (1975). It developed as a critique of sociological theory which had failed to solve the problem of crime. The basis of Right Realism is a negative view of human nature (that people are naturally selfish and greedy). This aspect of human nature therefore needs to be subject to social controls and socialised into appropriate behaviour. Crime and Deviance Chapter 7: Realist Criminology
Rational Choice Theory For Right Realists the solution to crime lies with Rational Choice Theory which has a lot in common withthe 18thC philosophy concept of utilitarianism associated withJeremy Bentham(left). Rational Choice Theory was developed by Clarke and Coleman (1980) and argues criminals will engage in crime if the benefits outweigh the costs. The solution is simple: increase the costs of crime (likelihood of being caught and tougher punishments).
Anti-Sociological Criminology Right Realists particularly oppose any connection Sociologists have made between crime and poverty. They point out that with increased affluence, crime rates have soared. Extending the Welfare State, lack of discipline in education and decline of the traditional family are seen as key factors behind crime increase.
Selfish Human Nature Rising crime levels reflects ineffective and inadequate social control. Permissive attitudes allow self-indulgent and anti-social behaviour. Feckless parenting, absent fathers, lack of discipline in schools, liberal policies of the state have all served to foment crime. The result has been spiralling volumes of incivilities: muggings, graffiti, vandalism, car break-ins and theft, assaults, etc. as well as burglaries and robberies.
Right Realist Solutions to Crime Reduce opportunities for offending. Increasing the costs to exceed the benefits. Crime control should also fall upon members of the community. Responsible parenting and'active citizens' who challenge anti-social behaviour. Tough punishment: heavy fines, sentences and advocation of corporal (physical) and capital (death sentence) punishment.
James Q. Wilson and ‘Broken Window Thesis James Q Wilson argues that unless ‘incivilities’ (litter, graffiti, noise levels, vandalism, etc.) are kept minimal, then wider anti-social behaviour and more serious crimes will follow. He advocates that the police adopt a policy of ‘zero-tolerance’ for even minor crimes (as tried by the Mayor of New York). This reflects Emile Durkheim’s idea that local informal controls are crucial for law and order and A.H. Bottoms’ concept of the ‘tipping’ of problem housing estates.
James Q. Wilson (continued) Wilson argues there are three key factors affecting long-term crime: Number of Young males (typical deviants) Costs/benefits of crime: Rational Choice Theory Inadequate socialisation into norms/values To deal with this he advocates target hardening of deviant groups and areas through pro-active policing.
Inadequate and Inappropriate Socialisation Right Realists blame crime on inadequate or inappropriate socialisation by key socialisation agencies in society. The non-traditional family, especially single mothers, is viewed as a major factor. Lack of discipline in schools, a mass media that glamorises deviance and crime and the decline in the influence of religious values are other important contributory factors. Crime and Deviance Chapter 7: Realist Criminology
Charles Murray New Right theorist Charles Murray (1990, pictured left) argues the underclass are particularly insufficiently integrated into society’s norms and values. He views the underclass as prone to: criminal tendencies, violence, illegitimacy and promiscuity, educational failureand welfare dependency.
Ernst van den Haag (1975) Van den Haag(1975, pictured left)adopts a very poor view of humanity as willing to cheat to ‘get on’ and therefore some groups need to be controlled for their own good and that of society. Therefore, he argues, it is reasonable for law and order agencies to target the poor! Like Durkheim, he sees punishment as functional, acting as a deterrent. He advocates a tough penal system of punishment: corporal and capital.
Critique of Right Realism It is influential on Government policy in both the USA and UK. For example 'zero tolerance' has been successfully adopted as a policy in New York. Some argue it is a lack of investment in deprived areas rather than incivilities that cause crime to rise. It is easy to pick on scapegoats like single parent families. Marxists argue that concentration on minor offences means that more serious crime gets ignored by the authorities. Another argument is that where zero tolerance is introduced, this simply shifts crime to other areas.
