Paper 3: Crime and deviance

1. Paper 3: Crime and deviance L.O: to describe (A01) and evaluate ( A03) realist explanations to crime and deviance Starter: Draw one image representing right-wing politics and a second image representing left-wing politics. Explain your image. • Right realism (aka new realism) • Left realism (aka radical realism) • Homework: due Monday 18/03 • Plan at least one 40 mark Essay – use booklet • Flipped learning: read PPT on + take notes • Early notice: assessment on interactionist/ subcultural theories/ Marxist/ • neo-marxist

2. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Recap - Right-wing theories There are several right-wing views on crime and deviance. Sometimes these are all referred to as ‘right realists’ but there are actually differences between them all. The New Right Right realists Control theory All influenced by Durkheim and functionalism.

3. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Key assumptions • Accept the ‘typical criminal’ shown in police recorded crime figures. • Challenge some of the traditional theories for being too ‘idealistic’ and romanticising the criminal. • Concerned about the ‘corrosive effects that crime can have on communities’. • Challenge traditional theories for offering no practical solutions to crime. • Left realism • Recognise street crime but also white-collar and global crime. • Tend to blame social injustices and inequalities in society. • Right realism • Focus on ‘street crime’. • Tend to blame the individual offender. • Solutions focus on controlling people.

4. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Right realism

5. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Theorist 1Wilson

6. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Wilson (1975) Explanation of crime The importance of social order • Challenges mainstream criminology, particularly Marxist explanations. • Argues they are based on ideology rather than facts • E.g. white-collar crime is over-emphasised • He believes that long-term trends in crime can be accounted for by 3 factors…

7. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. • They are most the most likely group to commit crime as they are temperamentally aggressive and tend to have short-term aspirations and weak social bonds. • Shifts in the age-structure of society will increase or decrease the crime rate (depending on whether there are more or less young males around) 1. How many young males are around in society. 2. The availability of jobs and state of the economy. • The benefits and costs of crime will change depending on things like accessibility, the economy and job availability. • This particularly affects property crimes. 3. How people are socialised in society. • The family, media and religion influence general norms and values. • This can affect the extent to which ‘at risk’ people are tempted into deviance or are willing to conform.

8. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Wilson (1975) • Argues that these 3 factors are largely uncontrollable. What does it mean? = • Does not believe that poverty is the root cause of crime (many poor people don’t commit crime) • Therefore, attempting to redistribute wealth is costly, unfair and will not reduce crime. The only way to reduce crime is?

9. Wilson (1975) • Reducing crime: • Enforcing the law. When policing is poor and law and punishment are weak, crime increases. Why? • = the benefits of crime clearly outweigh the costs • Less emphasis on the severity of the punishment. • More emphasis on the likelihood of being caught. • Can you explain this thought?

10. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Wilson (1975) The environment plays a key role in creating a ‘culture’ of order and acceptable behaviour. Social order is maintained. Individuals will not be tempted to participate in deviant behaviour. Police visibly clamping down on crime. Culture is created where other residents also report crime more and are involved in informal social control. Alternatively Impression that nobody cares and disorder is prevalent. Previously law-abiding people may see it as acceptable to join in with deviant behaviour.

11. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Evaluating Wilson

12. Strengths • Functionalists would agree, e.g. social order (value consensus) and break-down of social order (anomie). Similar to Durkheim’s ideas. • New Right, Murray would agree, e.g. redistributing wealth is unfair, pointless and will not affect crime, he blamed over-generous welfare payments for creating feckless behaviour. • What about feminists?

13. limitations • Blames the individual, e.g. they recognise a lack of policing and social control and choose to engage in criminal and deviant behaviour. Marxists would disagree. • Marxists would argue that young males are only more likely to commit crime because they are at a social disadvantage. Interactionists would argue that they are labelled and it becomes their master status and self-fulfilling prophecy. Sub-cultural theories would argue that they join a criminal, conflict or retreatist subculture as they are unable to meet their goals through legitimate means. • Why Marxists would disagree?

14. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Theorists 2Wilson and Kelling

15. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Wilson and Kelling (1982) Explanation of crime Broken windows • When communities are faced with low level disorder they will stay indoors more and not get involved. • Crime flourishes as nobody is challenging it. • Urban decay develops. • Those who can will move away and the area goes into a downward spiral.

16. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Wilson and Kelling (1982) Explanation of crime Broken windows • Once an area has a criminal culture there is little point policing it. • Police should spend their efforts elsewhere where they can make a difference. • They should identify areas at tipping points and try to restore order with a visible police presence (right-realist solution).

17. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Evaluating Wilson and Kelling

18. strengths • Functionalists would agree, e.g. urban decay and social breakdown, this is similar to Durkheim’s idea of anomie. • Could be applied to white-collar crimes, e.g. if middle-class think their behaviour is untended to they may be more likely to engage in the behaviour. If the police show interest, e.g. tax evasion, this may decrease the likelihood of the rich being involved. • Practical applications, e.g. prevent the media from implying a lack of social order, this would deter more people from becoming involved.

19. Weaknesses • Blames the individual, e.g. they have given in to temptation, Marxists would argue that this is ignoring social inequality and how this causes crime. The idea that police shouldn’t waste their time in crime-ridden areas would be extremely opposed. • Cannot explain communities that do have low-level deviance but do report it to the police and get involved. E.g. Benefits street had a strong community and deterred others from committing crime rather than choosing not to get involved.

20. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Theorists 3Wilson and Hernstein

21. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Wilson and Hernstein (1985) Similar to the ideas of whom? Explain your answer. Explanation of crime Biological criminal tendencies • Believe that there is a biological element to criminal behaviour. • ‘Criminal’ traits can be heightened if people lack proper socialisation. Task: Name those people that could lack of proper socialisation:

22. LO: Explain crime using right realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Evaluating Wilson and Hernstein

23. A03 • Strengths • Offers an explanation of why crime is committed, e.g. biological trait and poor socialisation, this is unlike some other theorists who fail to provide such explanations, e.g. Durkheim. • Functionalists would agree to an extent. Why? • Limitations: • Blames the individual, e.g. they have been poorly socialised and inherited a criminal tendency, Marxists would disagree and blame social inequality caused by those in power. • Does not easily explain crime committed by those who have been properly socialised, e.g. middle-class crime from nuclear families. • Lacks scientific evidence, e.g. no objective evidence of a ‘criminal gene’ in people.

24. LO: Summarise right realist theories and create revision resources. Summarising right realist explanations of crime Plenary: Link the picture to a right-realist’s theory. Cr ime

25. LO: Summarise right realist theories and create revision resources. Task: What do you predict about left-realist explanations of crime? • Who is to blame? • What is the cause? • What should the solution be?

26. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Left realism

27. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Things to note: Left realists try to navigate between two extremes: • Denial of the severity of street crime • Denial of its impact • (Marxism and radical criminology) • Hysteria about the underclass • Media driven moral panics • Over-policing of crime • (New Right and right realist views) • Left realists do accept that white-collar and corporate crime are significant. • However, they argue that ‘left idealists’ overemphasise these types of crime to the exclusion of other crimes. • They also accuse ‘left idealists’ or having a romantic view of the criminal as a victim of circumstances, or a misunderstood rebel (Robin Hood thesis).

28. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Theorists 1Matthews and Young

29. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. • Consider the example of a street robber, where a middle-aged female was threatened with a knife and her bag was stolen. • What would the event mean to each agent below? • What response would each agent have? • How will the response of each affect the other three agents? • Pair work:you have 5 minutes Matthews and Young (1992) In order to understand the roles of the criminal offender and the victim you must also consider the general public’s opinion and the role of the State (CJS – police, courts). This explanation recognises that crime is socially constructed and that individual interpretations can influence this. Similar ideas to radical criminology but focuses more on the victim. Explanation of crime The square of crime • Crime arises at an intersection. Criminal Justice System Criminal offender General public Victim of crime

30. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. To summarise: To understand crime we need to understand if from 4 perspectives: • State – How is crime defined? How do moral entrepreneurs react to crime? • Offender – Why has the offender chosen to offend? How does their crime benefit them? • Society – How does society react to the crime? Do they report offences? Do they trust the police? • Victim – Why are they a victim? What do they do about it? Why are some more likely to be victims than others?

31. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Evaluating Matthews and Young

32. A03 • Strengths: • Holistic and comprehensive explanation of crime as it considers all parties. Many just consider the offender (right realists) or the state (interactionists). • Limitations: • Not enough focus on offender. It is their decision to commit crime, marginalisation is just an excuse (Right realists)

33. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Theorists 2Lea and Young

34. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Lea and Young (1993) Explanation of crime Relative deprivation, marginalisation and subculture Lea and Young explain crime in terms of 3 concepts: • Relative deprivation • Marginalisation • Subculture Grapple task Use your pre-existing knowledge to predict what each concept means in relation to crime.

35. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Lea and Young (1993) • Relative deprivation • Relates to the feelings of deprivation that people may experience when they compare themselves to others. • As societies become wealthier, crime rates increase. • Relative deprivation can explain this. • In wealthy countries, the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ is vast and people are encouraged to strive for more and judge themselves against those more successful. • The media fuels this by promoting materialism and false needs. • Can be linked to Young’s bulimic society.

36. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. • Marginalisation • Refers to those on the edges or margins of society. • They lack clearly defined goals, involvement and representation in society. • Those who are marginalised or socially excluded may feel abandoned or frustrated experiencing economic, social and political deprivation. • Subculture • Refers to a group with a shared set of norms and values. • These are developed as a response to the unachievable norms and values of wider society. • Formation of subcultures if linked to relative deprivation and marginalisation, as those who share a sense of deprivation and frustration will develop lifestyles to allow them to cope with this problem.

37. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Lea and Young (1993) Which theorists do they appear to have been influenced by? • Subcultural = • Functionalist = • Marxists = • Consider some common crimes. Can the 3 concepts provide a convincing explanation for these crimes? • Can you think of any crimes which cannot be explained by these 3 concepts?

38. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Evaluating Lea and Young

39. A03 • Strengths: • Relative deprivation can be felt by anyone, e.g. wealthy individuals comparing themselves to wealthier individuals. This could explain white-collar crime. • Functionalist, Merton and subcultural theorist, Cohen would agree, e.g. strain theory, status frustration and relative deprivation are all similar and linked as explanations of crime. • Limitations: • Deterministic- suggests all marginalised groups commit crime. Does not explain why most do not or why people react differently (Merton explained this through the 5 modes of adaptation) • Does not explain individualistic crime such as rape. • Largely ignores white collar and corporate crime, Marxists would argue that more attention needs to be paid to these. • Fails to account for opportunist crimes. • Takes the blame away from the individual, e.g. they are victim of their social and economic situation. New Right would disagree with this as poverty doesn’t increase the likelihood of crime (Murray).

40. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Theorist 3Young

41. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Young (1999) This can then create a culture of fear, causing scapegoating and more social divisions! Explanation of crime The exclusive society • Developed the concepts of relative deprivation and marginalisation. • Focused on the way society economically excludes increasing numbers of people (link between social exclusion and crime). • Referred to Hutton’s view of the 40:30:30 society (40% secure employment, 30% insecure employment, 30% marginalised/poverty). Social exclusion Economic exclusion increases Breakdown of communities and families Crime and disorder increases

42. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Young (1999) • This is leading to a less tolerant society. • Harsher restrictions towards the excluded and the deviant. • Lack of tolerance comes from right-wing sociology.

43. LO: Explain crime using left realist theories and evaluate given explanations. Evaluating Young

44. A03 Strengths: • Functionalists would agree, e.g. social exclusion  breakdown of communities and families -> increase in crime and deviance (similar to Durkheim’s idea of anomie). Limitations: • Some argue that left realist ideas are not new or original they are simply an extension of radical criminology, e.g. Young underclass and social exclusion (bulimic society) is a radical criminology theory. • The link between social exclusion and crime cannot explain those committed by the wealthy, e.g. white-collar and corporate crime. • Their solution to crimes are unrealistic, e.g. addressing fundamental inequalities in society. Right-realists have more practical solutions, e.g. identifying areas/people at tipping points and preventing them from committing crime.