Left realism

Last updated

Left realism emerged in criminology from critical criminology as a reaction against what was perceived to be the left's failure to take a practical interest in everyday crime, allowing right realism to monopolize the political agenda on law and order. Left realism argues that crime disproportionately affects working-class people, but that solutions that only increase repression serve to make the crime problem worse. Instead they argue that the root causes of crime lie in relative deprivation, although preventive measures and policing are necessary, but these should be democratically controlled.

Contents

Pat Carlen (1992) suggests that the main tenets of left realism are theoretical and political:

Theoretical
  1. 'The basic triangle of relations which is the proper subject-matter of criminology [is] - the offender, the state and the victim' (Young, 1986) (since altered to include society at large, see The Square of Crime)
  2. Theoretical explanations must be symmetrical - there must be the same explanation for social action and reaction.
  3. 'Man is a creator of human nature' (Young, 1987), and therefore explanations of crime should not be deterministic and people should be seen as being responsible for their actions.
Political
  1. Crime is a real problem and especially to working-class people who suffer disproportionately from personal crime, such as robbery, assault, burglary and rape.
  2. The 'left' should attempt to develop a credible (populist?) approach to crime control in order to prevent the 'right' from having a monopoly of the 'crime problem'.
  3. The purpose of theorizing should be to make practical interventions into law and order issues.
  4. In order to reduce crime there is a need to achieve a higher level of cooperation between police and public, and this will be best achieved by a democratization of local control of the police." [1]

Break with left idealism

Left realism emerged from critical criminology taking issue with "the two major socialist currents in criminology since the war: reformism and left idealism", [2] criticising 'the moral panics of the mass media or the blatant denial of left idealism' [3]

Critique of establishment criminology

Writing years later, Jock Young summed up critical criminology's criticism of establishment criminology by saying

The essential flaw of establishment criminology is, of course, the attempt to explain crime without touching upon reality, constantly to distance explanation from basic social and economic problems of a divided society. [4]

Establishment of left realism

Left Realism set down a marker in the United Kingdom with the work of Lea and Young (1984) [5] as representative of a group of academics: Richard Kinsey, John Lea, Roger Matthews, Geoff Pearson, and Jock Young. The group saw themselves as facing up to the challenge thrown down by Ian Taylor in Law and Order: Arguments for Socialism for the left to take crime seriously.

In What is to be Done About Law and Order? (1986), Young and Lea set out three main policies of left realism:

Demarginalisation

"Realists would argue for alternatives to prison", they would advocate "measures such as community service orders, victim restitution schemes, and widespread release from prison" which would stop "the severance of the moral bond with the community. The institutions that are involved in controlling crime and criminals must epitomise justice" [6]

Pre-emptive deterrence

"Environmental and public precautions against crime are always dismissed by left idealists and reformers as not relating to the heart of the matter. Environmental and public precautions against crime distract us from the real concerns... On the contrary, the organisation of communities in an attempt to pre-empt crime is of the utmost importance" [6]

Minimal use of prison

"Prisons should only be used in those circumstances where there is extreme danger to the community... Life inside should be as free and as 'normal' as possible. Such a demand is not humanitarian idealism - it is based on the simple fact that the result of prison experience is to produce pitiful inadequates or hardened criminals" [6]

Left realism however, did not isolate itself completely from Critical Criminology. John Lea, for example, took issue with Stan Cohen's characterisation of retreating from previous theoretical gains. [7]

Theoretical contributions

Crime statistics and local victimization surveys

According to Young, "For Left Realism, the social survey is a democratic instrument: it gives a picture of consumer demand and satisfaction." [8]

Left realists argue that the national victimization research, such as the British Crime Survey, can be used to give an average risk rate that ignores the variations in crime between areas. Such studies can be used to view people's fear of crime as 'irrational'. According to Young, "The (local) victimization survey accurately provides a map of the problems of an area. Although based on public input, it delivers what any individual member of the public is ignorant of: that is how private problems are publicly distributed." [9]

Further more "at certain parts of the social structure, we have a compounding of social problems. If we were to draw up a map of the city outlining areas of high infant mortality, bad housing, unemployment, poor nutrition, etc., we would find that these maps would coincide and that further, the outline traced would correspond to those areas of high criminal victimization... Further, this compounding of social problems occurs against those who are more or less vulnerable because of their position in the social structure. That is, people who have the least power socially suffer most from crime." [9]

Left realists conducted local victimisation surveys in Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, Broadwater Farm and Merseyside.

Square of crime

One of left realism's most substantial contributions to criminology is the square of crime. Expanding on "The basic triangle of relations which is the proper subject-matter of criminology [is] - the offender, the state and the victim" (Young, 1986), Young proceeded to add the public (civil society) to this to create the four corners of a square, with the offender and victim at one side (the actors) and the state and civil society at the other (the reactors).