Introduction to Left Realism Lea and Young (1984, pictured left)developed Left Realism (with Matthews and Kinsey) partly as a response to Right Realism. And partly in response to neo-Marxist Radical Criminologywhich Young himself was part of and wanted to distance himself from: subsequently calling it “Left Idealism”. Left Realism sees crime as a real problem for ordinary people and explains it through analysis socialandeconomicrelationships, and how some groups become marginalised.
Crime is a Real Phenomenon Left Realism argues the rising crime rate cannot solely be explained by the 'unreliability of official crime statistics’. So, unusually for Sociologists, they are less critical of crime statistics than most, and argue they do reflect typical criminals: young, male, working-class and disproportionately black. They focus on victims as well as offenders, recognising crime is concentrated in the inner-city and sink housing estates.
Ethnicity and Crime Lea and Young tackle Black criminality head on: accepting there has been a real increase in crimes committed by young Blacks. They accept there exists institutional racism, and a racist 'canteen culture‘ amongst the police. But black criminality also stems from racial discrimination, material deprivation, low wages and unemployment. They see Black youth having particularly high aspirations, but often not able to legitimately achieve these aspirations.
Exam Evaluation Point Compare this aspiration to material goods and styles of life with the ‘Strain theory' (anomic paradigm) of Robert Merton, or the response of the illegitimate career structure to ‘blocked opportunities‘ of Cloward and Ohlin.
Left Realist Origins of Crime Left Realismsees the origins of crime as three fold: Subculture Relative deprivation Marginalisation This explains why young Black working-class males are particularly associated with criminal activity: see next 3 slides.
1. Subcultures Lea and Young argue the subculture of young Blacks is distinctly different from their parents who largely accepted their marginalised position in society. Black youth subculture has high material expectations and aspirations: money and status symbols like flash cars, etc. So because Black youth is so closely enmeshed in values of consumption, style and wealth, this is precisely why they engage in crime – because of blocked opportunities.
Exam Evaluation Point Note the overlap here with the work about young black males by Ralf Nightingale (Philadelphia) and Philip Bourgois (New York). All their work links back to the ideas of Robert Merton and his ‘strain theory‘ (sharing society’s goals but not having means to achieve them). At the same time there may be an element of a marginalised group socialised into its own distinct subcultural set of values: compare to Walter B. Miller's'focal concerns'.
2. Relative Deprivation Lea and Young argue that frustration from this disparity between expectations and the reality of lifestyle leads to feelings of relative deprivation. They argue the reality for many young Black males is a choice of unemployment, training schemes or ‘white man’s shit work’ (Stuart Hall). They feel unfairly denied the ‘glittering prizes’ offered to others. This can develop into strategies which can involve deviant and criminal behaviour.
3. Marginalisation Lea and Youngargue that marginalisation means the process by which certain groups find themselves on the edge of society. White and Black working-class youth often feel alienated by schools, unemployment, low-wages, the police, etc. Young Black males face marginalisation through prejudice and harassment e.g., 'military policing‘ (stop and search). They argue this may be the ‘straw that breaks the camel's back’: economic marginalisation is transferred into crime.
Left Realism: The Policing Problem Kinsey, Lea and Young (1984) identify a number of problems with contemporary policing. The police too often resort to 'military policing' as a method of solving crime through 'stop and search' policies. This alienates the community from them, recently the Muslim community. They argue that to improve this relationship the public should have more say in shaping police policy.
Left Realist’s Square of Crime Left Realism takes us beyond the offender and shows concern for victim patterns and formal and informal factors. They argue that crime can only be understood in terms of the interrelationships between these four elements.
Jock Young, Social Change and Crime Jock Young (1997) also has a generic theory to explain the recent growth in crime. He argues that late modernity is making crime worse in a number of ways: Greater uncertainty and instability in most aspects of life. Less consensus about moral values People’s desire for immediate and personal pleasure. A breakdown of informal social controls
Critique of Left Realism Its key strength is a recognition of multiple causes of crime. Its focus on victims as well as offenders is good, adding another dimension to our understanding of crime. However, Relative deprivation or marginalisation cannot explain the motive behind offender’s actions (e.g. white-collar or corporate crime) Equally not all people in relative deprivation turn to crime. It assumes that when society’s values break down crime become more likely – a return to anomie theory and a view not too distant from Right Realism?
