Kate Painter's study on the impact of street-lighting on crime. Handy study to refer to for those Right Realism/solutions to crime essays.
0 Comments
The wording may be slightly different on the day, but below are all the possible questions for the Crime exam. You will get one from section 1 and two from section 2.
(Thanks to Laura from A2 Group E for the original list from which this is adapted...). Section 1. Outline and Assess… 1. Left Realist explanations for crime and deviance [50] 2. Right Realist explanations for crime and deviance [50] 3. Interactionist explanations for crime and deviance [50] 4. Functionalist explanations for crime and deviance [50] 5. Subcultural explanations for crime [50] 6. The view that the law operates to serve the ruling class [50] Section 2. Outline and Assess… 1. The importance of self-report studies for the sociological understanding of crime [50] 2. The role of the police in the social construction of crime [50] 3. Sociological explanations for gender differences in patterns of crime [50] 4. Policies designed to solve the problem of crime [50] 5. Sociological explanations for the relationship between ethnicity and crime [50] 6. Right Realist solutions to the problem of crime [50] 7. Left Realist solutions to the problem of crime [50] 8. Feminist explanations for why women are victims of crime [50] 9. Sociological explanations for why some areas have higher crime rates than others [50] 10. The usefulness of official statistics as a measure of crime [50] 11. The role of the mass media in the social construction of crime and deviance [50] 12. The importance of victim surveys for the sociological understanding of crime [50] 13. Sociological explanations for the changes of female patterns of crime [50] 14. The role of the police and courts in the social construction of crime and deviance [50] 15. The view that most crime is committed by the working class [50] 16. Sociological explanations for why some groups are more likely to be victims than others [50] Outline & Assess the Role of the Police & Courts in the Social Construction of Crime [50] Social Construction is when something is given meaning by the society in which it exists. Different societies give different meanings, therefore one action or behaviour can be interpreted very differently in different societies. Sociologists argue that crime is socially constructed. Nothing is a crime until a law is made against a particular act or behaviour. Different societies have different laws – and laws often change - so what is considered crime is relative to time and place. For example, homosexuality used to be a crime in the UK, but now it is legal. However, it is still criminal in many societies. The way that laws are enforced can shape society’s views of crime. This means that those responsible for enforcing the law – the police and courts – must have a significant role in the social construction of crime. One major way in which crime is socially constructed by the police is through the official statistics. Police statistics are a record of all crimes reported to the police and can show how many of these are resolved. These statistics shape our understanding of crime because they determine the crime rate, meaning they inform the public how much crime is happening, and what types of crimes are increasing or decreasing. If the statistics are wrong, then the public’s understanding of crime is likely to be wrong also. Marxists argue that official statistics over-represent working class crimes and ignore white-collar crime and corporate crime. They point out that the categories used by the police to record crime don’t even incorporate crimes of the rich and powerful. Marxists argue that this is an ideological weapon, tricking the public into thinking about crime only as a working-class problem. Additionally, there have been concerns that statistics are manipulated by the police to give a false impression of the crime rate. This is done through the processes of cuffing and coughing. Cuffing is when the police do not record crimes that they don’t think they can solve. Coughing is when police get offenders to own up to crimes that they may not have committed, in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Altogether, this deceives the public into believing there is less crime and a higher rate of solving crime than is actually the case. Many sociologists argue that crime statistics completely lack validity as the police are reliant on public reporting of crime for 80% of their work. Most crimes are not reported by the public and are therefore hidden, meaning that the statistics only represent a tiny minority of crimes. This distorts the public’s understanding of crime but not necessarily through the actions of the police. It could be argued that the public are more responsible for socially constructing crime through the statistics than the police. Functionalists dispute the use of police statistics to socially construct crime and do not accept that much crime is hidden. They argue that the statistics may have minor flaws, but overall provide a realistic and accurate record of all crime. Another way that crime is socially constructed by the police is through police discretion. Their job is to enforce the law, but they are encouraged to use their personal discretion to decide how and when to do this. The individual norms and values of police officers will therefore determine how and when the law is enforced, therefore the police shape the way in which the law is used. For example, Colman & German (1982) showed that when police officers have racist beliefs, they enforce the law more harshly to some ethnic minorities. This would deceive the public into believing some ethnic minorities are more criminal than they actually are. This sort of discretion can be institutional, rather than just individual. For example, the Macpherson Inquiry into the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence found that the Metropolitan Police force was institutionally racist. As with police discretion, the norms and values of Judges and Magistrates will also influence their decisions in a courtroom. Many sociologists are critical of the fact that the vast majority of Magistrates and (especially) Judges are white, male and from wealthy backgrounds. A large proportion are also over 65. The way they apply the law may therefore be influenced by their middle/upper-class, white male norms and values.
