Right Realism

On Crime and Deviance

Right Realism sees crime as (especially

street crime) as a real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion and threatens society’s work ethic.

Right Realists have been very influential in the UK and USA etc. James Q. Wilson (the main theorist) was a special advisor on crime to President Reagan, and they have provided the justification for widely adopted policies (e.g. ‘zero tolerance’ of street crime and disorder).

Right Realism

Right Realist views on crime correspond closely with

those of neo-conservative governments during the 1970/80s. Policy makers argued ‘nothing works’ because criminologists hadn’t produced a workable solution to curb the rising rate of crime. This led to a shift in official thinking; a search for practical crime control measures, not the causes of crime. It dovetailed with the UK and USA’s view that the best way to reduce crime was through control and punishment, not rehabilitating criminals or tackling poverty for example.

Right Realism reflects this political climate. They

criticise other theorists for failing to provide practical solutions to crime. They believe labelling theorists are too sympathetic to the criminal and too hostile to the forces of law and order. Right Realists are more concerned to provide what they see as realistic solutions to the problem of rising crime rates. Nevertheless, they do offer an explanation of the causes of crime.

Right Realists reject the explanation put forward by Marxists and others that poverty and inequality are the cause of crime (the old are poor but have a low crime rate).For Right Realists, crime is the product of three factors… Biological Differences Inadequate Socialisation and the Underclass Rational Choice to Offend

The Causes of Crime…

Wilson and Herrnstein believe crime is

caused by a combination of biological and social factors. Biological differences between individuals make some people innately more strongly predisposed to commit crime than others. For example, personality traits such as aggressiveness and risk taking put some people at greater risk of offending. Herrnstein and Murray argue the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they see as being biologically determined.

Biological Differences

Effective socialisation decreases the risk of an

individual offending because it involves self control and internalising moral values of right and wrong. The best agency for this is the nuclear family.

Murray says crime rate is increasing because of a growing under class (‘new rabble’) who are defined by their deviant behaviour and who fail to socialise their children properly. The underclass is growing due to welfare dependency.

Socialisation and the Underclass

What Murray calls the welfares states

‘generous revolution’ since the 1960s allows an increasing number of people to become dependent on the state. It had led to the decline in marriage and the rise of lone parent families, because benefits are available to single mothers. Men no longer have to take responsibility for supporting their family, and so don’t have to work.

(Is this all flooding back from Unit 1??)

Socialisation and the Underclass

(If so, you may be able to guess where this is going…) Lone mothers are not deemed as a suitable

socialisation agent, especially for boys. Absent fathers mean boys lack discipline and a male role model, so they turn to other delinquent role models and gain status through crime rather than supporting their families through steady job.

For Murray, the underclass is not only a source of crime. Its very existence threatens society’s cohesion by undermining the values of hard work and personal responsibility.

Socialisation and the Underclass

This theory assumes that individuals have

free will and the power of reason. Clarke argues that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on rational calculation of the likely consequences. If the perceived rewards of crime outweigh the perceived costs of crime, or if the rewards appear greater than than those of non-criminal behaviour, people will be more likely to offend.

Rational Choice

Felson’s routine activity theory Felson argues that for crime to occur, there must be a

motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capital ‘guardian’ (e.g. police). Offenders are assumed to act rationally, so the presence of a guardian is likely to deter them from offending. Felson argues informal guardians (provided by community) are more effective than formal ones (e.g. police).

An example of this is that when local citizens patrolled Florida after Hurricane Andrew, looting was prevented and the crime rates were lower than when the police were on patrol. (Cromwell et al)

Rational Choice

Right Realists don’t believe in tacking the

causes of crime, as they are not easily changed. Instead, they seek to devise practical measures to make crime less attractive.

Their main focus is on control, containment and punishment of the offender.

Tackling Crime

Wilson and Kelling’s argue it is essential to maintain

the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking off (deterioration such as graffiti and vandalism should be dealt with immediately)

They advocate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution and drunkenness. The police should focus on patrolling the streets so law-abiding citizens feel safe.

Crime prevention policies should reduce the rewards and increase the cost of crime to the offender. (For example, greater use of prison and ensuring the punishment follows soon after the offence)

Tackling Crime

Ignores wider structural causes (e.g. poverty) Overstates offenders rationality and how far they make

cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime It doesn’t really explain violent crime Its view that criminals have free will to choose to

commit a crime conflicts with the biological determination theory.

Biological differences are also over emphasised. Lilly et al found IQ differences account for less than 3% of differences in offending.

It ignores corporate crime, which can be costly and harmful to the public.

Criticisms

Advocating a ‘zero tolerance’ policy give the

police free reign to discriminate against ethnic minority youth etc. It also results in the displacement of crime to other areas. Jones notes that Right Realist policies in the USA failed to prevent the crime rate rising.

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

Criticisms