You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Realist approaches to crime emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a deliberate reaction against what their proponents regarded as the failure of earlier theories to treat crime as a real social problem. Functionalism had described crime as functional; labelling theory had treated it as a social construction; critical (neo-Marxist) criminology had, in the realists' view, romanticised the offender as a quasi-political rebel. All three, the realists argued, lost sight of the plain fact that crime causes genuine harm and that its principal victims are the poor and the vulnerable. Both right realism and left realism therefore take crime seriously and demand practical policies of crime prevention. Yet despite this shared starting point they diverge sharply: they offer opposed diagnoses of the causes of crime and opposed prescriptions for its control. This lesson examines each in turn — right realism (Wilson, Kelling, Murray, Clarke) and left realism (Lea, Young, Matthews) — before a full comparative evaluation.
Key Definition: Realism in criminology denotes approaches that treat crime as a real and serious problem with real victims, requiring practical, evidence-based solutions, rather than treating it primarily as a social construction (interactionism) or as a symptom of social structure to be resolved only by transforming society (traditional Marxism).
This lesson addresses the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) Paper 3: Crime and Deviance specification requirement that students understand right realist and left realist theories of crime and deviance and their implications for crime control, prevention and punishment and the role of the state and social policy. Realism connects the theoretical content of Paper 3 to applied debates on policing and crime reduction, and it functions as a contemporary evaluative counterpoint to functionalist, subcultural, interactionist and Marxist approaches.
Right realism arose in the United States and Britain in the 1980s, closely associated with the New Right and the politics of the period. Its proponents reject structural explanations that attribute crime to poverty and inequality — partly because, they observe, crime rose during the post-war decades even as living standards improved, which they take as evidence that material deprivation cannot be the principal cause. Right realism is less a single theory than a cluster of overlapping claims, locating the causes of crime in biological predisposition, inadequate socialisation and, above all, the rational choices of offenders. Its orientation is deliberately practical and policy-focused: right realists are sceptical that the "root causes" favoured by structural theorists can be addressed, and argue that the proper task of criminology is to devise measures that reduce crime here and now by controlling offenders and reducing opportunities.
James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein (1985) put forward a biosocial theory of crime, arguing that biological differences between individuals — in traits such as low intelligence, impulsivity and aggression — make some people innately more predisposed to offend. They were careful to argue that biology is not destiny: these predispositions interact with socialisation, and effective socialisation, especially within the family, can teach self-control and restrain anti-social tendencies. Crime becomes more likely where a biological predisposition meets inadequate socialisation. This strand of right realism dovetails with Murray's argument about the family (below): if effective socialisation is the key restraint on innate anti-social tendencies, then the decline of the two-parent family is, for right realists, a primary driver of rising crime. The biosocial argument is, however, among the most heavily criticised elements of right realism, attacked both for the weakness of the evidence linking biology to crime and for its ideological implications.
James Q. Wilson and George Kelling (1982) advanced the influential "broken windows" thesis: visible signs of disorder in a neighbourhood — broken windows left unrepaired, graffiti, litter, aggressive begging — signal that "no one cares", that informal controls have collapsed, and that deviance will go unchallenged. The argued sequence runs:
Their prescription is zero-tolerance policing: the rigorous enforcement of laws against minor offences and disorder so as to forestall the slide into serious crime, coupled with order maintenance to restore informal control.
Key Definition: Zero-tolerance policing is a strategy of rigorously enforcing the law against minor offences and signs of disorder (vandalism, fare evasion, public drinking) in order to prevent more serious crime from taking hold.
The New York case is the most cited application: in the 1990s, under Commissioner William Bratton and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the city combined order-maintenance policing with other reforms, and recorded crime fell substantially. The causal interpretation is, however, strongly contested: recorded crime was already declining beforehand; comparable falls occurred in cities that did not adopt zero tolerance; and a range of other factors — demographic change, economic growth, the waning of the crack-cocaine market and expanded policing numbers — plausibly contributed. The New York experience is therefore better treated as suggestive than as proof.
