LEFT AND Right Realism ON Crime PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes on left and right realism on crime...

Description

LEFT AND RIGHT REALISM Similarities between Left and Right Realism: Arose as a reaction to idealist conceptions of crime such as labelling theory and critical criminology See these perspectives as lacking concern for victims of crime. See fear of crime as rational. See crime as a major problem in society, especially for its victims. Both put forward practical proposals to combat it. Accept that biology has some role to play in explanations of criminal behaviour. Both accept that the rise in crime reflected in OCS since the 1950s is real and accurate. Differences between Left and Right Realism: Different ends of political spectrum: left realists = reformist socialists; right realists = neoconservatives. Right realists blame individual lack of self-control; left realists blame structural inequalities and relative deprivation. Right realists propose tough law-and-order solutions to crime, prioritising social order; left realists propose more democratic policing and reducing inequality, prioritising social justice.

LEFT REALISM The basis of society Derives from Marxism and shares many of its assumptions. STRUCTURAL APPROACH: believe that individual behaviour is determined by social structures such as the family and social position such as class. CONFLICT APPROACH: believe that society is held together by oppression, but within oppression there are shared values and a sense of shared interests among large sections of society.

Left realism differs from Marxism in that it claims to be concerned with the practical problems of people living in capitalist society. As such, it accepts the status quo and concentrates on practical solutions to crime within capitalism. What is deviance? Left realists are more concerned with actions that are threatening or hurtful to people, whether they are illegal or not. E.g. ‘minor street crimes’ are not particularly serious in the eyes of the law, but have a significant effect on people’s lives in the inner cities. DEVIANTS and criminals are most likely the excluded and the marginalised, who band together in subcultures that develop deviant norms and values. Left realists emphasise that other factors besides social class are important, including ethnicity and gender. Social fact v social construct SOCIAL FACT: crime and deviance are real problems with real effects on victims. Accept or reject OCS LARGELY ACCEPT OCS, but believe they overlook important local variations. Therefore supplement them with victim surveys (especially local victim surveys). Causal v non-causal CAUSAL APPROACH: crime is caused by capitalism and the bourgeoisie. A deindustrialised, capitalist society tends to marginalise young, working-class males, and this is an important factor in explaining crime.

Methods Left realists have undertaken a number of small-scale but very detailed surveys of inner-city areas. These have largely been both victim and attitude surveys: they have asked local people what crimes have been committed against them and what behaviour particularly concerns them. The results are then handed over to local authorities and police committees so that local policy can be adjusted to take into account the people’s concerns.

Led by British criminologists Lea &Young. Reaction to both ‘left idealism’ and law-and-order approach of Conservative government of the 1980s. Left Realist similarities to Marxism: See society as conflicted with social inequalities as a result of capitalism. Left Realist differences from Marxism:  Prefer gradual social change to violent revolution.  Emphasise pragmatic solutions to crime that can be achieved now, rather than focusing energies on overthrowing capitalism. Left Realist criticisms of other, competing, theories: Right-wing analyses of crime: Reject right realism’s view of moral decay and sick societies, and their attempt to minimise crime through tough law-and-order measures without addressing the real causes of crime. Left-wing analyses of crime: Traditional Marxists focus on white-collar and corporate crime; although LRs see this as important, they believe street crime is ‘the most transparent of all injustices’ ‘Left idealist’ (critical criminology) see crime cannot be seen as a heroic working-class response to the injustices of capitalism; LRs argue that crime often perpetuates justice Labelling theorists see offenders as victims of agents of social control, which ignores the real victims. All of these approaches focus almost exclusively on criminal justice system or agencies of social control, and fail to recognise that it is the w/c who are most often victims of w/c crime. THE SQUARE OF CRIME Left realists argue that understanding the reality of crime requires an examination of 4 basic elements and how they interact: The victims The public’s fear of crime is largely rational and justified. While national survey estimates (e.g. British Crime Survey) suggest that average chance of being a victim of crime is small, local surveys (e.g. Islington Crime Survey) show that lowincome groups in inner-city areas (i.e. the w/c) face high risks of crime. o E.G 46% had been a victim of street robbery o 1/3rd of women avoided going out after dark for fear of sexual harassment Social changes, driven by capitalism, have increased chances of victimisation e.g. long working hours leave homes unguarded. The offenders Official statistics are largely correct in their representation of crime - i.e. there has been a significant growth in crime, especially w/c crime. Most offenders come from the same social groups as their victims.

