Using Material from Item a and Elsewhere, Assess the Value of the Right Realist Approach to Crime and Deviance

Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the value of the right realist approach to crime and deviance (21 marks)

While theories such as critical criminology and labelling regard crime as socially constructed, realists see crime, as a real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion and threatens society’s work ethic. The right realist approach to crime has been very influential in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. For example its main theorist, James Q .Wilson, was special adviser on crime to president Reagan, and it has provided the justification for widely adopted policies such as ‘zero tolerance’ of street crime and disorder.
Right realism reflects criticise other theories for failing to offer any practical solutions to the problem of rising crime. They also regard theories such critical criminology and labelling as too sympathetic to the criminal and too hostile to the forces of law and order. Right realists are less concerned to understand the causes of crime and more concerned to provide what they see as realistic solution. However, although the main emphasis is on practical crime reduction strategies, they do in fact offer an explanation of the causes of crime.
Right realists reject the idea put forward by Marxists and others those structural or economic factors such as poverty and inequality are the cause of crime. For example, against the Marxist view, they point out that the old tend to be poor yet they have a very low crime rate. For right realists, crime is the product of three factors these are individual biological differences, in adequate socialisation and the underclass, and rational choice to offend.
James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein 1985 put forward a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour. In their view, crime is caused by 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 and Murray 1994 argue that the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they also see as biologically determined.
However, while biology may increase the chance of an individual offending, effective socialisation decreases the risk, since it involves learning self control and internalising moral values of right and wrong. For right realists, the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear family. The right realist Charles Murray 1990 argues that the crime rate is increasing because of a growing underclass or ‘new rabble’ who is defined by their deviant behaviour and who fails to socialise their children properly. According to Murray, the underclass is growing in both the USA and the UK as a result of welfare dependency.
An important element in the right realist view of crime comes from rational choice theory, which assumes that individuals have a free will and the power of reason. Rational choice theorists such as Ron Clarke 1980 argue that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of the likely consequences. If the perceived rewards of crime outweigh the perceived costs of crime, or if the rewards of crime appear to be greater than those of non-criminal behaviour, then people will be more likely to offend.
Right realists do not believe it is fruitful to try to deal with the causes of crime such as biological and socialisation differences since these cannot easily be changed. Instead they seek to devise practical measures to make crime less attractive. Their main focus is on control, containment and punishment of offenders rather than eliminating the underlying causes of their offending or rehabilitating them, For example, Wilson and Kellings 1982 article Broken Windows argues that it is essential to maintain the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking hold. Any sign of deterioration, such as graffiti or vandalism, must be dealt with immediately.
Right realism is criticised both for its explanations of crime and for its solutions, Jones 1998 notes that right realist polices in the USA failed to prevent the crime rate rising . It over-emphasises control of disorder, rather than tackling underlying causes of neighbourhood decline such as lack of investment. Other criticisms include it overstates offenders rationality and how far they make cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime. While it may explain some utilitarian crime, it may not explain much violent crime.
Left realism has developed since the 1980s: its key figure is the former critical criminologist, Jock Young. Like Marxists, left realists see society as an unequal capitalist one. However, unlike Marxists, left realists are reformist rather than revolutionary socialists, they believe in gradual social change rather than violent overthrow of capitalism as the way to achieve greater equality. They believe we need to develop explanations of crime that will lead to practical strategies for reducing it in the here and now, rather than waiting for a revolution and a classless socialist utopia to abolish crime.
Left realism has succeeded in drawing attention to the reality of street crime and its effects, especially on victims from deprived groups. However it is criticised on several grounds, Henry and Milovanovic 1996 argue that it accepts the authorities defection of crime as being street crime committed by the poor, instead of defining the problem as being one of how powerful groups do harm to the poor. Marxists argue that it fails to explain corporate crime, which is much more harmful even if less conspicuous.
Both left and right realism see crime as a real problem and fear of crime as rational. On the other hand, they come from different ends of the political spectrum right realists are neo – conservative, while left realists are reformist socialists. This is reflected in how they explain crime, for example right realists blame individual lack of self-control, while left realists blame structural inequalities and relative deprivation.