Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to episode nine of Crime and Deviants
Speaker 1: for the Sociology Show podcast. In this episode, we'll look
Speaker 1: at right realist explanations of crime and deviants. So what
Speaker 1: is realism? Will realists believe that crime is a real
Speaker 1: problem that requires a real solution. In this sense, they
Speaker 1: are more practical than other sociologists. Right realism developed in
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties with its strong held belief that crime
Speaker 1: is committed by rational people and is prominent amongst the
Speaker 1: norms and values of the underclass. Right realists focus on
Speaker 1: how a lack of attachment to societal norms, and in particular,
Speaker 1: a decline in community norms, has led to crime. The
Speaker 1: first sociologists we look at is Wilson and Kelling, and
Speaker 1: they believe that crime will flourish in the areas of
Speaker 1: social disorder. In their book Broken Windows, Wilson and Kelling
Speaker 1: argued that crime flourishes in situations where social controls break down.
Speaker 1: According to their analysis, in any communities there are broken windows.
Speaker 1: The term broken windows doesn't just refer to broken glass,
Speaker 1: but various signs of disorder and a lack of concern
Speaker 1: for others living in the community. So issues such as litter, vandalism,
Speaker 1: or rowdy behavior. They argue that leaving broken windows unrepaired,
Speaker 1: such as graffiti and begging, sends out a signal that
Speaker 1: no one is taking responsibility for their environment, and it
Speaker 1: encourages people to commit more crime. In most communities, this
Speaker 1: behavior is prevented from going further by informal control mechanisms
Speaker 1: such as comments, disapproval, and actions of other members of
Speaker 1: the local community. Effectively, the amountain extent of broken windows
Speaker 1: are held in check by the response of others. However,
Speaker 1: if the broken windows go unchecked, then the entire social
Speaker 1: order of the area breaks down, and gradually there is
Speaker 1: a move to more frequent and more serious crime. This
Speaker 1: might happen, for example, if those who would take responsibility
Speaker 1: and do something to tackle crime move out of the area.
Speaker 1: Wilson and Kelling asked, do you ever just see one
Speaker 1: broken window? The answer is, of course, that once one
Speaker 1: window is broken, they all were. Once crime is allowed
Speaker 1: to happen, it flourishes. The psychologist Zimbardo proved this theory
Speaker 1: when leaving a damaged versus a non damaged car in
Speaker 1: the area. The damaged car was always vandalized more and
Speaker 1: the normal car was left untouched. The second right realist
Speaker 1: we look at is Clark, and Clark talks about rational
Speaker 1: choice theory. Ron Clark argues that the decision to commit
Speaker 1: crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of
Speaker 1: the likely consequences of being caught. If the perceived rewards
Speaker 1: of crime, such as money, outweigh the perceived costs of
Speaker 1: the crime, such as getting caught and being punished, then
Speaker 1: people will commit the crime. For example, when considering whether
Speaker 1: or not to rob a bank, right realists believe we
Speaker 1: balance the rewards against the chances or costs of being
Speaker 1: caught and make our own rational decision. Right realists argue
Speaker 1: that currently the perceived costs of crime are low, and
Speaker 1: this is why the crime rate is increased. Criminals perceive
Speaker 1: there is little risk of being caught or punished, making
Speaker 1: it harder to break into places. By installing more CCTV
Speaker 1: would make committing crime irrational because the costs would outweigh
Speaker 1: the rewards. Surveillance cameras and other situational crime prevention techniques
Speaker 1: should be used to put off potential criminals. They can
Speaker 1: refer to the word deterrent, and right realists believe that
Speaker 1: the more deterrence we have in terms of surveillance, the
Speaker 1: lower the crime weight will become. A further right realist
Speaker 1: is that of Hershey, and he talks about attachment to society.
