Right Realism Wilson (1975) challenges mainstream criminology for being based on ideology rather than facts. He
argues that the morals of society must be upheld, so trying to understand and justify criminality is
not desirable.
He suggests that there long-term trends in crime is down to three factors:
1) Young males are the group most likely to commit crime – shifts in the age-structure of the population will increase or decrease
the crime rate.
2) There may be changes in the benefits and the costs of crime at different times, due to accessibility, the economy, the rate of
jobs, etc.
3) Broad social and cultural changes in society may influence norms and values which may affect the extent to which ‘at risk’
individuals are tempted into deviance or are willing to conform.
Wilson argues that these factors are largely uncontrollable – no government can actually prevent crime.
• He does not believe that poverty is the root cause of crime because many poor people do not commit crime. Therefore
attempts to redistribute wealth are costly, unfair and will do little to reduce crime.
• Crime can only be addressed by enforcing the law.
• Wilson places less emphasis on the severity of punishment and more stress on the certainty of capture:
IF A CRIMINAL DOES NOT BELIEVE HE WILL BE CAUGHT, THE PUNISHMENT IS IRRELEVANT AS A DETERRENT.
The environment plays a key role in creating a ‘culture’ of order and acceptable behaviour.
If social order is maintained, individuals will not be tempted to participate in deviant behaviour. If the
police are visibly clamping down on crime, a culture will be created where other residents also report
crime.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) argue that the community will change its behaviour in the face of low level disorder
and not get involved. This means that crime will start to flourish, with no one to challenge it. This can lead to
the development of urban decay.
Once an area has a criminal culture there is little point trying to police it. Police should spend efforts elsewhere where they can
make a difference. Areas at the tipping point should be identified, where order can be restored with a visible police presence.
Clarke (1980) à Criminality is a conscious choice. The criminal opportunities available and the likelihood and the potential
consequences of being caught are significant factors affecting criminality.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) - Broken Windows theory à When a derelict building has one broken window, the others will soon
follow. When people identify a building or property as derelict and uncared for, they will see it as acceptable to further vandalise it.
Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) emphasise that there is a biological element to criminal behaviour. ‘Criminal’ traits in some
individuals will be heightened if they lack proper socialisation.
RIGHT REALIST POLICIES ON CRIME REDUCTION
PREVENTION PUNISHMENT
Right realists focus on making crime more difficult to commit Right-wing criminologists generally favour harsh sentences.
and making capture and punishment more likely. Longer prison sentences and harsher prison regimes have been
Situational and Environmental crime prevention popular policies in recent years.
Situational à specific measures making particular crimes The ‘three-strikes’ and you’re out policy involves life
harder to commit or capture more likely. imprisonment with no parole for a third offense- this policy has
E.g. target hardening - increasing the security surrounding the contributed to the quadrupling of the US prison population.
‘targets’ of crime e.g. houses, cars, etc, by installing alarms and A key role in harsh penalties lies in the shaming and
better locks and encouraging safer practices. stigmatisation of the behaviour which acts as a form of public
Clarke (1980) reported that theft from telephone boxes were denunciation.
virtually eliminated when aluminium coin boxes were replaced Wilson (1975) argues that the certainty of capture is more of a
with steel ones which were harder to break into. deterrent than the harshness of the sentence.
Environmental à Wider measures which can make any deviant
behaviour less likely. CONTROL
E.g. the design of public housing estates and town centres, Policing, order maintenance and zero tolerance
street lighting and the use of CCTV. Wilson and Kelling (1982) emphasise prioritising the police’s role
Right realists focus on the concept of ‘defensible space’. Public in ’order maintenance’ e.g. increasing foot patrol.
areas are the most vulnerable to crime since no-one has direct Police should focus more on preventing crime than catching
responsibility for them and surveillance and control is more criminals – this will save money and reduce crime.
difficult. ‘Zero tolerance policing’ is the aggressive policing of minor and
Improved lighting has a significant effect on crime reduction – anti-social crime to show that it is not tolerated – this reinforces
both directly by making deviant activities more visible, and norms and values and the certainty of capture.
indirectly by encouraging people out onto the streets since The welfare state and the family
they feel safer, reducing criminal opportunities. New Right - Murray said that over-generous benefits encourage
Painter and Farrington (1999) showed that crime decreased by ‘feckless’ behaviour and prevent individuals from taking
43% in the area where street—lighting was improved. responsibility. He argues benefits should be cut, and if families
cannot afford to raise children, they should be adopted.
argues that the morals of society must be upheld, so trying to understand and justify criminality is
not desirable.
