Topic 4 - Left realism

Like Marxists, see society as uneq cap. Unlike Marxists, reformist rather than revolutionary. Belive in grad change. Believe need explanations of crime that will -> practical strategies for reducing it now, rather than waiting for revolution + classless society to abolish crime - may never happen.

Accuse other theories not taking it seriously:
 - Marxists - concentrated on crime of powerful - neglects w/c crime + its effects.
 - Neo-Marxists - romanticise w/c criminals as Robin Hoods - w/c criminals mostly victimise other w/c people, not the rich.
 - Labelling theorists - see w/c criminals as victims of discrimation - LRs argue appriach neglects real civtims - w/c who suffer at hands of criminals.

Aetiological crisis - recognise from 1950s, increase in crime. Young (2011) argues -> aetiological crisis - crisis in explanation. Eg some deny increase real - argue result of increased reporting etc. LRs - more reporting crime b/c more were actually falling victim. 

Deprivation itself not directly responsible - 1930s poverty high, crime low. LRs - Runciman's (1966) relative dep - how deprives someone feels in relation to others can -> crime when resent others unfairly having more, resort to crime to obtain what feel entitled to.

Lea + Young explain paradox today's society more crime-ridden - people better off, more aware of relative deprivation due to media - can't afford them, resort to crime.

Deprivation alone doesn't -> crime - combo RD + individualism. LRs - increasing individualism causing disintegration of families by undermining values of mutual support based on. Weakens informal controls, creates spiral of anti-social behaviour + crime.

Diff groups may produce diff subcultural solutions to problem of RD. Some may turn to crime to close 'dep gap', other may find religion offers spiritual comfort. 

LRs - criminal subcultures subscribe to values + goals of mainstream society eg materialism, just achieve in diff ways.

Marginalised groups lack clear goals + org to represent interests. Unemployed youth marginalised. No org to represent them, no clear goals - only sense of resentment + frustration. Being powerless to use political means to improve position, express frustration through criminal means eg violence + rioting.

Young (2002) - now living in late modernity, instability, insecurity + exclusion make problem of crime worse. Contrasts today's society w/ period preceding - argues 1950s + 60s 'Golden Age' modern cap society.

De-industrialisation, loss of unskilled jobs increased unemployment. Changes destabilised family + community life, along w/ NR gov policies to hold back welfare spending. Contributed to exclusion of those at bottom. Greater ineq b/ween rich + poor + spread of free market values encouraging individualism have increased sense of RD. Growing contrast b/ween cultural inclusion + econ exclusion:
 - media-saturated late modern society promotes cultural inclusion
 - greater emphasis on leisure + immediate gratification -> higher expectations of 'good life
 - despite ideology of meritocracy, poor denied opps to gain 'glittering prizes of wealthy society'

Result of exclusion - amount + types of crimes changing - crime found increasingly throughout social structure, not just at bottom.

Young (2011) - 1st crisis - failure of existing theories to explain crime increase. But since 1990s, crime rate fallen - problem for realist explanations, b/c suggests crime no longer major threat they originally claimed.

Young notes crime social construction, may continue to be seen as problem. 

Since 1990s, govs aimed to control widening range of behaviours, intro'd ASBOs etc. Measures have key feaures:
 - blurring boundaries of crime
 - subjective def
 - flexibility

Crime rate going down, but govs created new 'crime' wave to replace it.

Lea + Young (1986) - police clear-up rates too low to act as deterrent. Public must become more involved in determining police's priorities + style of policing.

Military policing - police depend on public to provide them w/ info about crimes, but losing public support, -> flow of info drying up, rely on military policing eg 'swamping' an area + using random stop + search tactics.

LRs - policing must be made accountable to local communities + deal w/ local concerns. Police need to improve relationship w/ local communities. Also argue crime control can't be left to police alone - need multi-agency approach - using local councils' services + public etc.

LRs - causes of crime in uneq society structure - major changes needed. Deal w/ uneq of opp + unfairness of rewards, tackle discrimination etx. More tolerant of diversity, stop stereotyping whole groups as criminal.

LRs more influence on gov policy than most crime theorists. 1997-2010 New Labour gov similarities. 

Eg New Labour's firmer approach to policing hate crimes etc + ASBOs similar to LR concerns to protect vulnerable groups from crime + low-level disorder.

Interactionists argue b/c rely on quantitative data - victim surveys, can't explain offenders' motives.

Use of subcultural theory means LRs assume value consensus exists + crime only occurs wen this breaks down.

Similarities: both see crime as real problem, fear of crime rational.

Diffs: come from diff ends political spectrum: RRs - neo-conservatives, LRs reformist socialists. Reflected in how explain crime - RRs - lack of self control, LRs - structural ineqs.