Left and Right Perspectives Impact on Crime - Assignment Example

Running Head: LEFT AND RIGHT REALIST CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Left and Right Perspectives Impact on Crime By _________________ The ‘Realism’ criminology has no doubt changed the new generation views on crime, today the crime is considered as a social dilemma with different socialist views adopted from Marx, Durkheim and other political and neo political approaches. Both the theories ‘left realism’ and ‘right realism’ has the same roots of political consequences. Both considers ‘social inequality’ to be the main bone of contention behind increasing crime rates. What differs between left and right realism, the following review will explore, along with what impact these theories have made in crime. Left Realism Influence on Criminology Left Realism often termed, as ‘left Idealism’ possess the deep root of ‘Marxist’ criminological perspectives, which emphasizes upon the key factors that are responsible for the cause of crime. Emerged in the UK in 1984, it stresses on the political and social conditions of a capitalist society the onus, which it puts on the shoulder of ‘class system’. So far it has adopted various perceptions from socialist, feminist and post modernist theories. Thus left idealism analyses the crime from the perspective of social norms and class system and believes that in order to control crime from the society, the Government must improve working and economic conditions of the society. Like opportunities must be provided to the society in order to alleviate unemployment, however left realism can be best understood in the context of ‘inequality’, so it focuses on the causes of crime, thereby conducting crime surveys. Left realism defines crime as truly sociological concept. It does not exist as some autonomous entity but is socially constructed. While there is much agreement, what is regarded as crime also varies across time, place and people recognition of social and economic divisions, like a person’s labour, wealth and income play a key role in crime; gender and sexuality divisions (Carrabine et al, 2004, p. 5) Left realism constructs crime on the basis of collective group of individuals, who are not concerned about the consequences to be built after committing a crime. Left Realism upholds the main reason for why such group is not bothered about penalty, for such individuals belong to middle or lower class society who is deprived of necessities of life. Left realism wants to lift those causes that are responsible for the creation of such groups that eventually are not concerned about the consequences of committing crime. However, it is an odd irony that conflict analyses concerned about class and power differences for so long neglected the importance of gender despite their focus on social inequality. If, as conflict theory suggests, economic disadvantage is a primary cause of crime, why do women whose economic position is, on average, much worse than that of men commit far fewer crimes than men do? (Fennell et al, 1995, p. 94) The main loophole ‘Left Realism’ contains is that it does not blame the criminals for committing crime; rather it blames the UK society for creating such conditions, which exacerbate crime. The main target for it is the middle class people or those who walk in streets, as such people are deprived of economic benefits. According to Fennell et al, (1995) “The United Kingdom today faces a problem of crime, which could not possibly have been forecast at the end of the Second World War. Since then there has been a large increase in the number of crimes reported to the police. In 1950 approximately 500,000 crimes were reported. In 1950 approximately 500,000 crimes were reported. This figure rose to 1.6 million in 1970, 2.5 million in 1980 and 5.4 million in 1991” 1. The increasing rate of crime therefore caused UK younger criminologists to take initiatives regarding crime policies and so the crime perspectives started to be viewed from angles of offender. Partial theories of criminology were rejected; a new approach was adopted which focused on the impact, which a crime upholds on its victim. This involved mainly working class, as the main aim was to explore the social cause of crime. (Social, 2006a) With endangering offenses, criminal law was reshaped and merged into very complex subsystems of society such as the economic system and the natural environment. With all of this, investigative activities moved away from repression and toward prevention. The traditional role of criminal investigation was discarded as it was realised with the growing rate of crime that traditional method never remained successful in dealing with UK crime. Therefore, the impact that ‘left’ realism left on criminal explanations was triggered by changes in the larger society as well as in basic criminal law and crime policies. With the advent of the new investigative methods and policies, trial procedures adjusted accordingly. However, the traditional structure of the criminal procedure, the concept of defendants’ rights, and the customary balance of power as expressed in the relationship between police, public prosecutor, defense counsel, and the judiciary has been deeply affected during this process. (Barak, 2000, p. 44) The future of criminal policy seems to be influenced heavily by the rhetoric on organised crime. The concept of organised crime, indeed, is very influential in crime policy as it refers to the rational offender, to the homo economics, to whom economic theories of punishment may be applied. While during the 1960s and 1970s criminal policy was based on the concept of the maladapted or unsocialised offender, the 1990s presented the rational cost-calculating offender who behaves like any other businessman weighing the benefits and costs of different options of behaviour. Most probably, this model of the criminal offender has not only affected criminal law and sentencing decisions, but it has added significant effect on prison