|
Answer
|
Hint
|
|
Wilson & Herrnstein (1985)
|
These Right Realist sociologists put forward a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour. In their view, 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, extroversion, risk-taking and low impulse control put some people at greater risk of offending. -Similarly, Herrnstein & Murray (1994) argue that the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they also see as biologically determined. |
|
Cornish & Clarke (1986, 2003)
|
These Right Realist sociologists are associated with rational choice and opportunity theories, focusing on the decision-making process of the potential offender: -They argue that offenders, when they see an opportunity for crime, act rationally, and weigh up the benefits and costs/risks before choosing whether or not to commit an offence. -To deter potential offenders, it is necessary to reduce the opportunities for crime and increase the costs/risks of offending, so conformity offers greater benefits.
In 2003, they suggested, in reference to situational crime prevention, that reducing opportunities for crime and disorder in particular locations could be further reinforced by putting up notices warning people of surveillance and of the rules operating in the area, which would remove excuses and encourage people to regulate their behaviour - or face consequences such as arrests, fines or Dispersal Orders (these enable the police to move on groups from areas where there is persistent anti-social behaviour). |
|
Lewis et al. (2011)
|
These left realist sociologists found the desire to consume by looting what was otherwise denied them in a bulimic society was a significant factor motivating some of the 13,000 to 15,000 people involved in riots and looting in English cities in August 2011.
|
|
Charles Murray (1990)
|
This right realist argues the crime rate is increasing because of a growing underclass or 'new rabble' who are defined by their deviant behaviour and who fail to socialise their children properly: -He argues the underclass is growing in both the USA and the UK as a result of welfare dependency. -This welfare dependency began with the welfare state's 'generous revolution' in the 1960s allowing increasing numbers of people to become dependent on the state. -This led to the decline of marriage and the growth of lone-parent families because women and children could live off benefits. -This also means men no longer have to take responsibility for supporting their families, so they no longer need to work. -Absent fathers mean that boys lack paternal discipline and appropriate male role models since, he argues, lone mothers are ineffective socialisation agents. -As a result, young males turn to other, often delinquent, role models on the street and gain status through crime rather than supporting their families through a steady job. |
|
Jock Young (1999, 2002, 2003)
|
This left realist sociologist linked the explanations for crime to changes in society emerging in late modernity: -He argues that late modern societies are media-saturated, and everyone, even the poorest, is included in consumer culture through constant exposure to advertising of consumer goods and media-generated lifestyles, which raise everyone's expectations of what the good life is like. -In 2002, he argued there are ghettos in the United States where there is, 'full immersion in the American Dream, a culture hooked on Gucci, BMW, Nikes'. -However, this cultural inclusion is accompanied for those at the bottom of the class structure by social and economic exclusion, which means they cannot afford to actively participate in consumer society, as they can't afford to buy the goods necessary to forge new identities and lifestyles. -He argued this process whereby cultural inclusion was combined with social and economic exclusion was creating a 'bulimic society', in which people gorge themselves on media images of expensive consumer lifestyles, but are then forced by economic circumstances to vomit out their raised expectations. -This intensifies the sense of frustration, resentment and anger among young people at their relative deprivation.
He also argues the intensified sense of relative deprivation is made worse by 3 further features of late modernity: 1. Growing individualism: there is a growing emphasis on self-seeking, individual freedom and self-centredness, and less community spirit and concern for the welfare of others. 2. The weakening of informal controls: traditional social structures like the family and close-knit communities have been breaking up, and are no longer able to provide support and informal controls on the behaviour of those living in the community. 3. Growing economic inequality and economic change: globalisation has meant the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has grown massively, with staggering rewards for those at the top gained through participation in a global economy - such as footballers and music stars who are global media stars - while at the same time there has been a decline in traditional manufacturing industries, loss of unskilled work and more unemployment or short-term employment. |
|
Wilson & Kelling (1975)
|
These right realist sociologists came up with the 'broken windows' thesis - if a broken window is not repaired, further neglect will follow.
