Right realism

Right realism 

Right realism see crime as 

• A real & growing problem 

• Destroys communities, undermine social cohesion & threatens society’s work ethic 

Very influential in the UK, the USA etc 

• James Q. Wilson = provide the justification for widely adopted policies such as ‘zero tolerance’ of street crime & disorder 

RR views correspond closely w/ those of neo-conservative gov 

• E.g policy-makers argued that ‘nothing works’ - criminologists had produced many theories of crime, but no workable solutions to curb the rising crime rate 

• Led to a shift in official thinking, away from the search for the causes of crime & towards a search for practical crime control measures 

• Also joined w/ the UK’s & USA government’s tough stance towards offenders & their view that the best way to reduce crime was through control & punishment 

RR - criticise other theories for failing to offer any practical solutions to the problem of rising crime 

• Regard theories (e.g labelling/critical criminology) as too sympathetic to the criminal & too hostile to the forces of law & order 

• RR → less concerned to understand the causes of crime & more concerned to provide what they see as realistic solutions 

HOWEVER - although their main emphasis is on crime reduction strategies, they do offer an explanation of the causes of crime 

The causes of crime 

• NOT structural or economic factors - poverty, inequality 

INSTEAD, 3 causes of crime =

• Biological differences

• inadequate socialisation

• rational choice  

Biological differences 

Wilson & Herrnstein = promotes biosocial theory of criminal behaviour: crime is caused by combination of biological & social factors 

• Biological differences between people = some more biologically predisposed to commit crime 

• Personality traits = aggression, extroversion, risk taking, low impulse control

• MAIN CAUSE = low intelligence 

Socialisation and the underclass

Effective socialisation = more self-control & internalising values of right and wrong = less risk of offended 

• Nuclear family is the best at providing this 

Murray =

• increase welfare dependency = growing underclass who don’t socialise their children properly = increasing crime 

• Welfare state encourages dependency - so less marriages, more lone-parent families, less need to work 

• Single mothers can’t socialise their children properly (especially boys) 

• Absent fathers also means that young males turn to other (delinquent) role models 

Bennett et al = 

• Argue crime is the result of “growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent  & criminal adults in a practically criminogenic environment - one seems almost consciously designed to produce vicious, predatory unrepentant street criminals”

Rational choice theory 

We have free will to choose whether we offend or not 

Clarke = decision to offend is based on rational calculation of likely consequences = 

• Rewards outweigh costs = criminal behaviour 

• Rewards of crime outweigh rewards of non-criminal behaviour = criminal behaviour 

Perceived costs of crime are low (low risk of being caught, lenient punishments) = an increase in crime 

Wilson = argues “if the supply & value of legitimate opportunities was declining at the very time that the cost of illegitimate opportunities was also declining, a rational teenager might well conclude that it made more sense to steal cars than to wash them” 

Felson = routine activity theory 

• Argues that for a crime to occur, there must be a motivated offender, a suitable target (a victim or property) & the absence of a ‘capable guardian’ 

• Offenders are assumed to act rationally 

Criticisms of the right realist explanation of the causes of crime include the following = 

• Ignores wider structural causes such as poverty 

• Overstates offenders rationality & how far they make cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime - may not explain impulsive/violent crime 

• Contradictory = free will that is determined by their biology & socialisation???

Tackling crime 

RR don’t believe it is fruitful to try to deal w/  the causes of crime since these cannot easily be changed 

• INSTEAD they seek practical measures to make crime less attractive 

• Their main focus is on control, containment & punishment of offenders rather than eliminating the underlying causes of offending/ rehabilitating them 

Crime prevention policies should reduce the rewards & increase the cost of crime to the offender - e.g ‘target hardening’ 

• Greater use of prison & ensuring punishments follow soon after the offence to maximise their deterrent effect 

Zero tolerance

Wilson & Kelling = argues that it essential to maintain the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking hold 

• Sign of deterioration (e.g as graffiti or vandalism) must be dealt w/ immediately 

• Advocate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution, begging & drunkenness 

• Police should focus on controlling the streets so that law-abiding citizens feel citizens 

Zero tolerance: an urban myth 

Zero tolerance policy, 1st introduced in NY in 1994 & was widely applauded for reducing crime 

HOWEVER, Jock Young →argues that its ‘success’ was a myth peddled by politicians & police keen to take credit for falling crime 

• Crime rate in NY had been falling 9 years before zero tolerance 

• Argues the police needs arrests to justify their existence - led to police there to ‘define deviance up’ = they took to arresting people for minor deviant acts that had previously fallen outside their ‘net’ 

Other criticisms of zero tolerance include that = 

• It is preoccupied w/ petty street crime & ignores corporate crime, which is more costly & harmful 

• Gives the police free rein to discriminate against minorities 

• Over-emphasises control of disorder, rather than tackling the causes of neighbourhood decline →lack of investment 

• Zero tolerance & target hardening just lead to displacement of crime to other areas