Overview of realist criminology

Realist criminology includes two main perspectives: right realism and left realism. These views accept official crime statistics (OCS) as broadly accurate, especially in showing that crime is concentrated among certain groups in urban areas, such as young people, those from working-class backgrounds, and members of minority ethnic groups.

Shared themes in realist criminology

Both right and left realism emphasise practical ways to address crime, differing from theories like functionalism, Marxism, and interactionism.

Key common ideas include:

• Acceptance of crime patterns - Realists agree that OCS provide a realistic picture of who commits crime, aiming to explain why specific groups, like young working-class individuals or those from minority ethnic groups, are more involved.
• Role of community and individualism - A lack of strong community ties and excessive individualism can contribute to higher crime rates, as people feel disconnected from social norms.
• Practical solutions - Unlike more theoretical approaches, realists propose actionable strategies to prevent, deter, and reduce crime.

Differences between right and left realism

Right realism focuses on individual responsibility and the need for communities to control behaviour, particularly among young people. In contrast, left realism, influenced by Marxist ideas, attributes crime to social inequalities and deprivation in capitalist societies, where powerless groups face daily hardships.

Left realism and its explanations for crime

Left realism, pioneered by sociologists like Jock Young and John Lea, arose from their victim survey of inner London. They argued that crime disproportionately affects deprived communities, and it is important to look at street crime from the perspective of the street criminal. They explain crime through three interconnected concepts: relative deprivation, marginalisation, and subcultures.

Key concepts in left realism

• Relative deprivation - This occurs when individuals or groups feel disadvantaged compared to others. For example, young people from working-class or minority ethnic backgrounds may experience barriers like poverty, unemployment, and racism, preventing access to education, good jobs, material goods, and a stable life. This sense of unfairness can motivate crime.
• Marginalisation - Marginalised groups feel powerless and excluded from mainstream society, leading to frustration, anger, and hostility. This can erupt in acts like riots or street crime, often directed at authorities such as the police, as a response to their inability to change their circumstances.
• Subcultures - When groups share feelings of deprivation and marginalisation, they may form subcultures as a collective way to cope. Some are positive, offering legitimate paths like religious groups, while others are deviant, rewarding criminal acts through gangs or territorial behaviour.

The Islington Crime Survey

Left realism is rooted in empirical research, particularly the Islington Crime Survey conducted by Young and Lea in inner-city London. This victim survey highlighted the realities of street crime from the offenders' viewpoint.

The findings showed that groups like young working-class and Black men committed more crime than others. Street crime was common, and victims were often from the same deprived groups.

Evaluation of left realism

Left realism has been praised for its grounded approach but also faces criticism for its limitations. Sociologist Gordon Hughes notes that it effectively highlights the harsh reality of inner-city street crime and its impact on victims, shifting focus to how crime affects deprived groups – an area overlooked by many theories.

Strengths of left realism

• Victim-centred focus - It reveals that most crime victims are from disadvantaged groups, bringing attention to the real effects of crime on communities.

Limitations of left realism

• Lack of evidence for motives - There is limited empirical support for how young working-class or Black individuals actually interpret their situations, as claimed by Lea and Young.
• Failure to explain non-criminal responses - The theory does not account for why most people in these groups do not turn to crime, despite facing similar deprivation.
• Narrow focus on subcultures - It emphasises group-based crimes like gang activities but ignores individual crimes, such as burglary.
• Overemphasis on street crime - It focuses exclusively on street crime and largely overlooks white-collar crime, corporate crime, and opportunistic adult crimes, limiting its scope.
• Insufficient attention to broader crimes - By prioritising mugging and robbery, it neglects other significant types of deviance.

Right realism and its explanations for crime

Wilson identifies three main factors explaining high crime rates, particularly in urban areas.

Key factors in right realism

• Characteristics of young people - Young individuals are seen as more prone to crime due to immaturity, aggression, short-term thinking, and weak social ties. They have less to lose from criminal acts, as they often lack responsibilities like jobs or families.
• Rational choice and costs vs. benefits - Potential offenders weigh the advantages of crime against the risks, such as getting caught or punished. If policing is ineffective and penalties are lenient, crime increases because the benefits outweigh the costs.
• Weak family and community controls - Modern society has seen a decline in strong family bonds and community spirit, reducing informal social control. This allows deviance to go unchallenged, leading to urban decay.

The broken windows theory

Wilson, along with George Kelling, developed the broken windows theory to explain how small signs of disorder can lead to serious crime. If minor issues like a broken window in a building are not fixed, it signals that the community does not care, encouraging more vandalism and escalation to worse crimes.

Key ideas in broken windows theory:

• Visible signs of disorder, like a broken window, can invite further deviance.
• Communities must act quickly to repair these signs, demonstrating that the community will not tolerate such behaviour.

Supporting theories for right realism

Right realism is bolstered by control theory, particularly the work of Travis Hirschi, which explains why most people avoid crime through social bonds. Hirschi argues that strong ties to society deter deviance, but these are weaker among certain groups.

Hirschi's control theory

Control theory posits that conformity comes from social bonds that make crime too risky.

These bonds include:

• Attachment - Emotional connections to others, like family and friends, which encourage caring about how actions affect them.
• Commitment - Investments in conventional life, such as jobs, mortgages, or supporting children, which could be lost through crime.
• Involvement - Participation in meaningful activities, like being part of a purposeful community such as a family.
• Belief - Acceptance of societal rules and understanding the difference between right and wrong.

Adults often have strong bonds, deterring them from crime due to high personal costs. In contrast, young people and members of the underclass have weaker bonds, making them less deterred and more likely to offend.