|
|
Right Realism
|
This sociological perspective sees these as the causes of crime: -Biology - people are either born bad or stupid (Wilson & Herrnstein, Murray) -Socialisation - or lack of. Society should be underpinned by morality; the underclass of 'new rabble' (Murray) lack self-reliance and responsibility and are not adequately socialised - linked to single parent families - an environment 'designed to produce vicious, predatory, unrepentant street criminals'. -Rational choice - if the rewards of crime outweigh the costs, then why not? They argue that there is not enough of a strong deterrent. They also: -Are tough on the criminals -Argue criminals choose to commit crime so must be prevented from doing so by reducing the opportunity and increasing the chance of being caught and punished. -Have a key idea known as the 'broken windows' thesis - this idea was famously introduced in New York in the 1990s. -Believe in 'situational crime prevention', linked to rational choice theory and routine activity theory, whereby surveillance and hostile architecture make it harder or riskier to commit crime. Surveillance and warning notices (such as fines) encourage people to regulate their behaviour.
Evaluations: -It addresses the immediate causes of crime, and provides policies for reducing the opportunities for crime. -It recognises, like Left Realism, the importance of community control and community responses to crime in affecting crime levels. -Its view of criminals as rational actors freely choosing crime conflicts with its claim that their behaviour is determined by their biology and socialisation. -It over-emphasises biological factors: according to Lilly et al (2002), IQ differences account for less than 3% of differences in offending. -Zero tolerance policing and a strong police presence in neighbourhoods with high levels of crime and social disorder may involve a wasteful over-emphasis on minor and trivial offences, which may divert police resources away from more serious offences which cause greater harm to people and property. -Labelling theorists suggest zero tolerance policing can result in giving people who have committed only very minor offences criminal records, and such labelling may have long-term negative consequences for their lives and careers. -Labelling theorists argue that some groups of people may be targeted and victimised unfairly by police, for example through stereotyping and racism, generating resentment and a self-fulfilling prophecy creating more disorder rather than less - Lewis et al. (2011) found this as one of the causes behind the 2011 London Riots. -They ignore white-collar and corporate crimes, which can have serious consequences for victims. -They don't address and ignore the wider social causes of crime. -They assume offenders act rationally in choosing crime and derive benefits from it, but some crimes like vandalism, joy-riding, drug-taking, hate crime or violence are impulsive or irrational, and do not bring any obvious gain. -Edgework and the seductiveness of the risk-taking, thrill and buzz of crime, as discussed by Lyng and Katz, are not addressed by rational choice and opportunity theories. |
|
Lea & Young (1984)
|
These left realist sociologists attempt to explain why people turn to crime using 3 key concepts: -Relative deprivation: it is not deprivation as such which causes people to commit crime, as most deprived people do not turn to crime, but whether they see themselves as deprived relative to others they compare themselves with. This can generate discontent and resentment as their expectations are not met. -Marginalisation: some groups experience marginality, as they find themselves politically and economically 'on the edge' of mainstream society, and face social exclusion through factors like poor educational achievement, unemployment and lack of involvement in community organisations. Such marginality, combined with relative deprivation, can lead to anti-social behaviour, crime, violence and rioting as there are few other means of expressing their frustrations and resentments at their exclusion. -Subculture: working-class deviant subcultures emerge as group solutions to the problems of relative deprivation and marginality arising from social inequality, though they take different forms over time and in different contexts, such as street gangs or various youth subcultures. These can act as motivators for crime, as some working-class subcultures see offending as acceptable behaviour.
