Left and Right Realism Gender and Globalisation of Crime

A-Level Sociology · Crime and Deviance

Left Realism, Right Realism, Gender, and the Globalisation of Crime

These four areas are essential for a complete understanding of AQA Crime and Deviance. They represent contrasting political responses to crime and two important dimensions — gender and globalisation — that cut across all theories.

Right Realism

Right realists argue that crime is a real and growing problem that requires tough, practical solutions. They reject sociological explanations that "excuse" crime by blaming society.

Wilson (1975) — Thinking About Crime

James Q. Wilson argued that:

The key to reducing crime is deterrence — making the costs of crime outweigh the benefits
Criminals are rational actors who calculate risks and rewards — tougher policing and sentencing will deter them
Sociological theories (Marxism, labelling) are irrelevant to practical crime reduction

Wilson and Kelling (1982) — Broken Windows Theory

If a window in a building is broken and not repaired, soon all the windows will be broken — signs of disorder signal that "nobody cares," encouraging further crime and anti-social behaviour
Small signs of disorder (graffiti, litter, vandalism, public drinking) create an environment where more serious crime flourishes
Solution: police should focus on maintaining order in neighbourhoods — zero tolerance policing (ZTP)
Target minor offences to prevent escalation to serious crime
Maintain visible police presence to reassure law-abiding citizens and deter offenders
Evidence: ZTP was implemented in New York City under Police Commissioner Bratton and Mayor Giuliani in the 1990s — crime rates fell dramatically
Evaluation: crime was already falling before ZTP; the economic boom, changing demographics, and reduced crack use may have been more important; ZTP can lead to racist profiling and the harassment of marginalised groups

Murray (1990) — The Underclass

An underclass of welfare-dependent single mothers and absent fathers has emerged in both the USA and UK
This underclass fails to socialise children (especially boys) into conformity — absent fathers mean boys lack male role models and discipline
The welfare state has created a dependency culture that removes the incentive to work and take responsibility
Crime is concentrated among this underclass

Biological and Biosocial Theories

Some right realists draw on biological explanations:
Herrnstein and Murray (1994): lower intelligence (as measured by IQ) is linked to criminal behaviour
Wilson and Herrnstein (1985): crime results from an interaction between biological predisposition (impulsivity, low IQ) and social factors (poor socialisation)

Evaluation of Right Realism

Strength	Weakness
Addresses crime practically — policy-focused	Ignores structural causes of crime (poverty, inequality) — blames the individual
Broken Windows theory influenced real policy (ZTP)	Murray's underclass theory is ideological — blames lone mothers rather than poverty
Recognises that crime is a real problem for victims	ZTP can be discriminatory — stop-and-search disproportionately targets Black and working-class communities
Rational choice element has some empirical support	Left realists: ignores the social conditions that create crime in the first place
	Cannot explain white-collar and corporate crime committed by the wealthy

Left Realism

Left realists agree with Marxists that inequality causes crime but argue that crime is a real problem for working-class communities that cannot be dismissed as a ruling-class construct.

Lea and Young (1984) — What Is To Be Done About Law and Order?

Key argument: crime disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged communities — working-class, inner-city, and ethnic minority populations. Previous left-wing approaches (Marxism, labelling theory) had romanticised crime or dismissed it as a moral panic — this is unhelpful to the people who suffer most from it.

Three Causes of Crime

Cause	Explanation
Relative deprivation	People feel deprived relative to those around them, not in absolute terms. Media-fuelled consumer culture means even those who are not poor may feel deprived compared to advertised lifestyles. This breeds resentment and frustration
Marginalisation	Groups that lack political representation, stable employment, or community voice have no legitimate way to express their grievances — frustration spills over into crime
Subculture	Crime occurs when groups develop collective solutions to the problems of deprivation and marginalisation — subcultures provide alternative values and status systems

The Square of Crime

Young (1997) argued that to understand crime, we must examine the relationship between four elements:

1. The offender — who commits crime and why

2. The victim — who is victimised and why

3. The police and criminal justice agencies — how they respond

4. The public — how communities define and react to crime

All four corners interact — crime cannot be understood by studying any one in isolation.

Solutions

Tackle relative deprivation: reduce inequality through better jobs, housing, and education
Democratic policing: police should be accountable to local communities and work WITH them, not against them (community policing)
Multi-agency approach: tackle crime through cooperation between police, schools, social services, housing, and local government
Address the causes of crime (poverty, marginalisation) rather than just the symptoms

Evaluation of Left Realism

Strength	Weakness
Takes crime seriously as a problem for working-class communities	Does not explain why only some deprived people turn to crime — not all relatively deprived people commit crime
Highlights the importance of the victim's perspective	Marxists: fails to address the fundamental cause of crime — capitalism itself; reforms within the system are insufficient
Influenced New Labour crime policy: "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"	Over-emphasises street crime and under-emphasises corporate and white-collar crime
The square of crime provides a comprehensive framework	Right realists: too focused on social causes — individuals must take responsibility
Practical, policy-oriented solutions	Relative deprivation is hard to measure — how do we know when someone feels "relatively deprived"?

Gender and Crime

The Gender Pattern

Men commit the vast majority of crime: approximately 75% of all known offenders are male
Men commit 86% of violent crimes and 94% of sexual offences
Women are more likely to commit shoplifting, benefit fraud, and minor theft
Women make up only approximately 5% of the prison population
The gender gap is narrowing slightly — female offending has increased in recent decades, but men still dominate

Why Do Men Commit More Crime?