According to Young, "Any changes in one of these factors will affect the crime rate... The point here is that crime cannot be simply explained in terms of crime control agencies, and that the agencies involved in crime control are much wider than in the criminal justice system." [10]

Young continues, "The police-public relationship is central the interaction between all the parts is also important. For example, the police and agency response to victims greatly affects the actual impact of victimisation and in certain instances, such as rape and sexual assault, can even involve what has been termed 'secondary victimisation'. That is where the victim herself becomes further stigmatised by police and courts. All of this, particularly in terms of willingness (and wariness) to report to the police, affects the official crime rate and the possibilities of clear-up." [11]

Relative deprivation

Young (1994) argues that there is an aetiological crisis, i.e. there is a lack of explanation for the fact that reported crime rises during both economic good times and bad times. Aetiology assumes fundamental importance. If the cause of crime is injustice, then its solution must lie in this direction. If poor conditions cause crime, it must be impossible to prevent crime without changing these circumstances. Furthermore, it follows that it must be wrong to punish the offender for conditions beyond his or her control. This would be punishing the criminal and blaming the victim. The social democratic brand of positivism, although sensing that injustice was the root cause of crime, either deflected its attentions to purely individual deprivation (e.g. maternal deprivation, broken homes, etc.) or made the fundamental mistake of believing that ameliorating deprivation quantitatively in an absolute sense (e.g. raising standards of education, housing, etc.) would solve the problem of relative deprivation. Young distinguishes the structural approach of other Left-wing theorists, and posits that most crime is minor, amateurish, sporadic, and intra-class, i.e. committed by working class offenders on working class victims. He rejects the positivist view that unemployment or poverty causes crime, but prefers Merton's theory of anomie and Subcultural Theory which focus on the lack of opportunity to achieve social status and economic expectations: a lack most commonly felt by the most disadvantaged sections of the community. He believes that the majority of criminals hold conventional social values, reflecting the need to achieve material success or social status in a competitive society where sexism, racism, machismo and other ideological forms affect outcomes. Indeed, criminal behaviour could be characterised as the operation of capitalist principles, i.e. the investment of labour for a return, but in an illegitimate form.

For left realism, "Discontent is a product of relative, not absolute, deprivation... Sheer poverty, for example, does not necessarily lead to a subculture of discontent; it may, just as easily, lead to quiescence and fatalism. Discontent occurs when comparisons between comparable groups are made which suggest that unnecessary injustices are occurring... Exploitative cultures have existed for generations without extinction: it is the perception of injustice - relative deprivation - which counts." [12]

Young argues that relative deprivation is the most probable cause of criminality because people whose progress towards fulfilling expectations has stalled grow more aware of the injustice and unfairness in a society that allows inequality to arise, and this in turn breeds political disenchantment. At a societal level, this disenchantment may lead to rioting. At an individual level, theft and burglary may seem an appropriate means to redress the balance. This may be seen as an appropriate means of furthering the "just cause" to throw off oppression. Realists tend to not see crime as some form of revolutionary challenge to the ruling class. Rather, they say, crime is a reactionary form of behaviour which demonstrates the absence of real political solutions to the experience of degradation and exploitation suffered by the working class, thus making individual crime devoid of political agenda. The majority fear crime regardless of social class and wish to find ways of eliminating it so as to create a secure environment. This creates a "problem of order" for a government which has the political responsibility to maintain an orderly society, and is accountable to an electorate likely to find disorder and chaos high on their political agenda.

After the 1997 Labour Party victory

Criminologists such as Roger Hopkins Burke see left realism as 'very influential with the 'New' Labour Government elected in 1997' [13] suggesting that acts such as the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act which combined measures that ensured offenders had to take responsibility for their actions and policies to tackle social and economic exclusion. [14] However, whilst noting that social exclusion was "...a key term in the policies of New Labour", [15] Jock Young commented that they used the 'weak thesis' of social exclusion where such exclusion is self-imposed by a lazy and idle underclass, a value shared with the previous Conservative administration. [16]

Key articles

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice</span> Justice to those who have committed crimes

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions. Goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and the prisons system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate crime</span> Crimes committed either by a corporation or its representatives

In criminology, corporate crime refers to crimes committed either by a corporation, or by individuals acting on behalf of a corporation or other business entity. For the worst corporate crimes, corporations may face judicial dissolution, sometimes called the "corporate death penalty", which is a legal procedure in which a corporation is forced to dissolve or cease to exist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blue-collar crime</span> Criminal offenses committed by the lower social classes

In criminology, blue-collar crime is any crime committed by an individual from a lower social class as opposed to white-collar crime which is associated with crime committed by someone of a higher-level social class. While blue-collar crime has no official legal classification, it holds to a general net group of crimes. These crimes are primarily small scale, for immediate beneficial gain to the individual or group involved in them. This can also include personal related crimes that can be driven by immediate reaction, such as during fights or confrontations. These crimes include but are not limited to: Narcotic production or distribution, sexual assault, theft, burglary, assault or murder.

