Assess realist views of crime and deviance [40]
Realist theories aim to “get real” about crime, focusing mainly on street crime as this is believed to be the
type of deviance that a ects every day life most signi cantly within a society. Both le and right realists
share and base their theories around this idea, however approach it from opposite ends of the poli cal
spectrum; right realists siding with mainly conserva ve beliefs, and le realists with labour. This means that
whilst right realists would base ideas in accordance with beliefs such as “survival of the est” and self
dependency, le realists would believe in suppor ng those who can not support themselves (for example
taxing the rich and reliance on the welfare state). This ideology is therefore re ected in le and right realist
explana ons for the causes and solu ons to crime. It is argued however that realists tend to not consider
middle class and upper class crime; speci cally marxists would cri cise realist’s ignorance of white collar
crime and the selec ve law enforcement that perhaps wrongly puts emphasis on lower class and street
level crime.
Right realist explana ons for the causes of crime can be seen as useful as they o er an insight into the
direct origins of criminal behaviour within even primary socialisa on. Right realists suggest that, in
opposi on to le realists, there is not necessarily a link between poverty and crime - in fact they highlight
that with increased wealth, crime rates have soared within modern society. Right realists would suggest
that crime is a result of inadequate socialisa on within the family leading to the socialisa on of di erent
values that vary from the rest of socie es’, as well as highligh ng the lack of both formal and informal
control in society. New right sociologist Murray suggested that crime originates from young males within
speci cally single parent families being inadequately socialised to have inferior norms and values, leading to
an “underclass” in society. This includes values such as irresponsibility and laziness, which are then
suggested to drive deviant behaviour within this subculture. Murray argues this is a result of the lack of
male authority in single parent homes, as he claims the male parental gure teaches discipline and
responsibility through nega ve sanc ons (consequences to discourage certain behaviours). As a result, the
underclass manipulate their circumstances, claiming bene ts from the state as opposed to working towards
employment. Furthermore, Wilson would support the idea that poor socialisa on leads to an increased
crime rates amongst males, as the break down of families mean that youths no longer fear formal and
informal sanc ons. Wilson would also expand on this idea, coupling it with the fact that it is further
in uenced by male biology, and this can be seen in more violent crimes. Wilson addi onally proposed the
“broken windows” theory as evidence of this lack of control, in which he claimed that “once one window
breaks, they all break”. This analogy refers to the fact that once crime is allowed to happen in the absence
of control, its ourishes. This ul mately leads to the break down of a society, in which the ignorance of even
minor crimes only encourages further deviance. Therefore right realist explana ons of crime are par cularly
useful in explaining the link between improper teaching of norms and values and the breakdown of a
community, which in turn leads to a lack of social order - and so, crime is ampli ed.
Le realist theorists’ explana ons for the causes of crime, developed by Lea and Young in response to right
realism, can be seen as perhaps more useful than right realists’. This is due to the fact that le realists are
cri cal of how right realists disregard the e ect of poverty on crime rates. Lea and Young, unlike right wing
theorists, examine the rela onship between four overall elements that make up crime (the square of
crime): the o ender, the state, the vic m and informal controls. From this alone, it can be argued that le
realism is more useful as it looks at crime past just the o ender - the vic m is taken into considera on too
(as discussed when considering the solu ons of crime). In rela on to this, le realists argue that the
o enders of crime are commonly and dispropor onally working class black males, and this is due to the
concepts of rela ve depriva on, marginalisa on and the forma on of subcultures. Rela ve depriva on
refers to the idea that a person or group of people can live in a similar manner and lifestyle to others within
a culture, yet in comparison, be deprived of certain material items that can lead to exclusion. For example,
some people in a school class may have money for textbooks and extra revision resources, but those who
ffflftti fi titi
fftiflftftti titi ff titititi ti ti ti tifi fftiti titi ti fi ff fi tititi titi ftfi ti ft fltitififf tift tifitt
tift ft fftititi ft
Realist theories aim to “get real” about crime, focusing mainly on street crime as this is believed to be the
type of deviance that a ects every day life most signi cantly within a society. Both le and right realists
share and base their theories around this idea, however approach it from opposite ends of the poli cal
spectrum; right realists siding with mainly conserva ve beliefs, and le realists with labour. This means that
whilst right realists would base ideas in accordance with beliefs such as “survival of the est” and self
dependency, le realists would believe in suppor ng those who can not support themselves (for example
taxing the rich and reliance on the welfare state). This ideology is therefore re ected in le and right realist
explana ons for the causes and solu ons to crime. It is argued however that realists tend to not consider
middle class and upper class crime; speci cally marxists would cri cise realist’s ignorance of white collar
crime and the selec ve law enforcement that perhaps wrongly puts emphasis on lower class and street
level crime.
