Left Realism in Explaining Crime and Deviance

Left realism began in the 1970s where there was a spike of crime from the middle 1970s to the 1990s. Studies reveal that Marxists argue that poverty was the leading cause of crime, and crime got worst in the 1980s. The variation in crime is not that individuals are poorer; it is that people live as neighbours to individuals who are richer (Hall, 2017). The increase in crime resulted in victimization and fear of crime. Left realism therefore aimed to prevent both crimes as well as crime fear in society. Left realists focused on the increased culture of individualism, realities deprivation, feminism, causes of crime, and structural factors. Left realism is primarily linked to British criminologists including, John Lea Jock Roger Matthews and Young. John Lea and Jock Young (1984) set three main points of left realism, including minimal prison use, de-marginalization, and pre-emptive deterrence. Left realism led to significant developments in fields outside of criminology that can also be used within criminology, including political science and social psychology, as relative deprivation is explored through the self-categorization theory and the social identity theory (Brisman et al. 2017). In this essay, critical ideas of left realism in explaining crime and deviance will be analyzed critically.

Left realism pays attention to causes of crime, including adaptation, labeling, and subculture theories, as well as realistic policy changes and structural inequality. Crime is put into two categories structural factors and individual factors. Structural factors include the context of time and space, poverty, and deprivation. Personal factors include the circumstances of individual offenders, the process of labeling, and the impact of victimization. Left realists explain crime as a square, and attention needs to be given to all factors in the square, including between the public, the offender, victim of crime, and the criminal justice system linking these various factors, so crime occurs in the context of social relationships. Left realists support crime control; this links to the balance of intervention seen within the square of crime as both crime and the causes of crime need to be tackled effectively. (Burke 2019) Left realists also believe in a focus needs to be put on the causes and impacts of crimes. Professional multi-agency work needs to be in place to support victims and help to reduce deprivation successfully. Towards the end of the 1970s, the conflict theory had radicalized the labeling theory, and the latest deviant theory challenged early positivism ideas. (Tierney 2010)

After left realism highlighted some key factors and causes for rises in crime, the government changed its law and order politics to start focusing more on traditional morality and emphasis on new-liberalism, individual responsibility, and the nuclear family. Left realism drew attention to the impact of feminism as before the 1970s, domestic violence had limited or no recognition. When the new labor government was elected in 1997, left realism was highly influential with its crime control strategies. By the 1980s, there was a rise of conservative ideas within criminology and a debate between left realism and left idealism developed. (Tierney 2010). Left realists oppose left idealists as they address the impacts and level of crime in society, especially on women and minority ethnic groups leading to cultural criminology; both were found to contain elements of the anomie theory (Liebling et al. 2017). The anomie theory is linked to weakened control and relative deprivation, even temporarily. Left realists emphasize on controlling crime through efficient policing and penalties for criminals due to the failure of reductions in unemployment and poverty (Liebling et al. 2017). Policies also included improving police methods and their relations with the public. Left realism highlighted domestic violence in the 1970s and can consist of financial, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse. Across most crime categories, women are more likely to have intimate violence than men; some women were also shown to be experiencing higher levels of violence than others (Newburn 2017).

Stanko's (2001) research on domestic violence showed that in most cases, women are the victim and the man the perpetrator. Only eight percent showed to be male victims and female perpetrators. A home office (2003) study examined offenders whose crimes could be examined as involving domestic violence. This led to multiple subtypes of offenders, including narcissism, antisocial, and emotionally dependent. Antisocial and narcissistic individuals tend to display hostile attitudes towards women, whereas emotionally dependent stems from insecure attachment theory as a child causing high levels of rage and depression. (Newburn 2017). Most feminist literature focuses on women’s social position and their disadvantaged position in the home and work or community compared to men—this changed government policies as it brought more awareness to domestic violence and women's status in society. Before the feminist movement in the 1970s, police tended to ignore domestic violence. This was seen in Smith's (1989) research to be as a result of domestic violence being seen as not a real crime and more so a family matter, victims tend to be in a cooperative, and there was a concern for police welfare (Newburn, 2017). Before the feminist movement, women tended to be seen as secondary victimization; this was due to police officers suggesting responsibility for crimes committed against them, including sexual assault. The feminist movement brought policy changes in the police force and the development of women's organizations such as the Women’s National Commission.