He suggests that there long-term trends in crime is down to three factors:
1) Young males are the group most likely to commit crime – shifts in the age-structure of the population will increase or decrease
the crime rate.
2) There may be changes in the benefits and the costs of crime at different times, due to accessibility, the economy, the rate of
jobs, etc.
3) Broad social and cultural changes in society may influence norms and values which may affect the extent to which ‘at risk’
individuals are tempted into deviance or are willing to conform.
Wilson argues that these factors are largely uncontrollable – no government can actually prevent crime.
• He does not believe that poverty is the root cause of crime because many poor people do not commit crime. Therefore
attempts to redistribute wealth are costly, unfair and will do little to reduce crime.
• Crime can only be addressed by enforcing the law.
• Wilson places less emphasis on the severity of punishment and more stress on the certainty of capture:
IF A CRIMINAL DOES NOT BELIEVE HE WILL BE CAUGHT, THE PUNISHMENT IS IRRELEVANT AS A DETERRENT.
The environment plays a key role in creating a ‘culture’ of order and acceptable behaviour.
If social order is maintained, individuals will not be tempted to participate in deviant behaviour. If the
police are visibly clamping down on crime, a culture will be created where other residents also report
crime.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) argue that the community will change its behaviour in the face of low level disorder
and not get involved. This means that crime will start to flourish, with no one to challenge it. This can lead to
the development of urban decay.
Once an area has a criminal culture there is little point trying to police it. Police should spend efforts elsewhere where they can
make a difference. Areas at the tipping point should be identified, where order can be restored with a visible police presence.
Clarke (1980) à Criminality is a conscious choice. The criminal opportunities available and the likelihood and the potential
consequences of being caught are significant factors affecting criminality.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) - Broken Windows theory à When a derelict building has one broken window, the others will soon
follow. When people identify a building or property as derelict and uncared for, they will see it as acceptable to further vandalise it.
Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) emphasise that there is a biological element to criminal behaviour. ‘Criminal’ traits in some
individuals will be heightened if they lack proper socialisation.
RIGHT REALIST POLICIES ON CRIME REDUCTION
PREVENTION PUNISHMENT
Right realists focus on making crime more difficult to commit Right-wing criminologists generally favour harsh sentences.
and making capture and punishment more likely. Longer prison sentences and harsher prison regimes have been
Situational and Environmental crime prevention popular policies in recent years.
Situational à specific measures making particular crimes The ‘three-strikes’ and you’re out policy involves life
harder to commit or capture more likely. imprisonment with no parole for a third offense- this policy has
E.g. target hardening - increasing the security surrounding the contributed to the quadrupling of the US prison population.
‘targets’ of crime e.g. houses, cars, etc, by installing alarms and A key role in harsh penalties lies in the shaming and
better locks and encouraging safer practices. stigmatisation of the behaviour which acts as a form of public
Clarke (1980) reported that theft from telephone boxes were denunciation.
virtually eliminated when aluminium coin boxes were replaced Wilson (1975) argues that the certainty of capture is more of a
with steel ones which were harder to break into. deterrent than the harshness of the sentence.
Environmental à Wider measures which can make any deviant
behaviour less likely. CONTROL
E.g. the design of public housing estates and town centres, Policing, order maintenance and zero tolerance
street lighting and the use of CCTV. Wilson and Kelling (1982) emphasise prioritising the police’s role
Right realists focus on the concept of ‘defensible space’. Public in ’order maintenance’ e.g. increasing foot patrol.
areas are the most vulnerable to crime since no-one has direct Police should focus more on preventing crime than catching
responsibility for them and surveillance and control is more criminals – this will save money and reduce crime.
difficult. ‘Zero tolerance policing’ is the aggressive policing of minor and
Improved lighting has a significant effect on crime reduction – anti-social crime to show that it is not tolerated – this reinforces
both directly by making deviant activities more visible, and norms and values and the certainty of capture.
indirectly by encouraging people out onto the streets since The welfare state and the family
they feel safer, reducing criminal opportunities. New Right - Murray said that over-generous benefits encourage
Painter and Farrington (1999) showed that crime decreased by ‘feckless’ behaviour and prevent individuals from taking
43% in the area where street—lighting was improved. responsibility. He argues benefits should be cut, and if families
cannot afford to raise children, they should be adopted.