Right realist explana ons for the causes of crime can be seen as useful as they o er an insight into the
direct origins of criminal behaviour within even primary socialisa on. Right realists suggest that, in
opposi on to le realists, there is not necessarily a link between poverty and crime - in fact they highlight
that with increased wealth, crime rates have soared within modern society. Right realists would suggest
that crime is a result of inadequate socialisa on within the family leading to the socialisa on of di erent
values that vary from the rest of socie es’, as well as highligh ng the lack of both formal and informal
control in society. New right sociologist Murray suggested that crime originates from young males within
speci cally single parent families being inadequately socialised to have inferior norms and values, leading to
an “underclass” in society. This includes values such as irresponsibility and laziness, which are then
suggested to drive deviant behaviour within this subculture. Murray argues this is a result of the lack of
male authority in single parent homes, as he claims the male parental gure teaches discipline and
responsibility through nega ve sanc ons (consequences to discourage certain behaviours). As a result, the
underclass manipulate their circumstances, claiming bene ts from the state as opposed to working towards
employment. Furthermore, Wilson would support the idea that poor socialisa on leads to an increased
crime rates amongst males, as the break down of families mean that youths no longer fear formal and
informal sanc ons. Wilson would also expand on this idea, coupling it with the fact that it is further
in uenced by male biology, and this can be seen in more violent crimes. Wilson addi onally proposed the
“broken windows” theory as evidence of this lack of control, in which he claimed that “once one window
breaks, they all break”. This analogy refers to the fact that once crime is allowed to happen in the absence
of control, its ourishes. This ul mately leads to the break down of a society, in which the ignorance of even
minor crimes only encourages further deviance. Therefore right realist explana ons of crime are par cularly
useful in explaining the link between improper teaching of norms and values and the breakdown of a
community, which in turn leads to a lack of social order - and so, crime is ampli ed.
Le realist theorists’ explana ons for the causes of crime, developed by Lea and Young in response to right
realism, can be seen as perhaps more useful than right realists’. This is due to the fact that le realists are
cri cal of how right realists disregard the e ect of poverty on crime rates. Lea and Young, unlike right wing
theorists, examine the rela onship between four overall elements that make up crime (the square of
crime): the o ender, the state, the vic m and informal controls. From this alone, it can be argued that le
realism is more useful as it looks at crime past just the o ender - the vic m is taken into considera on too
(as discussed when considering the solu ons of crime). In rela on to this, le realists argue that the
o enders of crime are commonly and dispropor onally working class black males, and this is due to the
concepts of rela ve depriva on, marginalisa on and the forma on of subcultures. Rela ve depriva on
refers to the idea that a person or group of people can live in a similar manner and lifestyle to others within
a culture, yet in comparison, be deprived of certain material items that can lead to exclusion. For example,
some people in a school class may have money for textbooks and extra revision resources, but those who
ffflftti fi titi
fftiflftftti titi ff titititi ti ti ti tifi fftiti titi ti fi ff fi tititi titi ftfi ti ft fltitififf tift tifitt
tift ft fftititi ft
