Left Realism and Crime

What is their main idea? Soc? Causes? 

Young

They are a reaction to RR and believe like them that crime needs to be taken seriously and that practical solutions are needed also. However they agree with Marxists that society’s inequality leads to crime (have the same starting point). Despite being similar they are Reformist rather than revolutionary. They say that w/c crime victimises other w/c not the rich

• relative deprivation

• marginalisation

• subculture

Relative deprivation and how this leads to crime? 

Runciman = sense of lacking as people resent others for what they have so commit crime to obtain what they entitled to. 

Lea and Young say that society is both more prosperous and more crime ridden. This raises everyone’s expectations as there was poverty in the 1930s but crime rates were lower. It was the 1950s and higher standard of living and development that led to increase in crime rates.

This is even worse when combined with individualism (concern for the self and ones own rights that the group) => self-interest and a lack of community/collectiveness eg media, smaller families, conflict that gets ignored by the public, neighbours, education etc. This weakens informal control => spiral of increased anti-social behaviour, aggressiveness and crime

Marginalisation and how this leads to crime?

lack of both clear goals and organisations to represent these interests (unions etc). Young uses the unemployed youth to say that they have no goals or representation so just have resentment and frustration - being powerless to use political means so express anger through criminal means. => subculture is formed.

Subculture and how this leads to crime?

this is a collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation. Diff groups may produce diff subculture on the solution they want = close the gap. Religious subcultures encourage conformity - criminal sub still subscribe to mainstream goals but opportunities are blocked so resort to street crimes.

What does late modernity and exclusion do to crime for society?

Young = stage of late modern society where instability, insecurity and exclusion make the problem of crime worse.

1950s and 60s were the golden age of capitalist society: stable, consensus, lower crime

now greater class divide is even greater and deindustrialisation led to loss of manual unskilled jobs as now more are AI and abroad (better to go to global market as less tax on workers etc). Reduction on welfare spending and destabilised family = media saturation leading to growing contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion.  

What is cultural inclusion and economic exclusion? What is this similar to and how does this help the explanation? 

CI = everyone is subjected to the same norms and values within society 

EE = less income - pushed out of society

Similar to strain theory so makes it more reliable as it says similar.

Resentment placed in society and the key example you can use?

Rel Dep can be felt with any group. Resentment upwards to those who have undeserved high rewards. It can also be downwards where m/c annoyed at those who are idle underclass and get what they see as undeserved benefit handouts. 

=> fight amongst each other and takes away the power of the govt => behaviour/what is right and wrong blurs and more intolerance 

EG Sophie Lancaster’s case where witnesses didn’t want to get involved => case getting delayed. 

One way left realists say we should tackle crime? Policing? 

Overall they feel that society must improve policing and control and deal with the deeper structural causes of crime.

Policing and control: Kinsley, Lea and Young argue police clear up rates are too low to act as a deterrent and police spend little time actually investigating crime. They also argue public should be more involved (military policing referring to police dependency on the public (90% known to them are reported by the public)) but recognise that police are losing public support from youth and ethnic minorities. Lack of trust puts more people in danger and therefore police must be made accountable to local communities and deal with local concerns. Stop and search tactics cause conflict and are ineffective so they need to improve relations with local communities and involve public in making policing policy. They also believe that police should be supported by other agencies such as local councils, social services , schools, victim support and the public working together. 

One way left realists say we should tackle crime? Structurally? 

The cause of crime lies in the unequal structure of society and major structural changes are needed if we want to reduce crime. This includes:

• Tackling discrimination 

• Increasing employment opportunities

• Improved housing 

• Improved community facilities 

AO3?

• Remains quite idealistic rather than realistic. Yes, a fairer, more equal society might well have less crime than the one we currently live in, but is that any more realistic a proposal than more traditional Marxists who argue that we need a revolution?

• If social exclusion and marginalisation cause crime then it might be expected that women would commit more crimes than men in a patriarchal society, and yet this is not the case. Feminists, therefore, would criticise left (and right) realism as being "malestream" for ignoring gender as a factor.

• The reality is that the public have little or no interest in the police and crime commissioners and most could not name them or say what party, if any, they represented. In some towns nobody cast a vote for a commissioner at all. This reform has not changed the relationship between the public and the police in the way left realists hoped.