Right Realism:
RR sees crime as a real, growing problem that destroys communities, undermines
social cohesion and threatens the work ethic of society. Its main theorist was James
Q. Wilson, special adviser on crime to Ronald Reagan, and it has provided
justification for widely adopted policies such as zero tolerance.
RR views correspond closely with those of neo-conservative governments in the 70s
and 80s. They argued that ‘nothing works’, and criminologists and other sociologists
fail to offer workable solutions to curb the rising crime rate.
It provides the view that a tough stance towards offenders and that the best way to
reduce crime was through control and punishment. They are less concerned to
understand the causes of crime, and more concerned with providing realistic
solutions.
They argue crime is the result of three factors: individual biological differences, inadequate
socialisation and the individual’s rational choice to offend.
Biological Differences:
Wilson and Hernstein (1985) put forward a biosocial theory, where crime is caused
by a combination of biological and social factors. Biological differences make some
people innately strongly predisposed to commit crime than others. Traits such as
aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low impulse control put some people at
greater risk of offend.
Hernstein and Murray (1994) argue the main cause of crime is low intelligence.
Socialisation and the Underclass:
For RRs, the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear family.
Murray (1990) argues crime is increasing due to a growing underclass (’new rabble’)
who are defined by their deviant behaviour. Its led to a decline in marriage and rising
lone parent families as women and children can live off benefits. Absent fathers
mean boys lack paternal discipline.
Bennett et al (1996): ‘growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal
adults in a practically perfect criminogenic environment- that is, [one] that seems
almost consciously designed to produce vicious, predatory, unrepentant street
criminals.’
Rational choice theory:
Clarke (1980) argues that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a
rational calculation of the likely consequences. If the perceived rewards of crime
outweigh the perceived costs of crime, people will be more likely to offend.
RRs argue the perceived costs of crime are low and this is why the crime rate has
increased.
Wilson (1975) argues that ‘if the supply and value of legitimate opportunities was
declining at the very time that the cost of illegitimate opportunities was also
RR sees crime as a real, growing problem that destroys communities, undermines
social cohesion and threatens the work ethic of society. Its main theorist was James
Q. Wilson, special adviser on crime to Ronald Reagan, and it has provided
justification for widely adopted policies such as zero tolerance.
RR views correspond closely with those of neo-conservative governments in the 70s
and 80s. They argued that ‘nothing works’, and criminologists and other sociologists
fail to offer workable solutions to curb the rising crime rate.
It provides the view that a tough stance towards offenders and that the best way to
reduce crime was through control and punishment. They are less concerned to
understand the causes of crime, and more concerned with providing realistic
solutions.
They argue crime is the result of three factors: individual biological differences, inadequate
socialisation and the individual’s rational choice to offend.
Biological Differences:
Wilson and Hernstein (1985) put forward a biosocial theory, where crime is caused
by a combination of biological and social factors. Biological differences make some
people innately strongly predisposed to commit crime than others. Traits such as
aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low impulse control put some people at
greater risk of offend.
Hernstein and Murray (1994) argue the main cause of crime is low intelligence.
Socialisation and the Underclass:
For RRs, the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear family.
Murray (1990) argues crime is increasing due to a growing underclass (’new rabble’)
who are defined by their deviant behaviour. Its led to a decline in marriage and rising
lone parent families as women and children can live off benefits. Absent fathers
mean boys lack paternal discipline.
Bennett et al (1996): ‘growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal
adults in a practically perfect criminogenic environment- that is, [one] that seems
almost consciously designed to produce vicious, predatory, unrepentant street
criminals.’
Rational choice theory:
Clarke (1980) argues that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a
rational calculation of the likely consequences. If the perceived rewards of crime
outweigh the perceived costs of crime, people will be more likely to offend.
RRs argue the perceived costs of crime are low and this is why the crime rate has
increased.
Wilson (1975) argues that ‘if the supply and value of legitimate opportunities was
declining at the very time that the cost of illegitimate opportunities was also
