Right Realism (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Right realist theories of crime

• Unlike interactionists, realists see crime as a real, growing problem that:

  • destroys communities

  • undermines social cohesion

  • threatens morality

• Right realism emerged in the 1970s–1980s during rising crime rates in the UK/USA

• It is associated with New Right politics (e.g., Thatcher and Reagan) and 'get tough' policies, such as harsher punishments and less welfare support

• Right realists reject theories like labelling or critical criminology, which they see as too sympathetic to criminals and hostile to law enforcement

Causes of crime

• Right realists reject Marxist/structural explanations that factors such as poverty and inequality are the cause of crime

• They argue that crime is explained by four main factors:

  • Biological differences

  • Inadequate socialisation

  • Rational choice

  • Weak social controls

Biological differences

• Wilson & Herrnstein (1985) proposed a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour whereby crime is caused by both biological and social factors

• Some people are predisposed to crime due to personality traits like impulsivity or aggression

• Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argue that low intelligence is a key cause of crime, which is seen as largely biologically determined

Socialisation & the underclass

• Features of the underclass:

  • 'Problem families' on inner-city estates who pass on criminal values and dependency on benefits to their children

  • Typically, lone-parent families headed by single mothers

  • Boys without a stable father figure may lack discipline, be drawn to negative role models, and turn to gangs or street crime to gain status

• Effective socialisation teaches children self-control and moral values; without it, crime becomes more likely

• For right realists like Murray (1990), the nuclear family is the best agency of socialisation

• Murray argues that the growth of the underclass, fuelled by welfare dependency, has led to rising crime rates

Rational choice theory

• Cornish and Clarke (1986) argue that criminals have free will and choose to commit a crime

• Crime is a rational choice where people weigh up rewards vs. risks

• If risks (being caught and punished) are low and rewards (material success) are high, crime increases

• Felson (1998) argues that crime rises when:

  • policing is weak (low chance of being caught)

  • community controls break down (people are too scared to intervene)

  • punishments are too lenient (prison is not a deterrent)

• Wilson and Kelling (1982), in their 'broken windows' theory, focus on the decline of community in inner-city areas:

  • Neglecting minor signs of disorder (e.g., graffiti, vandalism) signals the collapse of social control

  • This encourages more serious crime and the decline of the community

Control theory

• Hirschi's (1969) control theory suggests that people do not commit a crime because they have too much to lose

• Four key controls prevent deviance:

  • Attachment – fear of losing family/relationships.

  • Commitment – fear of losing jobs, houses, and lifestyles

  • Involvement – strong ties to community and reputation

  • Belief – respect for laws and shared values

• Those with weak controls (e.g., the underclass, young people) are more likely to commit a crime

• People acquire control in their lives as they get older and settle down

Right-realism & social policy

• Right realism has strongly influenced UK crime policies since the 1990s and shaped approaches in the USA

• Their solutions emphasise control, containment, and punishment of offenders rather than tackling root causes such as inequality

Tackling crime

• Crime prevention should reduce the rewards and increase the costs of crime

• The focus is on deterrence and surveillance, not offender rehabilitation

Zero tolerance policing

• Wilson & Kelling's (1982) 'broken windows theory' argues that:

  • disorder (graffiti, vandalism, begging) signals the collapse of community control

  • cracking down on minor offences prevents escalation to serious crime

• The theory advocates zero tolerance policing of even 'low-level' deviance, e.g., prostitution, begging, and drunkenness

Three strikes rule

• Van Den Haag (1994) called for tougher laws and longer sentences to deter offenders, especially the poor

• Over half of US States (since 1994) have adopted the three strikes laws, which include mandatory harsh sentences for repeat offenders

Designing out crime

• Home Office criminologists developed 'target hardening' strategies to make crime riskier and less rewarding

• These strategies include more surveillance (e.g., CCTV), stronger locks and visible policing to increase the risks of being caught

• Critics argue this shifts responsibility onto potential victims rather than addressing offender behaviour

Evaluation of right realism

Strengths

• Practical focus

  • Provides clear, implementable policies like target hardening and zero tolerance policing

    Appeals to public concern about street crime and anti-social behaviour

• Evidence to support

  • Supporters of zero tolerance policing claim that it achieved a huge reduction in crime after it was introduced in New York in 1994

  • This example is often used by governments as justification for tougher policing strategies

• Explains some crime

  • Rational choice theory explains opportunistic crimes such as theft and burglary

  • Control theory shows how strong bonds (family, work, and community) reduce deviance

Criticisms

• Too deterministic

  • Biological theories exaggerate the role of intelligence and ignore free will

  • Assumes certain groups are naturally predisposed to crime

• Fails to consider structural causes of crime

  • Murray’s 'underclass' theory is criticised by labelling theorists for scapegoating the poor and long-term unemployed

  • Encourages heavy surveillance and negative treatment of this social group

• Ignores wider causes

  • Neglects poverty, inequality, unemployment, and global factors beyond individual control, e.g., economic recession

  • Focuses mainly on street crime, ignoring white-collar and corporate crime

• Problems with effectiveness of zero tolerance

  • Crime may be displaced to other areas rather than genuinely reduced

  • Young (2011) claimed New York’s zero tolerance success was a myth — crime had already been falling since the mid-1980s, even in cities without this policy

• Problems with fairness

  • Focuses on petty offences while ignoring serious harms like corporate crime

  • Gives police wide discretion, which can lead to discriminatory practices (e.g., disproportionate stop and search of minorities, youth, and homeless people)