Key concepts in explaining why people commit crime are: Relative deprivation o It is not absolute poverty that causes crime, according to Left Realists. After all, crime rates were low in the 1930s when poverty was endemic, but crime rates increased rapidly during the 1980s at a time when living standards were rising. o What matters instead is how deprived people feel in relation to other people and/or their own expectations. o Young argues that the lower w/c live in a bulimic society, socialised to “worship money, wealth and status” and yet most are “systematically excluded from its realisation”: cultural inclusion: constantly exposed to material goods taken for granted by most of the population but systematic structural exclusion, so unable to consume them. The w/c therefore feel frustrated and aggrieved, emotions that can be expressed through crime. Furthermore, the w/c are no longer insulated or supported as their communities and jobs have declined. Combined with the rise in individualism, where the w/c have lost their sense of collectivism and instead only look out for their own interests. This is a lethal combination which leads to crime. NB note similarities with Merton’s strain theory. Marginalisation: Those at the bottom of the class structure are increasingly excluded from mainstream society. Economically - from the labour market. Socially - increasing numbers are sent to prison. Geographically - as middle classes flee deprived areas and live in gated communities. Politically - they have no way of influencing policy makers. Subcultures: Members are blocked off by marginalisation through achieving the goals of success; relative deprivation makes them realise how far they are from achieving that goal. W/c draw together in subcultures for support and, in some areas, these provide illegitimate opportunities. Compare to Marxist subcultural approaches, and functionalist, esp Merton. Subcultural responses to deprivation are not so much a resistance to capitalism (Marxist) but located in the dominant values of mainstream societies. BACKGROUND Grew out of conservative politics – the New Right – of Reagan’s America and Thatcher’s Britain in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A reaction to liberal and left analyses of law and order that were dominant at the time. Right realism is heavily influenced by control theories, situational theories and rational choice theories of crime. Grounded in positivist methodological principles. A consensus-based perspective that does not question the nature of law creation James Q. Wilson (1975) was one of the earliest Reaganites to adopt a right realist approach. He questioned the prevailing liberal and left views of law and order, and argued that getting rid of poverty will not reduce crime: in the 1960s in the USA there was general belief that best way to get rid of crime was to reduce poverty huge sums of money poured into programmes aimed at the young, the poor and the deprived crime soared – rose at a faster rate and to higher levels than at any time since the 1930s Many right realists argue that individuals are more likely to commit crime when the social constraints on their behaviour are weakened. While Right Realists did not believe that tackling the causes of crime would alleviate the problem, they did speculate on what they were:

CAUSES OF CRIME Biological differences: Wilson & Herrnstein (1985) Some people have a natural predisposition towards crime. This is because of a combination of: aggressive or risk-taking personalities low intelligence These two factors, while biological, do not inevitably lead to crime. The real problem is a combination with: Socialisation: Murray (1990) People are naturally selfish, and so need to be subject to social controls and socialised into appropriate behaviour. Crime is disproportionately committed by young men living in large cities: young men are temperamentally aggressive and so prone to commit crime If young men with a predisposition towards crime are not socialised properly, they are more likely to commit crime. The welfare state has led to the emergence of an underclass and ineffective socialisation. Rising crime rate is a result of permissive attitudes since the 1960s liberal policies of the state – especially Welfare State – which leads to a dependency culture

and relieves men of their responsibilities to their families; this leads to: single mothers/absent fathers, who cannot provide adequate role models for children (particularly males); combined, all of these lead to: feckless parenting. Further problems:

o lack of discipline in schools o glamorising of crime in the mass media o secularisation This has led to an underclass with norms and values that encourage crime. Rational choice theory: Clarke (1980) Crime is the result of rational calculation Criminals will engage in crime if the benefits outweigh the costs.

