Revision:AQA Sociology A2 - Crime and Deviance - Left Realist Criminology

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Sociology > AQA Sociology A2 - Crime and Deviance - Left Realist Criminology

LR has developed over past 20 years as the most mainstream form of criminology. The most “complete” form of sociological thinking, as it avoids the age old divisions between structure and action. Instead, LR’s set out an agenda which contains all levels of analysis. They then try to complete this agenda. The origins of LR lie in the desire to move away from “pure theory” to applied research that can be put into use. LR is also heavily influenced by the work of 1970’s Neo Marxists who argued for a “new criminology”.

HOW LEFT REALISM DIFFERS FROM TRADITIONAL MARXISM

LR moves away from the traditional Marxist “class analysis” of crime (Marxists stress above all else the importance of class, considering how a disproportionate amount of people own the “commanding heights of power” and make the laws as they see fit). Even Neo-Marxist approaches, which claim to consider other factors, such as age and gender, are criticised for simply “grafting on” these divisions in an insufficient way. LR’s deal with this my tackling societal divisions such as age, race, class and sex as equally important aspects of analysis. Essentially, they are considering the differences in power in society, and in doing so; draw more from the works of Weber than of Marx.

BCS has found that street crimes are unusual, and that the really “important” crimes are crimes of the powerful, which is concurrent with the Marxist argument. However, local crime surveys conducted by LR’s have shown that crime hits all classes, but women and older people in particular. They also demonstrate that there is a real concern over street crime, and some groups even alter their behaviour to avoid being victims of crime.

LR’s criticise Marxists for “romanticising” WC crime. Matthews and Young argue that “crime is not an activity of latter day Robin Hoods”. Most crime is intra-class, not inter-class. The more vulnerable, in both social and economic terms, the individual is, the more likely they are to have both working class and white collar crime directed against them.

Marxists believe that police are “enemies”/agents of the state. However, local crime surveys demonstrate that people in inner city areas actually want more policing to protect them. LR’s therefore argue that the police to not have to be “oppressors”, and can be of great help to the WC.

LEFT REALISTS PROPOSE THREE EXPLANATIONS FOR CRIME

RELATIVE DEPRIVATION

Young – poverty alone does not cause crime. Poverty rates remained the same from 1930 – 1980, but crime rates soared during the 80’s (15 X higher). Most poverty stricken group (elderly) commit least crime. Rather, crime is a result of “relative deprivation” (feeling deprived relative to similar social groups).

The disparity between the high expectations of individuals (particularly youths) and the reality of what they can achieve given the low rates of unemployment and low paid jobs causes frustration, and people turn to crime to solve this situation.

Cross referencing with religion, some turn to “deviant” religious movements (e.g. Aum Shinrikyo – gassing of tube), as they offer justification of deprivation

THE FORMATION OF SUBCULTURES

As well as through religion, relatively deprived groups adopt certain lifestyles to deal with their situation, and this may result in the formation of a subculture (which may advocate criminal behaviour).

Second generation West Indian immigrants for example, advocated subcultural strategies such as street crime in the form of “hustling” for money, as well as joining Rastafarian and Pentecostal religious movements.

The subcultural model proposed by Lea & Young has a number of distinct features.

For example, they believe that subcultures develop as a response to the “problems” people face. These “problems” are not randomly, determined, but are a precise result of the social and economic structure.

Also, they propose that the values of a subculture are not divorced from mainstream values; they are distinct, but not separate. Subcultural values are enmeshed in mainstream ones, and it is precisely for this reason that relative deprivation occurs, as certain groups have “mainstream” expectations which cannot be fulfilled.

MARGINALISATION

The process by which certain groups find themselves “on the edge” of society, both in the political and economic sense.

Marginal groups lack formal organisations to represent their political interests, and often resort to violence and rioting as a form of political action.

West Indian immigrants are an example of a marginalised group, as they lack clearly defined pressure groups to represent them. They feel a general sense of resentment and often take to the streets and riot.

The young are particularly vulnerable to marginalisation, as they lack “economic muscle” that other working class groups have (e.g. the ability to strike). Their outlets for influencing political decisions are limited to riots and protests.

DEALING WITH CRIME

Kinsey, Lea & Young believe that there are a number of flaws in policing.