Articles related to criminology and law enforcement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminalization</span> Process of categorising acts as crimes

Criminalization or criminalisation, in criminology, is "the process by which behaviors and individuals are transformed into crime and criminals". Previously legal acts may be transformed into crimes by legislation or judicial decision. However, there is usually a formal presumption in the rules of statutory interpretation against the retrospective application of laws, and only the use of express words by the legislature may rebut this presumption. The power of judges to make new law and retrospectively criminalise behaviour is also discouraged. In a less overt way, where laws have not been strictly enforced, the acts prohibited by those laws may also undergo de facto criminalization through more effective or committed legal enforcement. The process of criminalization takes place through societal institutions including schools, the family, and the criminal justice system.

In the United States, the relationship between race and crime has been a topic of public controversy and scholarly debate for more than a century. Crime rates vary significantly between racial groups; a 2005 study by the American Journal of Public Health observed that the odds of perpetrating violence were 85% higher for blacks compared with whites, with Latino-perpetrated violence 10% lower. However, academic research indicates that the over-representation of some racial minorities in the criminal justice system can in part be explained by socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, exposure to poor neighborhoods, poor access to public and early education, and exposure to harmful chemicals and pollution. Racial housing segregation has also been linked to racial disparities in crime rates, as blacks have historically and to the present been prevented from moving into prosperous low-crime areas through actions of the government and private actors. Various explanations within criminology have been proposed for racial disparities in crime rates, including conflict theory, strain theory, general strain theory, social disorganization theory, macrostructural opportunity theory, social control theory, and subcultural theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Critical criminology</span> School of criminology

Critical criminology is a perspective in criminology that challenges traditional beliefs about crime and criminal justice, often by taking a conflict perspective such as Marxism, feminism, or critical theory. Critical criminology examines the genesis of crime and the nature of justice in relation to factors such as class and status, Law and the penal system are viewed as founded on social inequality and meant to perpetuate such inequality. Critical criminology also looks for possible biases in criminological research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental criminology</span>

Environmental criminology focuses on criminal patterns within particular built environments and analyzes the impacts of these external variables on people's cognitive behavior. It forms a part of criminology's Positivist School in that it applies the scientific method to examine the society that causes crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marxist criminology</span> School of criminology

Marxist criminology is one of the schools of criminology. It parallels the work of the structural functionalism school which focuses on what produces stability and continuity in society but, unlike the functionalists, it adopts a predefined political philosophy. As in conflict criminology, it focuses on why things change, identifying the disruptive forces in industrialized societies, and describing how society is divided by power, wealth, prestige, and the perceptions of the world. "The shape and character of the legal system in complex societies can be understood as deriving from the conflicts inherent in the structure of these societies which are stratified economically and politically". It is concerned with the causal relationships between society and crime, i.e. to establish a critical understanding of how the immediate and structural social environment gives rise to crime and criminogenic conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right realism</span>

Right realism, in criminology, also known as New Right Realism, Neo-Classicism, Neo-Positivism, or Neo-Conservatism, is the ideological polar opposite of left realism. It considers the phenomenon of crime from the perspective of political conservatism and asserts that it takes a more realistic view of the causes of crime and deviance, and identifies the best mechanisms for its control. Unlike the other schools of criminology, there is less emphasis on developing theories of causality in relation to crime and deviance. The school employs a rationalist, direct and scientific approach to policy-making for the prevention and control of crime. Some politicians who ascribe to the perspective may address aspects of crime policy in ideological terms by referring to freedom, justice, and responsibility. For example, they may be asserting that individual freedom should only be limited by a duty not to use force against others. This, however, does not reflect the genuine quality in the theoretical and academic work and the real contribution made to the nature of criminal behaviour by criminologists of the school.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rational choice theory (criminology)</span> Crime is based on rational choices

In criminology, rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that humans are reasoning actors who weigh means and ends, costs and benefits, in order to make a rational choice. This method was designed by Cornish and Clarke to assist in thinking about situational crime prevention.

John Lea is a British left realist criminologist. For many years he was based at the Centre for Criminology and the Crime and Conflict Research Centre, Middlesex University in the United Kingdom.

Jock Young was a British sociologist and an influential criminologist.

Ian Taylor was a British sociologist. He was born in Sheffield.

The National Deviancy Symposium consisted of a group of British criminologists dissatisfied with orthodox British criminology who met at the University of York in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The group included Paul Rock, David Downes, Laurie Taylor, Stan Cohen, Ian Taylor and Jock Young. Many members later became involved in critical criminology and/or Left realism.

