Left

• In a nutshell

  Concerned with working class crime, believe that we should work with the system in order to improve the lives of the victims of crime, who are mainly working class. Marginalisation, relative deprivation and subcultures are the main causes of crime and we should aim to tackle crime on multiple fronts – more community (less militaristic) policing and tackling poverty and marginalisation within communities are solutions. Left Realism was developed by Jock Young, John Lea and Roger Matthews as a response to the increasing influence ofRight Realism.
• Key ideas of Left Realist Criminology:

  The three three major causes of (working class street) crime are relative deprivation, marginalisation and subcultures.

  Solutions to crime should focus on social and community crime prevention and improving relations between the police and local communities.
• Left Realism – Causes of Crime

  Young (1997) argues that you have to be tough on crime, but this does not just mean being tough on criminals, it means being tough on trying to change the social factors which have a long term impact on crime rates and ensuring that the criminal justice system promotes social justice.
• Relative deprivation


  Lea and Young argue that crime has its roots in deprivation, but deprivation itself is not directly responsible for crime – for example, living standards have risen since the 1950s, so the level of deprivation has fallen, but the crime rate is much higher today than it was in the 1950s.

  Left Realists draw on Runciman’s (1966) concept of relative deprivation to explain crime. This refers to how someone feels in relation to others, or compared with their own expectations.
• Relative Deprivation 2


  The concept of relative deprivation helps to explain the apparent paradox of increasing crime in the context of an increasing wealthy society. Although people are better off today, they have a greater feeling of relative deprivation because of the media and advertising have raised everyone’s expectations for material possessions – we are wealthier, but we feel poorer, and thus there is more pressure to get more stuff to keep up with everyone else, which generates historically high crime rates.
• Subculture


  Left Realists see subcultures as a group’s collective response to the situation of relative deprivation, and they draw on Cohen’s theory of status frustration to explain how they emerge. There are many different subcultural adaptations to blocked opportunities, and not all result in crime – but those subcultures which still subscribe to the mainstream values of material wealth but lack legitimate opportunities to achieve those goals.
• Marginalisation


  This is where people lack the power or resources to fully participate in society. According to Left Realists marginalised groups lack both clear goals and organisations to represent their interests. Groups such as workers have clear goals (such as wanting better pay and conditions) and organisations to represent them (such as trades unions), and as such they have no need to resort to violence to achieve their goals.

  Having no access to legitimate political means to pursue goals, frustration can become expressed through violence.
• ‘Multiple Aetiology and The Square of Crime’

  Left Realists argue that crime is caused by several different factors. They call this multiple aetiology. Crime is a product of formal and informal rules, actions of offenders and of reaction by victims, the state and its agencies, it is therefore important to understand why people offend, what makes victims vulnerable, the factors that affect public attitudes and responses to crime and the social forces that influence the police. This can be done by drawing together different agencies in the community, who all work together to solve crime.
• Left Realism – Solutions to Crime

  Left realist solutions to crime emphasis Social and Community Crime Prevention strategies which focus on individual offenders and the social context which encourages them to commit crime.

  They were interested in working on situationally based projects to prevent crime and the fear of crime.

  There are two broad approaches – Intervention, identifying groups at risk of committing crime and taking action to limit offending, and Community based approaches– involving the local community in combating crime.
• Early Intervention


  One of the best-known intervention programmes aimed at reducing criminality is the Perry pre-school project for disadvantaged black children which took place in Michigan, USA. IN this programme a group of 3-4 olds were offered a two-year intellectual enrichment programme, and the children received weekly home-visits.

  A longitudinal study following the children’s’ progress showed differences between the experimental group and a control group. By age 40, they had fewer arrests for various types of crime, and had graduated high school and made it into employment.
• Community Based Approaches to Reducing Crime

  As far as community-based strategies for reducing crime are concerned – Young and Matthews (1992) argue that improving leisure facilities for the young, reducing income inequalities, improving housing estates, raising the living standards of poorer families, reducing unemployment and creating jobs with prospects, will all help to cut crime. Long term problems must be addressed, but more immediate measures can also be taken.
• Improving Policing


  A third strategy for reducing crime according to left realists is to improve policing. They argue that over 90% of crimes are cleared up by the police as a result of information from the public, however research suggests that public confidence in the police has declined.

  Therefore the police must concentrate on improving relationships with the community and the public should have more say in shaping police policy –where the police should listen to the public about what crime affects them most in their area.
• Evaluations of Left Realism

  Michel Foucault and David Garland interpret the these strategies as being about surveillance and control rather than real social change which prevents crime