Speaker 1: Travis Hershey asks why don't people commit crime? By asking
Speaker 1: this question, Hershey focuses sociologist's attention on what forces lead
Speaker 1: to social control or hold people's behavior in check, rather
Speaker 1: than what propels them into crime. Hershey argued that criminal
Speaker 1: activity occurs when people's attachment to society is weakened in
Speaker 1: some way. This attachment depends on the strength of the
Speaker 1: social bonds which hold people to society. Four social bonds
Speaker 1: are Firstly, commitment. This refers to the personal investments that
Speaker 1: each of us makes in our lives. What have we
Speaker 1: got to lose if we commit a crime. A person
Speaker 1: who has lots of commitments through work, family, friends, and
Speaker 1: community has too much to lose by committing crimes. Secondly,
Speaker 1: we have attachment. To what extent do we care about
Speaker 1: other people's opinions and wishes. The more attachments we have
Speaker 1: to people, the less likely we are to commit crime,
Speaker 1: because we care about how they might view us if
Speaker 1: we get caught and our actions are revealed. The third
Speaker 1: point is belief. How strong is a person's moral sense.
Speaker 1: For many of us, the idea of committing a crime
Speaker 1: is morally wrong, and this alone is reason enough for
Speaker 1: us not to do it. And the fourth point is involvement.
Speaker 1: How busy are we are there times and spaces for
Speaker 1: law breaking and deviant behavior. A student or a teacher,
Speaker 1: busy with hours of classes and homework, has a little
Speaker 1: time to get involved with crime. And so what do
Speaker 1: right realists think are the solutions to crime? Well, since
Speaker 1: right realists focus on the erosion of community norms and
Speaker 1: the likelihood of getting caught as reasons for committing crime,
Speaker 1: they believe that making crime more difficult to commit and
Speaker 1: increasing punishments will ultimately deter criminals. So the first solution
Speaker 1: for right realist is SCP or situational crime prevention target hardening.
Speaker 1: This approach looks to make specific changes to a location,
Speaker 1: making petty crimes harder to commit or capture more likely.
Speaker 1: A technique of SCP is target hardening, which refers to
Speaker 1: increasing the security surrounding the targets of crime, such as houses, cars,
Speaker 1: and other property. This can be achieved through installing alarms,
Speaker 1: better locks, anti clime paint, and CCTV Clark site's examples
Speaker 1: such as the introduction of steering column locks on newer
Speaker 1: cars and having security devices as standard as greatly reducing
Speaker 1: car theft. Felson tested this solution on the Poor Authority
Speaker 1: bus terminal in New York, which he believed was poorly
Speaker 1: designed and provided opportunities for deviant conduct such as theft
Speaker 1: from toilets, rough sleeping, and drug dealing. Reshaping the environment
Speaker 1: to design crime out greatly reduced such activity. Examples of
Speaker 1: this were increasing the brightness and frequency of lighting to
Speaker 1: avoid dark corners, They installed a centralized CCTV system, more
Speaker 1: security surveying the area, and the final change with small
Speaker 1: sink basins rather than large ones in the toilets, as
Speaker 1: this would stop homeless people from bathing in them. Another
Speaker 1: situational crime prevention strategy is improved lighting. Farrington and Painter,
Speaker 1: in their ninety nine study in Stoke on Trent, showed
Speaker 1: that the incidence of crime decreased by forty three percent
Speaker 1: in an experimental area where street lighting was improved. The
Speaker 1: improved lighting could be seen as directly causing a reduction
Speaker 1: in crime, but it can also have the indirect effect
Speaker 1: of people being encouraged out onto the streets as they
Speaker 1: feel safer, and this further reduces criminal opportunity. Painter and
Speaker 1: Farrington call this diffusion of benefit a second right ring.
Speaker 1: Solution is ECP environmental crime prevention. Wilson and Kelling argue
Speaker 1: that crime flourishes in areas where social control breaks down.