It can be argued that discretion is not really a factor; that police, judges and Magistrates are trained professionals who make objective decisions about criminals. On top of this, it can be argued that – again – it is the wider public, not the police or judges – who socially construct crime, because police can only respond to what the public report (so if the ethnic minority crime-rate looks to be increasing, it is because the public are reporting more ethnic crime), while Judges are only responsible for sentencing; it is the public (in the form of an impartial jury) who decide whether a criminal is guilty or not. It has also been argued by many sociologists – particularly Interactionists like Stan Cohen – that the mass media are more influential in socially constructing crime than the police and courts. Through strategies like moral panics, moral crusades and over-representation/stereotyping of certain groups, the mass media instruct the public what/who to be concerned about, shaping views, opinions and attitudes. In conclusion, the police and courts inevitably have a role in the social construction of crime and the way in which they respond to criminals and record crimes can help shape the views of the public. But it is the wider public themselves, influenced by the mass-media, that perhaps have a more significant role. This means that it is impossible to single out one or two agents in society for socially constructing crime as it is something that is done by the whole of society. Outline and assess sociological explanations of why some groups are more likely to be victims than others [50] Many sociologists argue that crime is not randomly patterned; some groups within society are much more likely to be victims of crime than others. Gender, ethnicity and social class are three key characteristics that may influence the likelihood of victimisation. However, it is very difficult to measure rates of victimisation because relatively little crime is reported to the police. This means that a huge proportion of crime is “hidden” (referred to as the ‘dark figure of crime’) and for every hidden crime, there is a potential hidden victim. Feminists such as Walby, Walklate and Allen believe that female victims are ignored and/or hidden. They link this to the patriarchal nature of society, meaning that it is in the interests of men to cover their crimes by discouraging women from reporting crimes they have been a victim of. For example, Hall argued that only about 8% of rape is reported. This may be due to low prosecution rates, fear of not being believed, having to relive the trauma by giving testimony and through fear of being blamed. There are high-profile accounts of rape victims being ‘blamed’ for their victimisation. For example, in the 1980s, a High Court Judge claimed that “women who say no don’t always mean no”. The New Right perspective in particular has been criticised for putting the emphasis on the responsibility of victims for their own victimisation. However, in contrast to feminist views, statistically males are significantly more likely than females to be victims of crime. It could also be argued that male rape victims are even more likely to be ‘hidden’ than female victims, due to the perceived added social taboo of being a male rape victim. The Crime Survey for England & Wales (a national victimisation survey) today also estimates the rate of reported rapes at significantly higher than Hall’s 8%. Statistics have also shown that ethnic minorities are more likely to be victims of crime within the UK. Left Realists Lea & Young argued that young black males are the most likely to be victims of crime in Britain, often through the actions of other young black males, but also through racist practices by the police. This is supported in part by the Macpherson Inquiry into the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence. Macpherson found evidence of institutional racism within the Metropolitan police force, suggesting that they were taking cases where the victim was black less seriously and pursuing them less rigorously. This may mean ethnic minorities are less likely to report crimes against them to the police. Marxists like Castles & Kosack have argued that capitalism promotes racism to justify poor treatment/pay in work of ethnic minorities and this increases the chances of those ethnic minorities being victims of crime. Marxists and Left Realists would also argue that working-class people are more likely than wealthier people to be victims of crime. In particular, Marxists would claim that many poor people around the world are victims of corporate crime. Marxists claim that the illegal and immoral practices of corporations around the world are considered normal under capitalism. This means that many victims of corporate crime do not know they are victims, and therefore these crimes go unreported and are hidden. For example, the illegal practices of the banking industry – leading to a global financial crisis – devastated the lives of individuals, groups and whole societies around the world. The capitalist system protects these criminals from prosecution and therefore their victims are not recognised. The Marxist arguments can be accused of being reductionist; placing the blame solely on capitalism. Left Realists have argued that, although victims of corporate crime should be taken seriously, victims of street crimes and violence are a more immediate concern. Corporate crime arguably impacts middle-class people just as much as the working-classes. Nonetheless, working-class people overall are significantly more likely to be victims of crime. Perhaps contradicting the Marxist view, however, the main offenders are not the bourgeoisie, but are other working-class people.