To understand and tackle crime, they suggest it is necessary to examine the inter-relationships between 4 elements of what has been called 'the square of crime' - and how they influence or interact with one another in influencing crime levels in any community: -Social structural factors and formal social control by the state: these influence the context of crime, such as how crime is defined and its social causes, how law enforcement is carried out and decisions whether an act is labelled as criminal or not, styles of policing and the ability of the police to influence crime levels by deterring and catching offenders. -The public and the extent of informal social control: how do people react to crime in their communities? Are offenders condemned by family, peer groups and neighbours? Do the public report offences? Do they trust the police? Do they buy stolen goods? Is the offence just seen as part of normal life in their community? -The role of victims: Why do people become victims and what do they do about it? Victims are often of the same ethnic group, class and community as the offenders, or partners in a relationship with them. How do victims view offenders? Will they report them? Could or would the police do anything? -The offenders: what meaning does the act have to the offender? Why do they choose to offend? Is it because they feel marginalised? Because they belong to a deviant subculture? Because they feel relatively deprived? Offenders choose to commit crimes - to what extent are they driven to it by outside forces, and how is this choice influenced by the other 3 factors? |
|
Bennett et al. (1996)
|
These right realist sociologists argue, similarly to Murray, that crime is the result of: -'growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults in a practically perfect criminogenic environment - that is, (one) that seems almost consciously designed to produce vicious, predatory unrepentant street criminals'. |
|
Increased Social Control
|
This is a Right Realist policy for crime prevention which is linked to Hirschi's control theory: -This suggests that individuals are encouraged to choose conformity over deviance and crime when there are strong social bonds integrating them into communities. -The focus is then on tighter family and community control and socialisation, to promote conformity and isolate deviant individuals through community pressure. -This approach also suggests that it is possible to predict crime, and therefore prevent it, by identifying those from 'at risk' backgrounds, such as young people in deprived communities facing family breakdowns, drug use or social exclusion.
Policies flowing from this include: -Making parents take more responsibility for the supervision of their children, and socialising them more effectively into conformist behaviour. Those who don't may be issued with Parenting Orders - court orders issued to parents of persistent young offenders who fail to properly supervise their children. These compel a parent to attend parenting classes or counselling or to meet other requirements to improve their child's behaviour. -Schemes like Neighbourhood Watch, which help to build community controls over crime through informal surveillance and 'good neighbourliness' - for example, by keeping an eye on each other's homes. -Cracking down on anti-social behaviour like graffiti, hoax calls, verbal abuse, noisy neighbours, drug and alcohol abuse in public places, and intimidating behaviour by groups of youths through measures like Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs - nicknamed 'crimbos') or Dispersal Orders. -Supervision of offenders - for example, electronic tagging and curfew orders to restrict and monitor their movements. -Adopting zero-tolerance policing (in keeping with the 'broken windows' thesis) which involves taking steps against all crimes, even low-level offences like graffiti, vandalism and anti-social behaviour, to prevent community breakdown and nip problems in the bud before they destroy a sense of community and individuals come to believe they can get away with offending, and crime subsequently escalates. -Heavier policing and more arrests, particularly targeted in high-crime areas, to deter potential offending. -Fast-track punishment of offenders, with more imprisonment and harsher sentences. |
|
Felson & Clarke (1998)
|
These Right Realist sociologists are associated with 'routine activity theory', which suggests that a crime occurs as a part of everyday routines, when there are three conditions present: 1. There is a suitable target for the potential offender, which could be a person, a place or an object. 2. There is no 'capable guardian', like a neighbour, police or CCTV surveillance, to protect the target. 3. There is a potential offender present, who thinks the first two conditions are met (suitable target and no guardian), and then makes a rational choice whether or not to commit the crime.
They also argue against displacement theory, stating that situational crime prevention (SCP) can still have positive effects beyond the immediate location, as potential offenders may believe that measures, like CCTV, that are in place in one location may also be in place in others, even if they aren't:
-Bowers et al. (2011) confirmed this; their review of 44 international studies of targeted policing in high-crime areas found SCP led to a 'diffusion of benefits', with neighbouring districts also seeing reductions in crime. They found potential offenders prefer familiar environments, and if SCP blocks opportunities there, then they do not simply 'move round the corner', but find legitimate activities more appealing, particularly as they are uncertain of the scope of police operations. |
|
Left Realism
|
Developing in the 1980s, this sociological perspective sees crime as a real and serious issue: -It affects deprived communities, and vulnerable people are most likely to be victims of crime. -A media-saturated society and consumer culture have made relative deprivation more extreme. -The lives of young people in these communities are characterised by risk - they are more likely to be involved in 'edgework' on the boundary between legal and criminal behaviour.
Through victim surveys like the Islington crime surveys, these sociologists found crime was a serious problem, particularly in more deprived inner-city areas, and needed policies to tackle it: -The sort of crime that worries people most is primarily street crime like mugging, violence, car crime and burglary, which is mainly carried out by young working-class males. -Those at the greatest risk of becoming victims of these offences, and who have the highest fears about crime are the poor - the deprived White and minority ethnic residents living in inner-city areas. -They accept that most people don't care much about white-collar and corporate crime, as they do not regard it as having any impact on their lives.