Messerschmidt (1993) — Masculinities and Crime:

Crime is a resource for "doing masculinity" — constructing and expressing a masculine identity
When legitimate means of demonstrating masculinity (employment, breadwinning) are blocked, men use crime as an alternative
Different masculinities produce different crimes:
White-collar crime: middle-class men express "hegemonic masculinity" through corporate fraud and financial manipulation
Street crime: working-class and minority men, denied access to hegemonic masculinity, use violence, theft, and gang membership to assert "subordinate masculinity"

Winlow (2001) — Badfellas:

Ethnographic study of bouncers in Sunderland's night-time economy
The decline of manual labour in the industrial North East removed traditional sources of working-class masculine identity (physical strength, breadwinning)
Men channelled their masculinity into the night-time economy — violence, drug dealing, and bouncing became ways to "be a man"

Why Do Women Commit Less Crime?

Heidensohn (1985, 2002) — Patriarchal Control:

Women are subject to patriarchal control at home, at work, and in public, which reduces their opportunities to commit crime:
At home: domestic responsibilities (childcare, housework) keep women in the private sphere; controlling male partners restrict their freedom
In public: fear of male violence (especially sexual violence) restricts women's use of public space, particularly at night — women impose a "self-curfew"
At work: male-dominated workplaces subject women to surveillance and sexual harassment — limiting opportunities for corporate crime
Women are controlled by the ideology of "respectability" — being labelled as deviant carries greater stigma for women than men

Carlen (1988) — Women, Crime, and Poverty:

Studied 39 working-class women convicted of crimes
Used Hirschi's control theory: people conform when they have a "deal" — a stake in conformity
Women have two "deals":

1. Class deal: working hard brings material rewards (decent housing, income)

2. Gender deal: conforming to the conventional female role (wife, mother) brings emotional rewards (love, security, status)

When both deals break down — poverty destroys the class deal; domestic violence, abuse, or family breakdown destroys the gender deal — women are more likely to turn to crime
Crime among women is therefore explained by the failure of patriarchal and class structures to deliver their promises

The Chivalry Thesis:

Pollak (1950): the criminal justice system is more lenient towards women because male police, magistrates, and judges are "chivalrous" — they cannot bring themselves to punish women harshly
Women are therefore under-represented in crime statistics
Evaluation: some evidence supports this — women receive shorter sentences for comparable offences; BUT Heidensohn: the system is also harsher on women who violate gender norms ("doubly deviant" — deviant as a criminal AND as a woman who has failed in her role)

Globalisation and Crime

Green Criminology and Global Risk

Beck (1992): we live in a "risk society" where global environmental threats (climate change, pollution, nuclear contamination) are produced by capitalism and industrialisation.

South (2008, 2014) and White (2008) — Green Criminology:

Traditional criminology ignores environmental crimes — crimes that cause immense harm but are legal or weakly regulated
Environmental crimes include: illegal waste dumping, air and water pollution, deforestation, wildlife trafficking, e-waste dumping in developing countries
These harms disproportionately affect the Global South and the poor — environmental injustice
The concept of "harm" should replace the legal definition of "crime" — much of the most damaging behaviour is not technically illegal

Globalisation and New Forms of Crime

Castells (1998) — The Network Society:

Globalisation has created new criminal networks that operate across national borders
Transnational organised crime (drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms dealing, cybercrime) exploits the same global infrastructure as legitimate business: international banking, air travel, the internet
Criminal networks are flexible, decentralised, and global — they are difficult for nation-states to police because they operate across jurisdictions

Key Forms of Global Crime:

Drug trafficking: estimated at $500 billion annually; routes from Latin America, Afghanistan, and South-East Asia to Western consumer markets
Human trafficking: the modern slave trade — an estimated 40 million victims worldwide
Cybercrime: fraud, identity theft, hacking, and online exploitation cross borders instantly
State crimes: genocide, torture, war crimes — committed by or on behalf of governments (e.g., the Rwandan genocide, Guantanamo Bay)
Corporate crime going global: multinational corporations exploit weaker regulations in developing countries — toxic waste dumping, labour exploitation, tax avoidance through offshore havens

State Crime

Green and Ward (2004):

State crime refers to illegal or harmful activities carried out by or on behalf of the state
The state can commit crimes through its own agencies (police brutality, surveillance) or by supporting private actors (paramilitaries, corporations)
The challenge: states define what is legal — they can criminalise others while exempting themselves
Cohen (2001): identified three techniques states use to deny their crimes:
Literal denial: "It didn't happen"
Interpretive denial: "It happened, but it wasn't what you think" ("enhanced interrogation" rather than torture)
Implicatory denial: "It happened, but it was justified" ("national security demanded it")

Exam Tip

For a 30-mark essay, you might be asked to compare Left and Right Realism, or to discuss gender and crime, or globalisation and crime. In each case, name specific studies (Lea and Young; Wilson and Kelling; Carlen; Messerschmidt; Hall et al.) and evaluate using alternative perspectives. The strongest answers connect these topics to the wider theoretical framework — e.g., left realism develops from Marxism, the chivalry thesis can be critiqued using feminist theory, globalisation of crime links to postmodernist ideas about risk and liquid modernity.