Charles Murray (1984, 1990) argued that a growing underclass in the USA and UK was a primary driver of rising crime. He characterised the underclass by high rates of lone parenthood, welfare dependency, detachment from the labour market, and crime. His central causal claim concerned socialisation: children, and especially boys, raised without the discipline and example of a present father are inadequately socialised and lack the role models needed to internalise self-control and the work ethic. On this view it is not poverty as such that produces crime — for the poor have always existed without high crime — but the culture and family structure of a particular group at the bottom of society. Murray held the welfare state partly responsible for creating this situation, arguing that over-generous and unconditional benefits made fatherless families and worklessness economically viable and thereby weakened the incentives to work and to marry; his policy conclusion was to cut welfare in order to restore individual responsibility. The thesis is highly contentious. Critics object that it confuses correlation with causation (lone parenthood and crime may share a common cause in poverty rather than one producing the other), that it rests on a moralised and stigmatising image of the poor, and that it ignores the structural collapse of secure working-class employment — the disappearance of the jobs that once sustained the two-parent family Murray idealises. The label "underclass" itself, critics argue, does ideological work, blaming the most disadvantaged for conditions largely beyond their control.
Ronald Clarke (1980) and right realists generally adopt rational choice theory: offenders are reasoning actors who weigh the anticipated benefits of crime (gain, excitement, status) against its anticipated costs (the risk of detection and the severity of punishment). If benefits exceed costs, crime is chosen. A closely related idea is routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979), which holds that crime requires the convergence in time and space of three elements: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. The implication of both theories is that crime can be reduced not by addressing distant social causes — which right realists doubt can be changed — but by altering the immediate situation so that offending is less rewarding and more risky. The policy conclusions are therefore situational:
The most important objection to this approach is displacement: critics argue that situational measures do not reduce crime but merely move it — to a different place, time, target, method or type of offence. If the offender is genuinely motivated, hardening one target simply redirects them to a softer one. Right realists reply that some displacement does not negate the value of protecting particular targets, and that not all crime is so easily displaced; but the debate illustrates the central limitation of an approach that brackets the motivation to offend in favour of managing opportunity.
Left realism developed in Britain in the 1980s, principally through John Lea, Jock Young and Roger Matthews. Left realists are socialists who share the right realist conviction that crime is a real problem with real victims, but reject both the right's individualism and what they call the "left idealism" of critical criminology — the tendency to romanticise offenders and dismiss crime as mere social construction. The political context mattered: left realists argued that the political left had effectively ceded the issue of "law and order" to the right by refusing to take ordinary people's fear of crime seriously, and that this was both electorally damaging and a betrayal of the working-class and minority communities who suffer most from crime. They insist that crime is concentrated in, and inflicted upon, disadvantaged and minority communities, and must be explained by reference to social inequality and taken seriously as harm. A central plank of the left realist programme was therefore methodological: the use of local victim surveys to document the real extent and impact of crime as experienced by residents. The Islington Crime Survey (Jones, MacLean and Young, 1986), for example, found high levels of victimisation and fear of crime in a deprived inner-London borough, and showed that crime had a serious, often disproportionate, impact on women, ethnic minorities and the poor — evidence the left realists used to rebut the left-idealist claim that fear of crime was irrational or merely a media confection.
Lea and Young (1984), in What Is to Be Done About Law and Order?, identified three interacting causes of crime:
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Relative deprivation | The subjective sense of being deprived relative to others — not absolute poverty but the felt gap between expectation and reality. In a consumer society saturated with advertising, even the relatively comfortable may feel deprived, generating the resentment that can motivate crime. Drawing on W. G. Runciman, Lea and Young argue it is relative, not absolute, deprivation that matters. |
| Marginalisation | Groups without clear goals or organisations to represent them — unlike workers with trade unions — lack legitimate channels for their grievances. Politically and economically marginalised, especially unemployed youth, they may turn to crime and disorder as an outlet for frustration. |
| Subculture | Groups sharing relative deprivation and marginalisation may develop subcultures offering collective "solutions". These may be criminal, but — against earlier subcultural theory — Lea and Young stress that subcultures are not fixed cultural inheritances but emerge in response to specific structural conditions, often still embracing mainstream consumerist values. |
Key Definition: Relative deprivation is the subjective sense of being worse off in comparison with others or with one's own expectations, regardless of one's objective material conditions; it is, for left realists, a more powerful driver of crime than absolute poverty.
Young (1992) argued that a full understanding of crime requires attention to four interacting elements — the square of crime — and to the relationships between them:
graph TD
A["Offenders: motivation, background, choices"] --- B["Victims: who is harmed and how"]
A --- C["State and agencies of control: policing priorities and biases"]
A --- D["The public: reporting, attitudes, informal control"]
B --- C
B --- D
C --- D
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.