Left realist perspectives on crime and social policy

Left realism emerged as a response to traditional left-wing theories, particularly Marxism, which were seen as ignoring the real impact of crime on society. Developed by sociologists like Lea and Young, this approach insists on acknowledging the genuine rise in crime and its effects on individuals and communities.

Key principles of left realism

• Recognition of crime as a problem - Beyond white-collar crimes, street crimes and other offences are significant issues that must be addressed.
• Post-war crime increase - There has been a notable rise in crime in Britain since the Second World War, which cannot be ignored.
• Impact on victims - Being a victim of crime profoundly affects individuals, altering their sense of safety and well-being.
• Influence on lifestyles - Fear of crime shapes modern urban living, particularly for women, affecting how people navigate public spaces.

Policing reforms proposed by left realists

• Community engagement - Kinsey, Lea, and Young (1986) emphasise the importance of strong communication between police and local communities, as the public reports most crimes and provides critical evidence.
• Public involvement in policy - They advocate for democratically elected Police Authorities to guide policing strategies, ensuring policies reflect community needs.
• Consensus policing - Police should act based on community directives rather than operating independently, fostering trust and cooperation.
• Focus on investigation - The primary role of the police should be thorough crime investigation, which has reportedly declined in effectiveness.
• Improving detection rates - With only around 30% of crimes currently solved in England and Wales, left realists call for better detection to restore public confidence.

Left realist views on causes of crime and solutions

Left realists identify social and economic factors as key drivers of criminal behaviour, proposing structural changes to address these root causes.

Causes of crime according to left realists

• Relative deprivation - Lea and Young (1984) argue that feeling deprived compared to others, rather than absolute poverty, drives individuals to commit crime to bridge the gap in resources or status. This applies across all social classes, as even wealthier individuals can feel deprived relative to the ultra-rich.
• Consumer culture - Modern Britain's emphasis on individualism, fuelled by media and advertising, heightens desires for material goods, potentially increasing crime as living standards rise.
• Criminal subcultures - These emerge as a response to relative deprivation, offering a way for marginalised groups to address perceived inequalities, sometimes through violence.

Long-term solutions to reduce crime

• Fighting social inequality - Left realists stress that a fair and just society is essential for lasting social order, urging all social agencies to work towards eliminating inequality.
• The square of crime - This model highlights the interaction between four elements: the state (formal control), the public (informal control), the offender, and the victim. All must collaborate to understand and tackle crime effectively.

Right realist explanations for crime causation

Right realism takes a contrasting approach, focusing on individual responsibility and structural factors as causes of crime.

Main causes of crime identified by right realists

• Biological predisposition - Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) suggest some individuals may have a natural inclination towards crime, though proper socialisation can mitigate this tendency.
• Inadequate socialisation - They argue that incomplete socialisation, often in lone-parent families, increases the likelihood of criminal behaviour due to a lack of proper guidance.
• Rational choice - Right realists believe individuals have free will and make calculated decisions to commit crime when the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. Murray (1997) notes that higher risks of imprisonment can deter potential offenders.

Right realist policies and their impact on social policy

Right realists advocate for strict measures to deter crime, influencing social policies particularly in the United States and certain areas of the UK.

Key policies proposed by right realists

• Harsh punishments as deterrence - Wilson (1975) argues that even minor offences should face severe consequences to discourage future criminal acts, reducing the perceived gains of crime.
• Zero tolerance policy - Implemented first in America and later in parts of the UK, such as Middlesbrough, this approach enforces strict penalties for all crimes, no matter how small.
• One broken window theory - Wilson and Kelling (1982) propose that neglecting small signs of disorder, like a single broken window, signals that crime is tolerated, leading to further delinquency. Immediate repairs are essential to maintain order.
• Resource allocation strategy - Wilson suggests diverting police resources away from areas where law and order have collapsed, focusing instead on regions where control can still be maintained, as regaining order in deteriorated areas is seen as nearly impossible.

Criticisms of left and right realist approaches

Both left and right realist theories have faced scrutiny for their explanations of crime and proposed solutions.

Critiques of left realism

• Incomplete explanation of relative deprivation - Hughes (1991) argues that left realists fail to explain why only some individuals who feel relatively deprived turn to crime, suggesting that if this were the primary cause, crime rates would be much higher.
• Limited data and focus - Critics note that Kinsey, Lea, and Young's theory lacks comprehensive data and primarily addresses property crime, overlooking other types of offences.

Critiques of right realism

• Rejection of biological claims - The notion that criminals are biologically predisposed is widely disputed, as it relies on outdated and discredited theories.
• Consequences of zero tolerance - Critics highlight that such policies have significantly increased prison populations in the US, exemplified by laws like 'three strikes and you're out', where three serious offences lead to life imprisonment.
• Lack of evidence for broken window theory - Matthews (1992) found no solid evidence that tolerating minor disorders, like broken windows, directly leads to increased crime rates.
• Disagreement on resource allocation - Jones (1998) challenges the idea that investing in run-down areas is futile, asserting that such investments can positively transform communities and reduce crime.