Victimization, as well as fear of crime, are one of the left realist’s primary methodological approach. Left realists believe crime should be taken seriously and not be assumed as media panic and overreaction (Burke 2019). This places emphasis on the reality of crime and the consequences for the victims. Poor people tend to victimize other poor people, as individuals that live in high crime areas suffer a range of noise, swearing, sexual harassment, and more crimes, which reduce the individual's quality of life (Burke 2019). Individuals that live in high crime areas are not always likely to report crimes as they see this as a norm. Left realism emphasized community reform to reduce the impact and fear of crime, especially those most victimized that stem from poor and socially deprived communities (Hale 2013). Various research shows that young, mainly male working-class people are seen to be the ones most likely to commit a crime and also most likely to be a victim of crime. This led to a change in the way working-class offenders were now also to be seen as the working class victim (Hale 2013).

Relative deprivation is a social structure and a key ideology in left realism to reveal the extent to which an individual can be deprived compared to others and can explain non-economic crime (Jones 2017). It can explain all forms of crime and even why some crime rates increase at times due to multiple factors. The impact of the increased culture of individualism due to an increase in media and marketing and more ways to access material goods. Individualism involved the pursuit of self-interest and marginalization and the exclusion and broke down of support in the community. This leads to individuals losing confidence and self-esteem if they can't afford the same materialistic items as their peers.

Left realists criticized radical understandings and Marxist ideology for multiple reasons, mainly through critical criminology. Marxists believed the state and dominant classes operate in the interests of the ruling elite. Subordinate clauses classes are more likely to be labeled, criminalized, and won’t have their interests protected as much in criminal justice policies and procedures. Left realists believed Marxists were idealistic, ignoring the reality of victimization, including how working-class crimes victimize working-class people, and victims and perpetrators can come from the same backgrounds. Left realists believe there are increases in crime, but agendas are dictating crime policy. Left realists believe a crime has increased and is thought to be worse than the statistics of the national crime survey. Moreover, the British crime surveys of 1982 and 1984 methodology weren't sensitive to victimization, so left realists conducted their studies, including two Islington crime surveys and Merseyside crime survey conducted by Kinsey (1984) revealed more crimes than were previously recorded. Left realists believe crime statistics collected by the government is corrupted by political bias and subjective (Hale 2013). John Lea (2010) argues that left realism has had a small influence and believes it is difficult to discover an approach that incorporates all factors in the square of crime to examine changes in crime patterns. Some radical criminologists such as Lowman and Maclean (1992) have accused left realists of being racist as there has been a focus on young black working-class youths (Jones 2017).

Additionally, the theory reveals that there is a relationship between deviance, crime, and social control. This relationship is complicated; therefore, it needs elaborate theorizing and solutions (Winlow & Atkinson, 2013). Besides, solutions to crime need complex analyses that involve thinking about the origin of deviance behavior. Concerning operationalization, the left realist position complexity makes it challenging to operationalize in its totality. However, some types of intervention are more likely to be pursued compared to others. These include intervention types that are common to administrative criminology

On a practical basis, it is challenging to estimate how specific concepts such as political marginalization and relative deprivation can be calculated. Studies reveal that the aspect of the "three-cornered approach" has been criticized while relative deprivation is a “catch-all” that can be applied to explain any behaviour (Downes et al., 2016). The study also indicates that the concepts of "marginalization" is vague, and its existence can be “predicted after the event. The postmodern and interactionist approaches of the theory have also criticized the usefulness of subculture in explaining young male criminality. Besides, scholars argue that a critical problem with Left Realism is the ‘over-determination of the real (Winlow & Atkinson, 2013). This means that it makes what individuals believe about crime concerning its causes as well as explanations. Discover additional insights on Impact of Scenario Events on Legal and Equitable Interests in Baphomet House by navigating to our other resources hub.