This sociological perspective is tough on the causes of crime: -Both offenders and victims of crime are found in the most deprived communities. -Need to tackle material and cultural deprivation that generate anger and frustration. -Need to build community relations. -Need to build trust in the police. -Tony Blair, September 30th 1993: 'Labour is the party of law and order in Britain today. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.'.
Evaluations: -Due to the perspective drawing on a range of theories, such as Marxist ideas of the importance of social inequality, Merton's concept of strain and anomie, Cohen's ideas of status frustration, subcultural theories (Cloward & Ohlin), labelling and its analysis of the growth of individualism and consumerism in late modernity, produces a fuller explanation for crime than that offered by any one single theory. -It does not glamorise crime as Marxist writers do and takes the importance of tackling crime and the fear of crime seriously - it recognises that crime can have devastating consequences for the most deprived communities and that most offenders and victims are poor and working-class. -It sees the importance of community solutions to crime. -Ignores white-collar crime and 'crimes of the powerful' (corporate crimes). Examples include fraud, neglect of health and safety and pollution controls, and sale of unsafe products. -Doesn't explain non-criminal reactions (like Merton's retreatism and ritualism) - the majority of those living in deprived communities and sharing similar risk factors (like experiencing relative deprivation) do not turn to crime. -Could be seen as unrepresentative - focuses on inner-city deprived areas, and so makes crime appear a greater problem than it is, -'soft' on crime, focus too much on social causes of crime, whilst downplaying the role of the offender in choosing to commit crime. -Deflects attention away from more practical crime prevention measures, like the tighter social and situational crime prevention advocated by Right Realists. -It could be argued neighbourhood policing might be seen as an extension of control and surveillance by the state over the whole population. -Interactionists argue that, because they rely on quantitative data from victim surveys, they can't explain offenders' motives. -The use of subcultural theory means they assume that value consensus exists and that crime only occurs when this breaks down. -It neglects gender as a significant issue, and particularly those crimes of which females are the more likely victims, such as domestic violence and rape. It tends to be part of that 'malestream criminology' that feminists are critical of. -Doesn't explain why crime rates have been generally falling rather than increasing in recent years, despite a growing emphasis on consumerism combined with prolonged economic recession, unemployment and austerity. |
|
Ronald Clarke (1992)
|
This Right Realist sociologist emphasises that situational crime prevention is concerned with preventing crime in particular locations rather than catching offenders, and merely aims to make crime a less attractive choice for offenders, rather than eliminating criminal behaviour through the improvement of society or the threat of punishment: -This is achieved by 'designing out crime' and 'target hardening measures' - what Pease (2002) called 'bars, bolts and barriers' - such as post-coding goods, use of anti-climb paint, Smartwater, CCTV, locks, alarms in premises and car alarms, alcohol-free zones and targeting policing. -Other examples include what has been called 'hostile architecture', such as public benches with graffiti-resistant sloping surfaces to deter both sleeping and skateboarding, 'anti-homeless' spikes outside buildings to deter rough sleepers, and ground markings by ATMs to increase the privacy and security of cash machine users. -Such measures aim to reduce opportunities for crime and disorder in particular locations by making possible targets more difficult and risky for potential offenders.
Evaluation of Situational Crime Prevention (SCP): -It removes the focus from other forms of crime prevention, such as looking at wider economic and social policies which cause crime. -It doesn't pay sufficient attention to catching criminals or punishments to deter offenders. -Crawford & Evans (2012) point out that SCP in an unequal society can increase inequality with, at the extremes, the more affluent living in the target-hardened fortresses of gated communities, and poorer people unable to afford the security paraphernalia required for target hardening. This may mean the affluent become even more immune to crime, and the poor ever more vulnerable. Many 'hostile architecture' measures have been criticised for particularly targeting the poor, and limiting their ability to use public spaces. -Displacement theory suggests SCP does not prevent crime overall, but only in particular locations, and simply displaces it to other areas, as potential offenders are diverted to committing crime somewhere else, at some other time, or against more vulnerable targets where risks are lower. |
|