Roger Matthews, was a British criminologist. He was a Professor of Criminology at the University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom. Prior to joining the University of Kent, he was a professor of criminology at London South Bank University and Middlesex University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural criminology</span> Anthropological view of crime

Cultural criminology is a subfield in the study of crime that focuses on the ways in which the "dynamics of meaning underpin every process in criminal justice, including the definition of crime itself." In other words, cultural criminology seeks to understand crime through the context of culture and cultural processes. Rather than representing a conclusive paradigm per se, this particular form of criminological analysis interweaves a broad range of perspectives that share a sensitivity to “image, meaning, and representation” to evaluate the convergence of cultural and criminal processes.

Radical criminology states that society "functions" in terms of the general interests of the ruling class rather than "society as a whole" and that while the potential for conflict is always present, it is continually neutralised by the power of a ruling class. Radical criminology is related to critical and conflict criminology in its focus on class struggle and its basis in Marxism. Radical criminologists consider crime to be a tool used by the ruling class. Laws are put into place by the elite and are then used to serve their interests at the peril of the lower classes. These laws regulate opposition to the elite and keep them in power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminology</span> Study of crime and criminal actions/behavior

Criminology is the interdisciplinary study of crime and deviant behaviour. Criminology is a multidisciplinary field in both the behavioural and social sciences, which draws primarily upon the research of sociologists, political scientists, economists, legal sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, psychiatrists, social workers, biologists, social anthropologists, scholars of law and jurisprudence, as well as the processes that define administration of justice and the criminal justice system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anarchist criminology</span>

Anarchist criminology is a school of thought in criminology that draws on influences and insights from anarchist theory and practice. Building on insights from anarchist theorists including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin, anarchist criminologists' approach to the causes of crime emphasises what they argue are the harmful effects of the state. Anarchist criminologists, a number of whom have produced work in the field since the 1970s, have critiqued the political underpinnings of criminology and emphasised the political significance of forms of crime not ordinarily considered to be political. Anarchists propose the abolition of the state; accordingly, anarchist criminologists tend to argue in favour of forms of non-state justice. The principles and arguments of anarchist criminology share certain features with those of Marxist criminology, critical criminology and other schools of thought within the discipline, while also differing in certain respects.

References

  1. ↑ Carlen, P. (1992) Criminal Women and Criminal Justice: The Limits to, and Potential of, Feminist and Left Realist Perspectives in Young, J & Matthews, R. Issues in Realist Criminology, Sage: London, pg. 56
  2. ↑ Young, J. (1979) Left idealism, reformism and beyond In: Fine, B et al. Capitalism and the Rule of Law, London: Hutchinson pg.11
  3. ↑ Lea, J. & Young, J. (1984) What is to be Done About: Law and Order?, Harmondsworth: Penguin pg. 264
  4. ↑ Young, J. (1997) "Forweword Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine " In: van Swaaningen, R. Critical Criminology: Visions from Europe, London: Sage Publications pg. xii
  5. ↑ Hopkins Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton:Willan Publishing pg.218
  6. 1 2 3 Lea, J. & Young, J. (1984) What is to be Done About: Law and Order?, Harmondsworth: Penguin pg. 266
  7. ↑ Lea, J. (1987) Left Realism: A Defense Archived 2012-07-22 at archive.today , Contemporary Crises No.11 pp 357-370
  8. ↑ Young, J. (1991) "Left Realism and the Priorities of Crime Control" In: Stenson, K. & Cowell, D. (eds) The Politics of Crime Control, London: Sage Publications pg.148
  9. 1 2 Young, J. (1991) "Left Realism and the Priorities of Crime Control" In: Stenson, K. & Cowell, D. (eds) The Politics of Crime Control, London: Sage Publications pg.149
  10. ↑ Young, J. (1991) "Left Realism and the Priorities of Crime Control" In: Stenson, K. & Cowell, D. (eds) The Politics of Crime Control, London: Sage Publications pg.152
  11. ↑ Young, J. (1991) "Left Realism and the Priorities of Crime Control" In: Stenson, K. & Cowell, D. (eds) The Politics of Crime Control, London: Sage Publications pg.153
  12. ↑ Lea, J. & Young, J. (1996) "Relative Deprivation" In: Muncie, J., MacLaughlin, E. & Langan, M. (eds) Criminological Perspectives - A Reader, London: Sage Publications, pg.136
  13. ↑ Hopkins Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton: Willan Publishing pg.228
  14. ↑ Hopkins Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton: Willan Publishing pg.229
  15. ↑ Young, J. (2002), "Crime and Social Exclusion" In The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd ed. Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, pg.457
  16. ↑ Young, J. (2002), "Crime and Social Exclusion" In The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd ed. Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.