Overall, there are some convincing sociological explanations for the increased chances of victimisation of certain groups in society. However, the difficulties in measuring victimisation – leading to an unknowable amount of ‘hidden victims’ – makes it impossible to confirm the true rates of victimisation of different groups. This is not an official guide; I've adapted it from a forum post on the Sociology Exchange, but it seems like a good way of structuring those 50 mark essays to ensure a good balance of evaluation and presenting knowledge.
The structure for the 50 markers should be: A Brief intro outlining the general ideas of the questions, perhaps mentioning what theory links with the question best (for example, if it's a question about women being victims of crime, you'd link it to Feminism). Then 3 paragraphs each outlining the point you're going to make with a study to back that up. The important thing with the 50 mark questions is also that you add further development, so perhaps another theorist, a statistic etc. After each of the above 3 paragraphs, there should be an evaluative paragraph, countering the point you have just made. Finally, a brief conclusion. So this is how it would essentially be: 1. Intro 2. First Paragraph 1st point with a theorist Further developed point, adding in another theorist 3. Evaluation of 1st paragraph 4. Second paragraph 2nd point with a theorist Further development, add in another theorist or statistic to back up 5. Evaluation of second paragraph 6. Third paragraph 3rd point with a theorist Further development 7. Evaluation of third paragraph 8. Conclusion However you do it, as long as you have evidence to back up the point you're making and developed answers with some contemporary examples if possible, you'll get the marks. Thought-provoking lecture from Katz on the victims of domestic violence. Very useful viewing as an accompaniment to the Victimology unit. Below is an essay submitted by one of our Criminology students on solutions to crime proposed by Right and Left Realists. Essential reading for all A2 students - particularly for the additional studies incorporated... Realist Solutions to the Crime Problem
By Kimberly Watts Rather than just focusing on explaining crime, realists promote solutions to prevent and reduce crime. Right and Left realism are mostly opposing approaches. Both Right and Left Realism are connected to Right and Left politics, therefore the views of how societies should tackle crime are mostly down to political opinions of the government. This essay will look at the both the Right and Left Realists solutions to crime. Right Realism suggests that tougher policing and methods to advise and inform people how to avoid being victims are key to reducing and preventing criminal activity. Wilson (1975, cited in Northampton College, 2015) suggests that criminals see an opportunity and then make a rational calculation as to whether the risk outweighs the benefits of committing the crime. Situational crime prevention comprises of opportunity reducing strategies, these strategies must be directed at specific types of crime and should make the crime more difficult to commit and reduce the rewards available to the criminal (Clarke, 1997). Sandra Walklate (1996, cited in Northampton College, 2015) discussed the typology of prevention strategies, these included Offender centred, victim centred and environmental strategies. Offender strategies deal directly with criminals, harsher punishments would deter criminals, and therefore the death penalty would be the ultimate deterrent. Victim strategies would include public advice about reducing the likelihood of a crime being committed against you, for example the recent campaign advising people not to leave their valuables on display in their cars will reduce the chances of having their car broken into, this helps reduce the opportunities to criminals. Finally environmental strategies include CCTV and street lighting, these measures increase the risk of being caught therefore the appeal of the crime is reduced for the criminal. Philip Zimbardo (1969) experimented with the broken window theory by placing two identical cars in two very different areas (cited in Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The first was placed in the Bronx, already renowned for its crime rate, and the second in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by vandals within ten minutes. However, the second car in Palo Alto was untouched, until Zimbardo smashed part of it with a sledgehammer, soon the car was destroyed. The experiment showed that crime will flourish in communities that have a ‘no one cares’ attitude, however within a community where there is a sense of morality, when signs of ‘no one cares’ show the community can break down quickly and crime will spread. Wilson & Kelling (1982) suggest that when a criminal act is committed within the community, if nothing is done about it and the act goes unnoticed, then crime will spread. “The key is to identify neighborhoods at the tipping point—where the public order is deteriorating but not unreclaimable, where the streets are used frequently but by apprehensive people, where a window is likely to be broken at any time, and must quickly be fixed if all are not to be shattered.”