CD6 - Realist Theory of Crime

In sociology, realist theories of crime and deviance examine the causes of criminal behaviour while proposing solutions to address it. Both left and right realism see crime as a pressing issue in society, but they approach it from opposing ends of the political spectrum. This section explores their perspectives on the causes of crime, highlighting key theories, real-world examples, and criticisms.

Right Realism

Right realism originates from the New Right conservative perspective and gained prominence during the conservative governments of the 1970s and 1980s. This perspective emphasizes individual responsibility and focuses on crime as a voluntary behavior. Right realists argue that crime needs to be deterred through strict policies like zero-tolerance approaches to maintain social order.

Causes of Crime According to Right Realism

Biosocial Theory:
- Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) propose that crime arises from a combination of biological and social factors. Individuals with traits such as aggressiveness, extraversion, risk-taking, and low impulse control are predisposed to criminal behavior. However, these traits alone do not lead to crime; poor socialization and lack of appropriate role models amplify the risk.
- Example: Studies of offenders often show patterns of impulsivity and aggression, traits linked to both biological predispositions and poor childhood environments.
The Underclass Theory:
- Charles Murray attributes rising crime rates to the growth of an underclass reliant on welfare. He suggests this underclass fails to socialize children into societal norms, perpetuating cycles of welfare dependency and criminality. Supporting this view, Bennett, Dilulio, and Walters (1996) argue that deviant environments foster predatory street criminals.
- Example: In areas with concentrated poverty, such as inner-city neighborhoods, higher crime rates are often linked to intergenerational unemployment and fragmented families.
Rational Choice Theory:
- Clarke and Cornish argue that crime is a result of rational decision-making. People commit crimes when the perceived benefits outweigh the risks of being caught. Right realists believe the current "costs" of crime are too low, encouraging criminal behavior.
- Example: A shoplifter might steal goods if they perceive that store security is weak and the likelihood of being caught is minimal.

Criticisms of Right Realism

Neglect of Structural Causes: Left realists argue that right realism overlooks the impact of poverty and marginalization on criminal behavior.
Overemphasis on Rationality: Critics highlight that not all crimes, such as crimes of passion or spontaneous acts, involve rational calculation.
- Example: Domestic violence often occurs without premeditation, challenging the rational choice model.
Contradictory Theories: The coexistence of biosocial theory and rational choice theory suggests conflicting views on whether crime is biologically determined or a conscious choice.
Focus on Street Crime: Right realism ignores white-collar and corporate crimes, limiting its applicability.
- Example: Financial fraud by executives, like the Enron scandal, cannot be explained by theories emphasizing street-level deviance.

Left Realism

Left realism emerged in response to the limitations of both traditional Marxism and right realism. While agreeing with Marxists that structural inequalities contribute to crime, left realists advocate for practical solutions within existing societal structures rather than revolution.

Causes of Crime According to Left Realism

Relative Deprivation:
- Lea and Young build on Runciman’s concept of relative deprivation, which refers to individuals feeling deprived compared to others or their expectations. They argue that this sense of deprivation drives criminal behavior, as seen in rising crime rates despite improving living standards.
- Example: Increased consumerism in modern society heightens feelings of deprivation among those unable to afford similar goods, leading to theft or fraud.
- Case Study: In the UK, the 2011 riots were partly fueled by frustration over economic inequality and a lack of opportunities among young people in deprived areas.
Marginalization:
- Marginalized groups lack societal representation and opportunities, leading to frustration and resentment. This can drive individuals to crime as a way to express or resolve their grievances.
- Example: Ethnic minorities in some Western countries report feeling excluded from mainstream society, with some turning to gang activity as a way to gain status and control.
Subcultures:
- Drawing on Merton’s strain theory, left realists suggest that subcultures form as collective responses to blocked opportunities. These groups may turn to criminal methods to achieve societal goals like material wealth.
- Example: Youth gangs in deprived areas often engage in drug trafficking and robbery as alternative means of achieving financial success.

Solutions Proposed by Left Realism

Left realists advocate for tackling social problems to reduce crime, focusing on improving police-community relations and adopting a multi-agency approach involving social services, education, and law enforcement. They emphasize addressing inequality and deprivation to prevent crime at its root.

Example: Community policing programs, such as those implemented in New York City’s "neighborhood policing" initiative, aim to build trust and cooperation between residents and law enforcement.

Criticisms of Left Realism

Overemphasis on Structural Causes: Critics argue that left realism shifts responsibility away from individuals, attributing crime solely to societal inequalities.
Value Consensus Assumption: Left realism’s reliance on a shared societal value system overlooks diverse motivations for crime.
- Example: Not all individuals experiencing relative deprivation resort to criminal behavior.
Limited Scope: The theory struggles to explain white-collar and corporate crimes, which are less tied to deprivation or marginalization.
- Example: Tax evasion by wealthy individuals cannot be explained through relative deprivation.
Focus on Inner-City Crime: Concentration on urban areas skews perceptions of crime rates and ignores rural or non-street crimes.

Comparative Evaluation

Both right and left realism offer valuable insights into understanding crime. Right realism’s emphasis on deterrence highlights the importance of swift and certain punishment, while left realism’s focus on structural causes underscores the need for societal reform. However, their contrasting approaches illuminate different facets of criminal behaviour and its prevention.

Right realism’s strengths lie in addressing immediate and visible forms of crime, particularly street crime, and providing actionable policy measures like zero-tolerance policing. This approach is particularly effective in areas where crime is high and rapid intervention is needed to restore social order. However, its focus on punitive measures can lead to over-policing and alienation of marginalized communities, potentially exacerbating the very issues it seeks to resolve.

Left realism, on the other hand, excels in providing a nuanced understanding of how social inequality and deprivation contribute to crime. By focusing on structural factors, left realists highlight the importance of long-term strategies such as investment in education, housing, and community development. This approach is crucial for addressing the root causes of crime but may be criticized for being overly optimistic about the pace and extent of societal change.

The two perspectives are complementary in some respects. For instance, integrating right realism’s focus on deterrence with left realism’s emphasis on structural reform could provide a balanced framework for crime prevention. Policymakers might combine strict enforcement of laws with initiatives to reduce social inequality, such as job creation programs or improved access to mental health services.