Realist Theories of Crime

What is the difference between Right and Left Realists?

• Right- New Right/neo-conservative

• Left- Socialists

How do Right Realists criticise other theories?

• Fail to offer practical solutions for problem of rising crime

• Labelling/critical criminology = too sympathetic to criminal + too hostile to forces of law/order

What are the causes of crime according to Right Realists?

• Biological differences

• Socialisation/underclass

• Rational choice theory

What did Wilson and Herrnstein (Right Realists) find about the causes of crime?

Biosocial theory- some people more innately disposed to commit crime (e.g. aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking, low impulse control, etc)

What do Right Realists Herrnstein and Murray say that the main cause of crime is?

low intelligence (biologically determined)

What does Murray say about socialisation and crime?

• Effective socialisation in nuclear family decreases risk as learn self-control + internalise moral values of right and wrong

• Crime rate increasing due to growing underclass/’new rabble’- fail to adequately socialise children, growing in UK/US due to welfare dependency

• Welfare state ‘generous revolution’ since 1960s = increasing numbers of people dependent on state = decline of marriage + growth of LPF- women + children live off benefits

How do Rational Choice Theorists, such as Clarke, explain crime?

Decision to commit crime based on choice of rational calculation of consequences, perceived costs of crime are low so crime rate has increased- little risk of being caught + punishments lenient

What is Felson’s routine activity theory?

For crime to occur there needs to be a motivated offender, suitable target + absence of ‘capable guardian’- presence of guardian likely to deter offender

How can Right Realist explanations of the causes of crime be criticised?

• Ignores wider structural causes- poverty

• Overstates offenders’ rationality- explains utilitarian but not impulsive/violent crime

• Rational Choice Theory conflicts with biosocial explanations

• Overemphasises biological factors, Lilly et al: IQ differences in offending = less than 3%

What do Right Realists Wilson and Kelling say about 0 tolerance policies?

Broken Windows- essential to maintain orderly character of neighbourhood to prevent crime, signs of deterioration (e.g. graffiti, vandalism), dealt with immediately, 0 tolerance towards undesirable behaviour (e.g prostitution, begging, drunkenness), police should control streets- huge reductions in crime after introduced in NY

How does Young criticise 0 tolerance policies?

Success in NY in 1994 = myth, crime rate already falling since 1985 + in other cities w/o 0 tolerance, police needs arrests to justify existence so ‘define deviance up’ + expand net of crime through re-labelling

How can 0 tolerance policies be criticised?

• Pre-occupied with petty street crime, ignores corporate crime (more costly + harmful)
  Gives police free rein to discriminate against minorities/youth/homeless

• Over-emphasises control of disorder rather than tackling causes of neighbourhood decline (e.g. lack of investment)

• Leads to displacement (so does ‘target hardening’)

What does Left Realist Young say about working class crime?

There is an aetiological crisis- a crisis in explanation- for theories of crime