(Wilson & Kelling, 1982, p.8) Wilson & Kelling (1982) suggested that communities have an obligation to protecting their area, and a rise in police foot patrol will prevent the break down in communities. Finding areas that it will make a difference is the key, areas high in crime are ‘too far gone’ therefore police patrol would be a ‘waste of time’, it would also be unnecessary for police to patrol areas with little or no crime. ‘Zero Tolerance’, was applied in New York from the basis of Wilson & Kelling (1982) theory. The reduced rate in crime was commendable however ‘zero tolerance’ is now widely used to describe harsh street policing. Although the Left Realist approach also suggest that stronger communities will help reduce crime, they mostly disagree with Right Realism. From the Left perspective society and the police should have a better relationship, Left Realists believe that zero tolerance and stop and search policing will only create a negative image of the police, criminals are created by disagreements with current policing. The Left perspective suggests there is a lack of approachability with modern policing, law abiding citizens are scared of the police. Instead communities and the police should be working together to reduce and prevent crime (Moodle, 2015). Left Realist immediate solutions for reducing and preventing crime consist of building stronger communities, they suggest that everyone needs to fight against crime not just the police. Empowering victims, by using techniques such as restorative justice, allowing victims to talk to the offenders, in theory this should minimise suffering. The focus of the police should be on high-crime areas, community officers should be on foot patrol and establish a good relationship with the communities (Moodle, 2015). Relative deprivation in relation to crime suggests that because people feel entitled to something that they don’t have it causes frustration which leads to crime. “We can roughly say that [a person] is relatively deprived of X when (i) he does not have X, (ii) he sees some other person or persons, which may include himself at some previous or expected time, as having X (whether or not this is or will be in fact the case), (iii) he wants X, and (iv) he sees it as feasible that he should have X.” (Runciman, n.d., cited in Yitzhaki, 1979, p.321) Runciman (n.d) explains that when an individual sees another individual or themselves at some point in time, with what they desire, they become jealous which transpires into frustration causing a rebellion, therefore crimes are committed. To reduce or prevent crime, removing or reducing inequality is key. Whilst there is such a large gap between the bourgeoisie, creating the crimes, and the proletariat, committing the crimes, crime will be present. Left Realist long term goals include changing social structure and narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor (Moodle, 2015). This should reduce inequality and frustration from poorer society, and in consequence reduce criminal activity. In conclusion, both Right and Left Realism generally ignore white collar crime and focus on street crime, neither perspective give either explanation or solution for crimes committed by the rich and powerful. In relation to solving crime, a government of the centre- using a combination of both perspectives - would be ideal, for example, tougher policing with a better relationship between the police and the community. References. Clarke, R. (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies [online]. New York: Harrow and Heston. Available from: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=situational+crime+prevention. [Accessed: 17th January 2015]. Northampton College, (2015) Realist views of crime [PowerPoint presentation]. Access Sociology: Criminology [online via internal VLE], Northampton College. Available from: http://moodle.northamptoncollege.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=22 [Accessed: 17th January 2015]. Moore, s. et al, (2006) Sociology A2 for OCR. 2nd ed. London: Collins. Wilson, J. & Kelling, G. (1982) Broken Windows. The Atlantic online [online], 8/3/09. Pp.1-9. Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/198203/broken-windows [Accessed: 17th January 2015]. Yitzhaki, S. (1979) Relative Deprivation and the Gini Coefficient*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics [online], 93(2), pp.321-323. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1883197?sid=21105107171601&uid=2&uid=3738032&uid=4 [Accessed: 17th January 2015]. Short film promoting restorative justice, its methods and its outcomes. Any good Left Realist will approve... Short film explaining the process by which a crime becomes part of the official statistics...and why so few crimes complete this process. The World Health Organisation (WHO) have just published the results of a comprehensive new study on violence around the world. The study details rates of murder and different forms of violence in different continents, countries and cultures with links to social class. It also considers the effects of violent crime prevention strategies. It's a huge and important study, the results of which are vital background reading for any criminology student. The BBC have provided a brief video interpretation of some of the data, comparing homicide rates in different parts of the world. You can access it HERE. You can access the full WHO study HERE. |
Crime & DevianceA2 Unit: G673 Archives
May 2017
Categories |