However, in contemporary society the costs are low. This is because there is little chance of being caught, and liberal punishments are not seen as a deterrent. Felson argued for something similar in his routine activities theory, which suggested that crime was the result of a combination of a motivated offender, a suitable target and a ‘suitable guardian’ (someone who might put the offender off: informal guardians such as other citizens, or formal guardians such as the police). REAL RIGHT SOLUTIONS Reduce the opportunities for offending. e.g. tougher coin boxes in phone kiosks, gated communities with security guards Make it more likely to get caught through surveillance (CCTV) Support informal social controls – more powerful than formal in dealing with crime. Encourage strong communities, so that people who are involved in crime will lose their standing in the community Prevent neighbourhoods from deteriorating (and informal social controls from breaking down) – police clamp down on the first signs of undesirable behaviour. police should keep drunks, prostitutes, drug addicts and vandals off the street this keeps law-abiding citizens feeling safe and keeps communities strong Reduce/withdraw welfare benefits to force people to take responsibility for their own lives. Reaffirm strong moral values. - Penalise births outside marriage and reaffirm ‘the value of marriage and the nuclear family’. - Stress the idea that criminal activity is socially unacceptable. Keep wicked people in prison. -Some people are naturally criminal and the only solution is more imprisonment and longer sentences. -This removes their negative influence from the rest of society, and prevents them from committing crime.

EVALUATION OF RIGHT REALISM Not all crime is the result of rational choice. For instance, while that may partly explain utilitarian crimes such as theft, it does not explain non-utilitarian crimes such as violence or vandalism. Postmodernists in particular point towards crime as an emotional response, rather than rational.

Even if crime is a rational choice, the choices made by the w/c may be constrained by their structural position in society. Right realists reject the view that economic factors can cause crime, but do not take account of factors of social inequality and a rising gap between top and bottom in society (relative deprivation). Accepts the picture of crime presented by official statistics – interactionists and Marxists argue that they are a social construct. Focuses on young males and street crime (the powerless), ignoring other types of crime (the powerful: e.g. corporate, domestic). Prison is expensive and there is no evidence that it works. Situational crime prevention and target hardening tend to displace crime

The state and formal control Confidence in police is low, because of publicity given to police bias, and because of low clearup rates. So communities reluctant to help police, and a crucial flow of information is lost. Police respond by a drift towards ‘military policing’, e.g. surveillance, stop and search of large numbers of people. Increases alienation of public from police. Informal controls Formal control agencies can play only limited role in preventing crime. Forces of informal control far more important. LEFT REALIST SOLUTIONS Create a society that is more cohesive and less criminogenic: provide good jobs, decent housing estates, community facilities Multi-agency intervention is needed in which various authorities rebuild disintegrating communities. The state must reduce economic inequalities and create a more just society. Policing needs to become accountable and democratic – restoring public confidence and reflecting concerns and priorities of community. Decriminalise minor offences. Find more alternatives to imprisonment.

EVALUATION Strengths A real attempt to take crime seriously. A comprehensive approach (victims and offenders, formal and informal controls). Weaknesses Overconcentration on street crime – ignoring white-collar and corporate crime. Overpredicts crime – if relative deprivation and economic inequality generate crime, why isn’t there more of it? Exaggerates rise in crime – in fact, BCS shows that crime rates have been falling since mid1990s. Overemphasis on marginalisation – unemployment rates falling, minimum wage, New Deal, Social Exclusion Unit. Ignores limitations of victim surveys, especially underreporting of domestic abuse.

RIGHT REALISM The basis of society Influenced by functionalist approaches. STRUCTURAL APPROACH: believe that individual behaviour is determined by social structures such as the family and social position such as class. CONSENSUS APPROACH: believe that societies exist because they are based on fundamental agreement about basic values. We all share beliefs about what constitutes good and bad behaviour, and what the goals of society should be. This keeps society stable and benefits all members of society. What is deviance? DEVIANCE is ‘abnormal’ – actions that are beyond the boundary of these shared values. DEVIANTS are different from ‘normal’, rule-following people – the majority of people do not commit crimes against others. Social fact v social construct SOCIAL FACT: Crime is a social fact, something real, existing outside individual members of society, that can be objectively described and measured. Accept or reject OCS ACCEPT OCS as an objective, scientific and reliable measure of crime. Therefore the principal focus of those wishing to understand crime and deviance is and should be on young, w/c men. Causal v non-causal CAUSAL APPROACH: similarly to Functionalists, believe crime to result from a failure of socialisation – generally the poor upbringing of individuals. Some New Right theorists also believe that crime is the result of biological or genetic defects. Methods POSITIVIST: Like functionalists, New Right sociologists rarely engage in research, but tend to theorise. However, they do use statistics and research evidence gathered by others to support their views....