Left And Right Realism In Crime

Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.

The investigation of crime, society’s reaction to it and approaches to prevent it are all areas that have interested me from my adolescent years. I have an interest and passion for Criminology studies for the strict purpose of wanting to fulfill a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of crime and exploring how crimes affect our society. This shady interest in the criminal world has encouraged me to pursue the subject at degree level and to seriously consider a career in a related field. At the beginning of the course my understanding on crime and criminology was mostly derived from the internet or media. These tools became very useful for me to learn different subjects of crime.

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

Each of these three contemporary sociological theories of crime are similar in that they focus mainly on crime in poor or disadvantaged areas. This focus is obvious with social conflict theory and social disorganization theory but not as much with rational choice theory although it is there. With rational choice theory the concept of what is to be gained

During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).

The Neo-Marxist “new criminology” developed in the early 1970’s is also key to understanding how Marxists explain crime. Taylor, Walton and Young’s work maintained that crime was best understood in the context of capitalism and the inequalities it creates. One way that the neo-Marxists slightly differ with the traditional Marxist theories is that it says there is more freedom of choice that people have when choosing to commit crime and people are not just puppets of the economy. Here it could be said that the Neo-Marxists are taking interactionist theories on board and are moving away from the structuralist theories of traditional Marxism and Functionalism. With their book “The New Criminology” Taylor et al. attempted to come up with a fully social theory of deviance and looked into the importance of the labelling of certain groups within society as being criminal, in their case it was black working class men being labelled as criminal and dangerous by the law and order systems as well as the media. The book analyses the crisis faced by British capitalism during the recession of the 1970’s and the resulting threat to the authority of the state. It argues that the state responded to this crisis by mounting a law and order campaign which lead to a moral panic over mugging. As a result, black youth became increasingly

One way that Marxism isn’t a useful theory is that the left realists believe that most working class crime is committed against the working class. This means that it’s not because of laws that the working class are going out to commit crimes. This means that more working class people are going to get into fights with one another over conflict of interests. This analysis shows that Marxism isn’t useful as it can be showed that crime is about conflicts of interests.

a. Imagine asking 100 strangers to describe a criminal. Predict whether those descriptions would be likely to focus on street criminals, or the variety of topics covered in this video.

In 1979, Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson published “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach”; this was the first paper introducing routine activities theory. Most criminological theories before routine activities theory focused more specifically on the socioeconomic factors affecting crime such as poverty, race, etc. Felson and Marcus believed instead that the routine activities of individuals and groups are the driving force behind crime.

The central problem was that 'wholesale improvement in social conditions resulted in not a drop in crime but rather the reverse' (Young 1998, p.159). Critical criminology had a significant impact on academic criminology over two decades ago but still remains important and influential today. "The new criminology had a brief period of decline and is now experiencing a resurgence of interest and influence" (Walton & Young 1998). Critical criminologists raise a number of important questions and see crime as a process related to wider economic and political structures of power. They question the way social control operates and is used. They explain crime as a result of the alienation and powerless of the working class, controlled by capitalism.

First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the

In positivist criminology, a person commits a crime because outside factors influenced them. For example, a person is more likely to commit a crime if they live in poverty. In today’s society, it is easier for someone to rob or steal rather than to get a job and work for their money. Not to mention, it is harder for those who live in poverty to get jobs since most employers only want the best of the best working for their company. Living in poverty can also affect a person’s mentality. Trying to figure out how to overcome poverty can be stressful, and this can take a toll on people’s mental health and cause them to commit acts that they wouldn’t have committed if they were in their normal state of mind.

In contrast to the positivism approach, classical theory has a different way of explanation why crime occur. Classical theory

Crime is a socially constructed phenomenon. It is not static but dynamic and is defined into existence. It changes over time and place. For example, early definitions of crime such as classicism defined individuals as rational, free and responsible for their own actions. The emergence of positivism was an attempt to bring scientific methodology to criminology. Positivists believe in objectively quantifying cause and effect. In the early twentieth century a sociological lens was applied. Functionalist sociologists such as Durkheim argued that crime had a positive function for society by reinforcing societal norms and values (Ziyanak and Williams 2014). Anomie and strain theory proposed later by Robert Merton examined how poorer classes experienced frustration through lack of opportunities leading to strain. There are many others including labelling, control and cultural deviance, however; this shows that our understanding of criminology is not static and like crime itself it changes over time and place.

Many factors generate crime. That ‘inner morality’ necessary to resist the temptation to rape, rob, or kill weakens in an environment of broken homes, systemic poverty, ethical relativism, religious decline. Poverty ’causes’ crime in general in the same way that pornography causes sex crimes and television violence causes violence by children: it is a predispositive condition. If the family life could be strengthened, raise the living standard, instill character values this could have an impact on lowering the crime rate.