Right Realism on tackling crime

• Tackling crime


  Right realists do not believe it is fruitful to try to deal with the causes of crime (such as biological and socialisation differences) since these cannot easily be changed. Instead they seek practical measures to make crime less attractive. Their main focus is on control, containment and punishment of offenders rather than eliminating the underlying causes of offending or rehabilitating them.
• Crime prevention policies

  Should reduce the rewards and increase the costs of crime to the offender, for example by 'target hardening', greater use of prison and ensuring punishments follow soon after the offence to maximise their deterrent effect
• Zero tolerance


  Wilson and Kelling's (1982) article Broken Windows argues that it is essential to maintain the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking hold. Any sign of deterioration, such as graffiti or vandalism, must be dealt with immediately. They advocate a 'zero tolerance' policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution, begging and drunkenness. The police should focus on controlling the streets so that law-abiding citizens feel safe. Supporters of zero tolerance policing claim that it achieved huge reductions in crime after it was introduced in New York
• Zero tolerance policing was first introduced in New York in 1994 and was widely applauded for reducing crime
• Jock Young (2011) argues that the 'success' of zero tolerance was a myth peddled by politicians and police keen to take the credit for falling crime
• The crime rate in New York had already been falling since 1985-nine years before zero tolerance - and was also falling in other US (and foreign) cities that didn't have zero tolerance policies
• Police need arrests to justify their existence, and New York's shortage of serious crime led police there to 'define deviance up', arresting people for minor deviant acts that had previously fallen outside their 'net', re-labelling them now as worthy of punishment
• After zero tolerance was introduced in 1994, police and politicians wrongly claimed that cracking down on minor crimes had been the cause of the decline. In fact, the 'success' of zero tolerance was just a product of the police's way of coping with a decline that had already occurred
• Other criticisms of zero tolerance include that it is preoccupied with petty street crime and ignores corporate crime, gives the police free rein to discriminate against minorities, youth, the homeless etc., over-emphasises control of disorder rather than tackling the causes of neighbourhood decline such as lack of investment, and leads to displacement of crime to other areas