regimes. The model of the rational offender has also contributed to putting more weight on the efficiency model of criminal law as opposed to the justice model or to proportionality. This fits with arguments in policy debates stressing the need for amendments and reform in order to make criminal law more efficient. (2000, p. 44) Based on this concept of crime, the approach to punishment is either to exorcise the devil or exile or execute the wrongdoer. Punishment is inflicted in order to remove the stain of impurity from society or to prevent Right Realism Influence on Criminology Right realism, with roots in social control theory states opposing school of thoughts as that of left realism. The motive of right realism refers to a simple and straightforward ‘realism’ that holds the opinion that crime is committed as a crime, with no root causes. It is treated as an individual entity and unlike left realism leaves a ‘realistic’ impression upon ‘criminal activity’ according to which an offender is the culprit and should be treated according to law and order. He must be punished whatever be the consequences without putting the blame on anyone. Right realist upholds the perspective that it is the onus towards law and law holders to cover acts for which, an individual that is involved in committing crime would be held responsible and punished. An individual alone is responsible for whatever act he commits and should therefore be considered illegal under the provision of criminal behaviour. The right realism indicates a realist system used to regard every individual, which is held responsible exclusively for his actual share (Mannheim, 1955, p. 88). Therefore it highlights the measures adopted to reduce crime. As a result today’s sociological crime is more limited in a range of types of restoration, which is relevant to offenders. Offenders have generally not suffered property loss or injury as a result of their own crime, though sometimes loss or injury is a cause of the crime. Dignity, however, is generally in need of repair after the shame associated with arrest. When there is a victim who has been hurt, there is no dignity in denying that there is something to be ashamed about. Dignity is generally best restored by confronting the shame, accepting responsibility for the bad consequences suffered by the victim, and apologising with sincerity. A task of restorative justice is to institutionalise such restoration of dignity for offenders. (1955, p. 61) Criminal potential may be disaggregated into many different dimensions, some of which are probably different names for the same underlying construct. Descriptions such as antisocial, aggressive, or hostile seem essentially to refer to people with high criminal potential. Constructs such as low guilt, weak conscience, low self-control, high impulsivity, emotional coldness, callousness, low empathy, fearlessness, egocentricity self-centeredness, a poor ability to delay gratification, and a poor ability to manipulate abstract concepts seem more likely to be causes of high criminal potential. Obviously, it is important to establish the key underlying constructs that are linked to individual differences in offending behaviour. Criminal potential is likely to depend on energising, directing, and inhibiting processes (Farrington 1993). Energising processes are often based on needs: for money, excitement, status with peers, revenge, attention, pleasure, or sexual gratification; to demonstrate toughness; to reduce tension; to escape an unpleasant situation; and so on. Directing processes determine how a person aims to achieve these goals legally or by criminal or antisocial acts. Any resulting tendency to offend may be opposed by internal inhibitions such as conscience, guilt, or self-control. How the criminal potential becomes the actuality of the criminal act in any situation is likely to depend on cognitive (thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving) processes, as, for example, in the rational choice theory of Clarke and Cornish (1985). There can be individual differences in energising, directing, inhibiting, and cognitive processes, but in practice most of the relevant research focuses on inhibiting processes. One can never point out what Left and Right realist theories have proved, but what is accepted is the reshaped object of Criminology, these theories have presented, i.e., to study criminal behaviour and the physical, psychological and socio-economic factors behind it; how and why people commit crimes; the kind of crime they commit and the kind of people they are; and whether they, or at least some of them, can be grouped together in types. (Mannheim, 1955, p. 261) Crime problems will continue to become deeply culturally embedded in our UK society unless and until we feel a need to reinvent criminal justice as a process that restores a sense of procedural justice to offenders (Tyler 1990). References & Bibliography Barak Gregg, (2000) Crime and Crime Control: A Global View: Greenwood Press: Westport, CT. Carrabine Eamonn, Iganski Paul, Lee Maggy, Plummer Ken & South Nigel, (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction: Routledge: New York. Cruickshank Justin, (2002) Realism and Sociology: Anti-Foundationalism, Ontology, and Social Research: Routledge: London. Farrington, David P. 1993. “Understanding and Preventing Bullying” In: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 17, edited by Michael Tonry: University of Chicago Press. Fennell Phil, Harding Christopher, Jorg Nico & Swart Bert, (1995) Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study: Clarendon Press: Oxford. Mannheim Hermann, (1955) Group Problems in Crime and Punishment: And Other Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law: Routledge & Kegan Paul: London. Taylor Ian, Walton Paul & Young Jock, (1988) The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance: Routledge: London. Tyler, Tom R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Social 2006a, Accessed from Read More