Curtailing and Preventing Crime - Essay Example

Realist Theories Criminology is an ever expanding field of knowledge, the efforts towards understanding; curtailing and preventing crime has been as varied as the various theories about crime and criminality that abounds. In this respect, several opinions have been proffered as what constitutes crime and what does not, or the intent and motivations behind criminality. One such definition of crime that subsumes a wide range of theoretical perspectives could be seen from Clarke and Cornish (1985) assertion that "...crime is purposive behavior designed to meet the offender's commonplace needs for such things as money, status, sex, excitement, and that meeting these needs involves the making of decisions and choices, constrained as they are by limits of time and ability and the availability of relevant information." Thus, from this perspective, offenders are believed to make decisions that appear rational (at least to themselves) to engage in specific criminal acts. Of the numerous criminology theories that have been propounded over the centuries, the 'realist' theories grew out of the desire to shift attention from theoretical rumblings, and as the name suggests, take a more realistic, practical and proactive steps towards combating crime. The right and left realist theories could be seen as ideological polar opposites, that though, share the similarity of intention to combat crime practically, still took varying approaches to what constitutes crime and what could be considered as appropriate solutions to criminality (Matthews and Young, 1992). Right Realism The Right Realism Theory, also known as New Right Realism, Neo-Classicism or Neo-Positivism, considers the phenomenon of crime from the perspective of political Conservatism. It argues that its views takes a more realistic view of the causes of crime and deviance, and identifies the best mechanisms for crime control. The theory has its origins in Control Theory and, as such, it is related to the functionalist theories of crime. In this model it is argued that fundamental types of control exist: i. Direct Control: by which punishment is threatened or applied for wrongful behaviour, and compliance is rewarded by parents, family, and authority figures. ii. Indirect Control: by which a youth refrains from delinquency because his or her delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment to parents and others with whom he or she has close relationships. iii. Internal Control: by which a person's conscience or sense of guilt prevents him or her from engaging in delinquent acts (Lowman and MacLean, 1992). The main focus of the right realist is the control and prevention of criminal behaviours. The right realist believes that criminals must be prevented from breaking criminal laws, with appropriate social structures, such as zero police tolerance, and if crime is committed, the offender should be severely penalized, to serve as deterrence (Akers, 1990). The major point of variance of the right realist theory from other criminology theories is that unlike most of the other theories, the right realist does not concern himself with the exploration of the concepts of power and structures in the society, or with the cumbersome scientific process of developing or investigating the role of causality (i.e. causes), in relation to crime and deviance. There is thus, an over dependence on official statistics of criminality and crime rates, as evidences for policy making. The right realist therefore adopts the language of "realism" to describe the lawmaking process, instead of addressing the causes of the "crimes" being created. James Q. Wilson who was President Regan's adviser on crime, for example, rejects the idea that crime has "root causes" that can be found in the structural contexts of people's lives (Clarke and Cornish 1985; Lowman and MacLean, 1992). In rejecting the basis of the several structural explanation of crime, the right realist thus turns to cultural and social explanations for criminality. They see crime as a result of decline in family values or social bonds. In this regards, the realist advocates the allocation of resources to the education system to strengthen adherence to moral values. This would be seen as an informal and internal approach to control to further strengthen the formal and external controls through lawmaking and enforcement through policing (Lowman and MacLean, 1992). The major defect of the right realist theory is its obvious ignorance of corporate crime, white collar crime, political or state crimes, which happen to cause more havoc that the over-blown neighbourhood violence. Also, the theory seems to be reacting to the phenomenon of crime and seeking to prevent it without a substantial body of empirical evidence as to whether patterns of offending are related to age, gender, race, location, social class, etc. nor providing any research into metrics of success or failure for proactive policing and education as a system for imparting values. It also accepts the utilitarian idea that people act rationally without considering why people may choose to break the law. It also tend to be more of a political tool in preventing the rich and shifting much of blames about crimes to the week and poor, thus serving the capitalist agenda Left Realism The left realist theory, on the other hand grew as a sort of reaction to the over dominance of the right realist in the discourse about law and order. It was as a result of the perceived failure of the left to take a centre stage in everyday crime control. The left realist theory was born from Marxist criminology, conflict criminology and radical criminology and therefore constitutes a blend of contributions from all of these perspectives (DeKeseredy et al, 1997). In sharp contrast to the right, left realist focuses on white collar crimes, corporate crimes, state and political crimes. It divorces itself from the common perspective of criminality, since it appears to de-emphasis the role of the individual in crime, instead placing the bulk of the fault on structural process of the society and hence, social order. Apparently, the meeting point for the two realist theories is their common ground that social structures, especially family values and social order play vital roles in criminality and deviance behaviours (Young 1997) Placing the burden of crime and deviance behaviour on the societal structure, Young (1997) argue that relative deprivation is the most probable cause of crime. He further explained that people whose progress towards goals and fulfillment are stalled become more aware of the injustice and fairness in the society. This could breed political disenchantment. Crime in this instance could be a reactionary behaviour to the perceived absence of social solutions to deprivation and exploitation suffered by the weak and poor in the society. The left realist theory shares similar weakness with the right, in that it also seeks to control crime with empirical body of evidences pointing to whether patterns of crime are actually due to societal structures or related to such factors as location, age, race, social class etc. Although, unlike, the right, the left realist takes a more serious look into the impart of white collar crime, state and political crimes, its complete shift from individual factors motivating crime and deviance, fails to acknowledge the role of irrational thinking peer pressures or other personal factors determining criminal behaviours (De Keseredy et al, 1997). The strength of both realist theories can be found in the proactive approach to crime control they propose, as opposed to the reactive stance of most criminology theories. However, since no single theory is capable of satisfactorily and completely explaining the phenomenon of criminality, each theory thus, comes with its shortcomings and strengths. Reference Akers, Ronald L. (1990). "Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory: The Path Not Taken". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 81(3), 653-676. Clarke, Ronald V. and Cornish, D. B. (1985). "Modelling Offenders' Decisions: A Framework for Policy and Research" in Crime and Justice. Vol. 6. Tonry, M. & Morris, N. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DeKeseredy, W; MacLean, B & Schwartz, M. (1997). "Thinking Critically About Left Realism" in Thinking Critically About Crime. MacLean, B & Milovanovic, D. (eds.). Vancouver: Collective Press. Lowman, J & MacLean, J (eds.). (1992). Realist Criminology: Crime Control and Policing in the 1990s. Toronto: University of Toronto. Matthews, Roger & Young, Jock. (eds.). (1992) Rethinking Criminology: The Realist Debate. (Sage Contemporary Criminology). London: Sage. Wilson, James Q. (1975). Thinking About Crime. New York: Vintage (revised ed.). Young, Jock. (1997), "Left Realism: The Basics" in Thinking Critically About Crime. MacLean, B & Milovanovic, D. (eds.). Vancouver: Collective Press. Read More