Realist and Postmodernist Theories of Crime PDF

Realist and Postmodernist Theories of Crime Introduction Theories of crime provide different explanations for why individuals commit criminal acts. Realist theories emerged in response to traditional criminological perspectives, offering pragmatic solutions to crime, while postmodernist theories ch...

Realist and Postmodernist Theories of Crime Introduction Theories of crime provide different explanations for why individuals commit criminal acts. Realist theories emerged in response to traditional criminological perspectives, offering pragmatic solutions to crime, while postmodernist theories challenge conventional definitions of crime, focusing on the role of power and individual identity in law-breaking. This document examines both perspectives in detail, addressing Left and Right Realism and the postmodernist approach to crime. Realist Theories of Crime Realist theories of crime gained prominence in the 1980s, moving away from abstract theoretical debates and focusing on practical strategies for reducing crime. These theories acknowledge crime as a real issue that significantly impacts people's lives and aim to develop effective solutions. Left Realism Left Realism, associated with Jock Young, Lea & Young (1984), arose as a response to both traditional Marxist and neo-Marxist perspectives. It criticises earlier theories for failing to take crime seriously and for romanticising working-class criminals. Instead, Left Realists argue that crime disproportionately affects the poor and deprived, requiring pragmatic solutions. Key Concepts in Left Realism: 1. Relative Deprivation – Crime arises when individuals feel deprived compared to others. Runciman (1966) suggested that when people perceive themselves as unfairly disadvantaged, frustration can lead to criminal behaviour. 2. Marginalisation – Some groups, particularly the working class and ethnic minorities, feel politically and economically excluded from mainstream society, increasing the likelihood of crime and social unrest. 3. Subculture – Deviant subcultures emerge as collective responses to relative deprivation and marginalisation, reinforcing criminal behaviour as a norm. Late Modernity and the 'Bulimic Society' (Young, 1999) In modern society, even the most disadvantaged are exposed to consumerist ideals through the media. However, economic exclusion means they cannot access these goods, leading to frustration, crime, and deviant behaviour. Lewis et al. (2011) found that consumer desires played a role in the 2011 UK riots, where young people looted stores to access items they could not afford. Left Realist Policy Solutions  Community policing and improved relationships between the police and local communities.  Tackling economic inequality through better education, employment, and housing.  Restorative justice initiatives to rehabilitate offenders and support victims. Criticism:   Overemphasises street crime while neglecting white-collar and corporate crime.  Does not explain why only some individuals facing deprivation turn to crime.  Fails to account for crimes committed by the wealthy. Right Realism Right Realism, associated with Wilson, Herrnstein (1985), Murray (1989), and Clarke & Felson (1986), adopts a tougher stance on crime. It sees criminal behaviour as a rational choice and prioritises crime prevention through control measures. Key Concepts in Right Realism: 1. Biological and Psychological Factors – Some individuals have biological predispositions towards criminal behaviour, including low intelligence and impulsivity. 2. The Underclass – Murray (1989) argued that a work-shy underclass, dependent on welfare, fosters criminality due to inadequate socialisation and absent father figures. 3. Rational Choice Theory – Cornish & Clarke (1986) suggest that individuals commit crime after weighing up the costs and benefits. 4. Broken Windows Theory – Wilson & Kelling (1982) argue that minor signs of disorder (e.g., graffiti, vandalism) lead to increased crime by signalling a lack of social control. Right Realist Policy Solutions  Zero-tolerance policing to crack down on minor crimes.  Stronger punishments to deter offenders.  Reducing welfare dependency to encourage self-sufficiency. Criticism:  Neglects the role of poverty and inequality in crime causation.  Assumes all criminals act rationally, ignoring crimes of passion or thrill-seeking.  Overlooks corporate and state crime, focusing only on street-level offending. Postmodernist Theories of Crime Postmodernist perspectives challenge traditional criminological theories, arguing that crime is a social construct that reflects outdated legal definitions. Instead of seeing crime as objective, postmodernists focus on individual identity, power, and transgressive definitions of crime. Key Concepts in Postmodernist Criminology: 1. Crime as a Social Construction o Postmodernists argue that crime is a subjective category shaped by those in power. Traditional crime definitions fail to account for individual autonomy and cultural diversity. 2. Transgressive Criminology (Henry & Milovanovic, 1996) o They propose redefining crime as acts that cause harm rather than those that simply break the law.  o Harms of Reduction – Direct physical or emotional harm (e.g., violence, theft). o Harms of Repression – Restrictions on human development (e.g., discrimination, hate speech). 3. The Fragmentation of Social Structure o Unlike traditional theories that link crime to class, status, or strain, postmodernists argue that identity is fluid and not tied to social structures. o Crime is motivated by individual pleasure, emotion, and self-expression rather than structural factors. 4. Edgework (Lyng, 1990, 2005) o Crime can be thrilling, offering excitement through risk-taking. o Examples: Joyriding, vandalism, extreme sports as alternative 'legal edgework.' 5. The Seductions of Crime (Katz, 1988) o Some crimes are committed for the sheer pleasure of breaking social norms. o Hate crimes may be driven by emotional rewards like power or control. Strengths of Postmodernist Theories: Explains non-utilitarian crimes (e.g., hate crimes, vandalism, cybercrime). Highlights the impact of globalisation and media on crime. Recognises that traditional class-based theories fail to account for modern identity-driven criminality. Limitations of Postmodernist Theories: Fails to explain why most people do not commit crime despite weakened social controls. Overlooks economic deprivation and social inequality. Ignores the continuing influence of state power and legal systems in defining crime. Conclusion Realist theories provide practical crime reduction strategies, with Left Realism focusing on economic and social solutions, while Right Realism advocates tough policing and deterrence. In contrast, postmodernist criminology challenges conventional definitions of crime, emphasising individual choice and fluid identities in criminal behaviour. Each approach contributes valuable insights, but no single theory fully explains crime. A combined perspective that incorporates elements of social structure, individual agency, and harm-based definitions may provide a more comprehensive understanding of criminal behaviour in contemporary society.