The clear up rate of crimes is extremely low (8% in some areas), which means that police are unable to deter criminals.

Police do not spend enough time on investigating crime. They quote Home Office research that shows that most officers spend less than an hour a day on investigation and follow up work.

The public have lost their confidence in the police, and are reluctant to notify the police of crimes (90% of solved crimes rely on public notification). The Policy Studies Institute has shown that 75% of black 16-25 year olds living in London believe that the police fabricate evidence and use violence towards suspects. Without public support, police have to resort to “military policing” (stop and searchers, surveillance etc.), which leads to “mobilization of bystanders”. That is, the public begin to see police as an alienating force, intent on criminalizing local residents. This starts a vicious circle, as people are then more reluctant to report crimes, and more military policing is needed.

Improving policing

Kinsey, Lea & Young believe that the key to police success lies in improving relationships with the community. They propose that the public should have more say in shaping police policy, and officers should spend more time investigating crime rather than simply being “on the beat”, which antagonises the public. Young argues that certain areas of crime (e.g. juvenile status crimes such as underage drinking) are over-policed, whereas others (e.g. racial assault) are under-policed. The police need to “get their priorities right” and address these under-policed areas.

Tackling the causes of crime

Jock Young doesn’t believe that improved policing alone can solve the problem of crime. Like other LR’s, he believes that crime is rooted in social inequalities. Only when these inequalities are addressed will crime be reduced. Young suggests, among other things, that by providing improved leisure facilities for young people, improving living standards for poorer households, and reducing unemployment, social inequalities can be dealt with and in turn, crime can successfully be reduced.

THE SQUARE OF CRIME

LR aims to be a total explanation of crime, combining all the strengths of previous theories in a way which will encourage social policies to combat crime to emerge. LR’s believe that their theory can help understand the entire range of crime by combining both structure and action. On a theoretical level, this is very similar to Anthony Giddens’ “structuration theory”, which unites the importance of both structure and action into one all encompassing analysis of society. Young, Lea & Matthews ague that to truly understand crime, one must examine the interplay between both micro and macro factors in what they call “the square of crime”.

When examining a crime, one must consider the 4 following aspects;

• The state – as an agent of formal social control, the state decide what is “criminal” and what is not. It is thus vital to consider them when explaining crime, as all crimes happen in the context of the state. We must also consider social forces that influence the police, and a number of LR’s have investigated the effects of different styles of policing on crime levels.
• Offender – it is also vital to consider why people offend. What motivates them, and what makes them continue to commit crime? LR’s argue that more research is needed into the “trajectory of crime” – in order to investigate why people drift in and out of criminal behaviour.
• The public – we must consider the factors that influence public attitudes and responses to crime. This has become one of the most important areas of study, as fear of stigmatisation from peer groups, family and neighbours is one of the most powerful determinants of behaviour. Cross referencing with the mass media, the newspapers/television have a massive ability to shape public perceptions of what is “criminal”, which causes us to apply certain labels to certain acts.
• The victim – the victim must also be considered, as ultimately, they decide whether a crime has taken place. It is important to consider what makes victims vulnerable in both a macro (e.g. their position is society) and a micro (e.g. their relationships to the offender) sense.

EVALUATION OF LEFT REALISM

Left realism and social policy

Whatever its merits (or lack of them), left realism has undisputedly shaped social policy much more profoundly than any other criminological theory. The Labour government’s slogan “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” mirrors the fundamental concepts of left realist thinking, and now, policies have been implemented so that the public can be employed to carry out routine police tasks; giving officers more time for investigation and follow-up work.

However, left realism has by no means “solved” the problem of crime. Indeed, Jock Young argues that as we move into a period of “late modernity”, problems of crime will actually get worse. “Late modernity”, according to Young, is characterised by a deterioration of “community spirit”, reduced moral consensus and extreme instability. This in turn, makes crime more widespread, “nastier” and more ambiguous (i.e. there are more disputes over what a crime is). Labour’s policies will not be effective unless these issues are dealt with, and Young firmly believes that only through dealing with social inequity will the problem of crime truly be resolved.

Also See

• Traditional Marxist Explanations
• Gender and Crime

Comments

• Suitable for: AQA A2 Sociology
• Written by: 8owman
• From this post.