Studies indicate that, if marginalization and social exclusion result in crime, women might be expected to commit more crimes compared to men in a community that is patriarchal. However, this is not the case (Hall, 2017). This indicates the gap in the theory. Feminists, thus seem to criticize the left realism for ignoring gender as an aspect. Also, unlike the theory, studies indicate that currently no evidence to suggest the increased public support for or confidence in the police (DeKeseredy & Donnermeyer, 2013). The reality has been revealed to be that the public has a minimum interest in police and crime commissioners. Most people are revealed not to know the name policemen and crime commissioners. This is from the reality that most of the police reform has little impact on the relationship between the public and the police in the way left realists seem to suggest.

Most of the left Realism seems to a relatively sophisticated rehash of different sociological explanations of crime and deviance; however, it is suggested that the ideological dimension can be easily dismissed. One of the flaws in the theory is the fact that "street crime” in reality seems not to worry people more compared to corporate crime. However, the fear of crime tends to be out of proportion to the danger people are actually in especially after it has been amplified by newspapers (Gibbs, 2010). This indicates that, if individuals have to fear being a victim because of the way the mass media reports and portrays crime, the explanation is therefore not ideal concerning Lea and Young's argument. From their theory, it tries to encompass all kinds of criminal behavior. Moreover, various crimes have various causes; this means that Lea and Young's multi-causal approach fail to apply to some crimes as well as to some criminals, I.e. , working-class males and economic crimes.

Critical principles of left realism have been explored through the 1970s to 1990s, including the structural and individual factors of crime, the square of crime, victimization, and relative deprivation. The principles also link to increased individualism, feminism, and the labour government’s crime control strategies. Criticisms of left realism have also been examined, such as racism and Marxist theorists. Left realism was introduced due to a rise in crime rate, causing victimization and panic. This created an emphasis on effective policing, deterrence, and deprivation. However, the theory has some flaws since if marginalization and social exclusion result in crime, women might be expected to commit more crimes than men, especially in a patriarchal society. Feminists also seem to criticize the model since it fails to consider gender as an aspect. The theory argues of police and community support. This idea is criticized by scholars since; it has been discovered that many people have minimum interest in police and crime commissioners and even do not know their names. Therefore, regardless of left realism being sophisticated, it has flaws concerning its view of crime and deviance.

Bibliography

Brisman, A; Carrabine, E; South, N (2017) The Routledge companion to criminological theory and concepts first edition

Burke, R (2019) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. 5th Edition. Routledge

DeKeseredy, W.S. and Donnermeyer, J.F., 2013. Thinking critically about rural crime: Toward the development of a new left realist perspective. In New directions in crime and deviancy (pp. 220-236). Routledge.

Downes, D., Rock, P.E. and McLaughlin, E., 2016. Understanding deviance: a guide to the sociology of crime and rule-breaking. Oxford University Press.

Gibbs, J.C., 2010. Looking at terrorism through left realist lenses. Crime, law and social change, 54(2), pp.171-185.

Hale, C., 2013. 14. Economic marginalization, social exclusion, and crime. In Criminology (p. 289). Oxford University Press.

Hall, S., 2017. Left Realism. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, pp.1-3.

Jones, S., 2017. The Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical Implications for Criminology. The Oxford Handbook of Offender Decision Making, 6, p.181.

Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and McAra, L. eds., 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press.

Newburn, T., 2017. Criminology (3rd edn).

Tierney, J. and O’neill, M., 2010. Criminology: Theory and Context [e-book]. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Winlow, S. and Atkinson, R. eds., 2013. New directions in crime and deviancy. Routledge.