Speaker 1: Broken windows are signs that the community cares less about
Speaker 1: an area and crimes spirals out of control. In areas
Speaker 1: such as this, the police are too concerned with serious crime,
Speaker 1: so they turn a blind eye while respectable members of
Speaker 1: the community feel intimidated. Without action, the neighborhood will spiral
Speaker 1: into further disorder, and respectable people will move out. They'll
Speaker 1: move away. Wilson and Kelling argue that environmental crime prevention
Speaker 1: should be adopted with more police on the streets and
Speaker 1: a zero tolerant attitude. In terms of punishment, this means
Speaker 1: punishing absolutely everything. The criminal antisocial behavior in that area
Speaker 1: should clear up quickly. According to Wilson and Kelling, they
Speaker 1: propose that firstly, what an area should do is repair
Speaker 1: any sign of environmental decline such as broken windows, cleaning
Speaker 1: up graffiti, and also dealing with neighborhood disturbances. Wilson and
Speaker 1: Kelling suggest that people can form to the norms of
Speaker 1: an area, so if there's low crime already in that area,
Speaker 1: people are adhere to that, and if there's high crime levels,
Speaker 1: crime will further flourish. Secondly, please should have a presence
Speaker 1: by visibly patrolling areas of social disorder in their cars.
Speaker 1: They should concentrate on order maintenance. By this, what Wilson
Speaker 1: and Kellyn mean is that they should be using the
Speaker 1: law to ensure that smaller signs of disorder such as
Speaker 1: groups of rowdy use, noisy parties, and public drug use,
Speaker 1: are all crushed and stopped. According to Wilson and Kelling,
Speaker 1: this would help to create a different view of what
Speaker 1: was acceptable behavior and would make public areas feel safe
Speaker 1: again for the majority of people. A version of these
Speaker 1: ideas are adopted in New York under the slogan's zero Tolerance,
Speaker 1: and there appeared to be a decline in crime. The
Speaker 1: term was adopted throughout America and to some extent in
Speaker 1: the UK as a description of a much harsher form
Speaker 1: of street policing. The third and final proposal is that
Speaker 1: all public housing buildings should not exceed three flows and
Speaker 1: all residents should be encouraged to take responsibility for the
Speaker 1: communal space in order to protect it from crime and
Speaker 1: antisocial behavior. The purpose of not exceeding three flows is
Speaker 1: so the police can easily access all flows quickly and
Speaker 1: the top floors of public housing don't become crime havens
Speaker 1: with residents living in fear. A third New rights solution
Speaker 1: is retributive justice. Retributive justice refers to the idea that
Speaker 1: the punishment should match the crime that is being committed.
Speaker 1: The New Right argue that criminals should be punished by
Speaker 1: being excluded from society, ie being incarcerated or locked up
Speaker 1: in prison, or by being electronically tagged. The idea here
Speaker 1: is that those who make bad choices based on inadequate
Speaker 1: socialization should be removed from society to protect others. Long
Speaker 1: prison sentences will serve as a deterrent to others to
Speaker 1: warn them from the consequences if they commit a crime,
Speaker 1: making it less likely that they were rationally choosed to
Speaker 1: commit a similar crime. Clerk suggests the cost must outweigh
Speaker 1: the benefit so that criminals think twice before committing further crimes.
Speaker 1: In the USA, the policy of three strikes and You're
Speaker 1: out is a good example of retributive justice. This essentially
Speaker 1: means that after three separate convictions, you will receive an
Speaker 1: automatic life sentence, even if the third instance is less serious.
Speaker 1: There are people in prison in the USA right now
Speaker 1: a life sentence, no parole, no release for theft. The
Speaker 1: New Rights suggests that prism works because it deters many
Speaker 1: potential offenders away from crime while taking as many persistent
Speaker 1: and serious offenders as possible out of the circulation of society.
Speaker 1: This has led to the quadrupling of the US prison
Speaker 1: population since the nineteen nineties. Right wing politicians, especially in
Speaker 1: the USA, often support the return of capital punishment too,
Speaker 1: as this would reduce the prison population and the cost
Speaker 1: of incarceration while having the same effect as being a deterrent.
Speaker 1: So the key information you should take from the right
Speaker 1: realist view is that they have a much stricter and
Speaker 1: harsher idea of how crime should be dealt, with the
Speaker 1: reasons why it occurs, and how people should be punished. However,
Speaker 1: the right realist view is heavily criticized, in particular by
Speaker 1: the left realist approach, and so if you want to
Speaker 1: understand the difference, then please do go back and listen
Speaker 1: to episode eight of Crime and Deviants for the Sociology
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Thank you very much for listening.