This question raises the issues of how realists see crime. Realists depending on their left or right perspectives see different levels of crime as an increasing problem. Realists are more interested in resolving the problem of crime, other then different possible critical theories. For example, why crime is committed in the first place. This approach is more concerned in sourcing realistic solutions inside the criminal justice system.
Despite clear differences between them, they share a commitment to contributing, to changes in policy and practice, which will lower the raising rate of crime. ight realists reject the view that economic factors such as poverty and deprivation cause crime, and it is pointless to try and eliminate the reasons that crime is committed. Instead they look for more culture reasons such as declining morality and a negative attitude for authority. They believe, focus should be on searching for practical crime prevention. This is achieved through strong law and order and a tougher stance towards offenders, through control and punishment, rather than rehabilitating offenders. Right realists also perceive a level of crime caused by some biological and social factors.
This theory has been debated by Wilson and Hernstein (1985) which in their view, bio differences in individuals such as personality traits like aggression, extroversion and low impulse taking could predispose individuals to commit crime. Wilson and Hernstein (1985) also argued that becoming a criminal was a matter of choice for individuals whom have not be socially integrated and with the added complications of biological factors increases the probability of them becoming unlawful. Right realists also characteristic the problem of crime to changes in family structures in modern society.
They claim that “discordant families” for example single parent families with many children are responsible for poor quality socialisation, which could then be a possibility that these individuals are more prone to crime. Biological and socialisation problems, for example, fatherless families, can not be changed. So to tackle crime, we must make it far more arduous for the offence to take place, and reduce the opportunities of crime. Wilson and Kelling (1982) devised a theory called ‘broken windows’ if one window is broken, the probability is, all the windows will eventually be broken.
This may lead to urban disorder and vandalism breeds criminal culture. Wilson and Kelling then go on to suggest that strong communities and a strict, efficient police force are the most effective approach to discourage criminals. If vulgarities such as broken windows are not tolerated, crime will be kept down to a lower rate. So if cracking down on minor offences is effective, crime will not escalate. ‘disorder causes crime and crime causes further disorder and crime. ‘ Mckee, A (2002) Wilson also argues that changes to the way we police the streets could reduce crime levels.
He agrees with the policy of ‘zerotolerance’, whereby all crimes including minor ones are taken seriously and punished. Charles Murray has argued that over time there has been a significant rise in the ‘The underclass’ this is defined as a group of people that behave in such a way that they deviate from not only the working class but also the common poor person. They are considered a class of people that don’t only exist at the bottom of society, but are also socially excluded in relation to income, life goals and aspirations. This could be viewed as there own doing as they reject the values of the wider society.
They either choose to behave in this manner or are habituated in such a way of a possible over-substantial government welfare system such as the benefits system. “When I use the term ‘underclass’I am indeed focusing on a certain type of poor person defined not by his condition, for example, long-term unemployment, but by his deplorable behaviour in response to that condition, for example, unwilling to take jobs that are available to him. ” (Murray, C) Even though right realists have provided many solutions of their perspective crime it is also been heavily criticised.
Right realism ignores a much wider underlying issue such as poverty. It is far much more focused on petty crime and has ignored more serious corporate crime, which in the long run is far more costly and can cause additional damage to the public. It also advocates the zero tolerance policy. However, this gives police a free rein of discrimination against ethnic minority youth, homeless and so on. It has also argued that right realist polices have failed pacifically in the USA for crime to decrease. In contrast to right realism, left realism materialised because of the influence that right realism has on political conservatism.
It held a contrasting opinion to the theories behind right realists. Left realists such as Lea and Young (1984) argue that the reason individuals commit crime is through a combination of relative deprivation, marginalisation and subculture. These idealists such as Lea and Young (1984) argue that it is more logical that a well socialised individual is more likely to commit crime because, essentially economic deprivation drives people into crime. Economic deprivation is the emphasis on the inequality of the financially inadequate and financially stable who live in the same community. ndividuals who end up turning to crime, do so as an answer to their “absolutely deprived” position within capitalist society.
Lea and Young theories that crime originates from deprivation. It expresses individuals emotional state of resentment to others having unfairly more then them, and this can resort to individuals committing crime to gain what they believe they are entitled to anyway. Lea and Young identified a paradox that even though modern society is more prosperous. The need for having these material possessions is more crucial because of the media, helping to visualise materialistic possessions.
People who cannot afford these items may resort to crime. Marginalisation is a group of individuals whom have no goals of organisation that could represent them. So for example unemployed youths are considered marginalized. These individuals could feel a sense of of resentment and the sensation of feeling powerless, so they express their frustration through criminal means, possibly violence. For left realist, a subculture is a group of individuals collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation. However different groups will have different views and ideas, so produce different subcultures solutions.
Left realism has succeeded in portraying the reality of street crime and its effects on victims. However, is has been argued by Marxists that it fails to explain corporate crime, which they accuse capitalism of being criminogenic and disagree with the realist approach because, they believe that crime is a natural reaction to capitalism. Interactionalists argue that, because left realists rely on quantitative data from victim surveys, they cannot explain offenders’ motives. Instead, we need qualitative methods to reveal their meanings. Relative deprivation cannot fully explain crime because not all those who experience it commit crime.
The theory over-predicts the amount of crime. It focuses on high-crime inner-city areas gives an unrepresentative view and makes crime appear a greater problem than it is. In conclusion, it is quite clear that both left and right realist approaches have proven useful to several solutions to crime. Political differences are reflected in their aims and solutions to the problem of crime; the right prioritise social order, achieved through a tough stance against offenders whereas the left prioritises justice, achieved thorough democratic policing and reforms to create greater equality.