A brief introduction to James Q. Wilson has already been given in the previous acrtiles. His book Thinking About Crime is very popular in the United States. He is also the author of several other books and has published numerous articles in specialized journals related to criminology. His work is highly regarded in both Britain and the United States. He openly acknowledged the etiological crisis. Regarding crime in the United States during the 1960s, he rejected both the ideas of social democratic positivism and the position of conservative thinkers who believed that crime could be reduced by increasing police strength, expanding prisons, and enhancing the powers of the judiciary.
There is a significant difference between Britain’s new bureaucratic criminology and the right-wing realist approach to criminology in the United States. The reason lies in the differing conditions of the two countries, the very high crime rate in the United States, and the intellectual climate of America, which tends to lean more toward the right than the left.
Right-wing criminology connects its ideas with the original tradition of criminology. Right-wing realist criminology does not ignore the causes of crime and identifies many of them. Wilson is the leading representative of this approach. Unlike Britain’s new bureaucratic criminology, it does not avoid the causes of crime. Rather, Wilson, together with Herrnstein, advances individual positivistic theories, originally developed by Eysenck, which aim to compare the benefits a criminal gains from crime with the punishments he may face. He observes that punishments are uncertain, and it is even possible that the crime may go undetected; therefore, punishments alone cannot prevent criminal behavior.
However, law-breaking can be controlled through early childhood training, when such training becomes second nature. Proponents of this view also agree with Eysenck that conscience is acquired; it is a product of experience. Thus, conscience becomes conditioned by the upbringing a child receives within his family during early childhood.
Other factors such as peers, school, the workplace environment, the criminal justice system, and culture itself influence this basic training. Thus, the greater the ratio of the rewards of law-abiding behavior (non-crime) compared to the gains obtained from crime, the weaker will be the tendency to commit crime. Social reactions, peer approval, and a sense of inequality can affect the incidence of crime. An individual’s associations, expectations regarding rewards and punishments related to crime, and fear of punishment are also very important factors, and these change over time.
Wilson describes this situation in the following words:
“In our view, long-term trends in crime can be explained by three factors: first, changes in the proportion of young people with aggressive tendencies and limited intellectual horizons in the population; second, changes in the benefits and costs of crime (such as expulsion from school, punishment, dismissal from employment), particularly affecting financial crimes; third, the development of internal self-control in society through schools, families, places of worship, and mass media, so that young people standing at the threshold of risk are influenced to delay immediate gratification, obey the law, and fairly evaluate the performance of others.”
This analysis shows that the problem of crime is very difficult to solve. Physical factors of human beings and the proportion of youth in the population are fixed, and we must accept them as they are. We have to live with them. Similarly, child upbringing—especially in cases where there is only one parent—cannot be changed overnight. The factors that encourage crime, such as the individualistic culture in the United States, are an important part of that culture and cannot be changed easily. As far as the role of the police and punishment is concerned, even that is considered doubtful in Wilson’s view.
So then, what is the solution to the problem of crime? Wilson and the realism of this school of thought emphasize minimum utility. They disregard idealistic notions. In their view, instead of spending money indiscriminately, it should be spent on measures that can be carefully monitored. Even while knowing that the criminal justice system does not affect the basic causes of crime, and even if we try to improve it, we should remember that such measures cannot significantly improve the situation.
Regarding the role of the police, the proponents of this school begin with the assumption that the police fail to directly control crime. However, they can be far more successful in maintaining social order. Furthermore, when they fail to control disorderly behavior (such as quarrelsome or drunken youth), respectable people begin to migrate from the area, informal social controls weaken, and crime begins to spread there. Therefore, the restoration of order can be useful in controlling crime. The presence of the police creates a sense of security and improves informal social control, thereby restoring a feeling of safety in the area.
This school of thought divides the functions of the police into three categories: enforcement of law, maintenance of order, and service to the public (such as keeping streets clear, recovering lost property, controlling traffic, etc.). In Wilson’s view, the distinction between law enforcement and maintenance of order is central. The primary duty of patrol police is to maintain order; law enforcement is secondary.
As far as the public is concerned, in their view it is the most powerful form of informal social control. It is the responsibility of the police to maintain these controls under all circumstances. In areas where these controls have weakened and which have consequently become high-crime areas, traditional investigative methods should be applied repeatedly to habitual offenders.
Similarly, courts and prisons should impose strict punishments on this small group of repeat offenders so that they are deprived of the opportunity to commit crimes. Here, this school of thought gives priority to the restoration of order over justice.
In order to maintain order, justice sometimes has to be sacrificed. When punishing habitual offenders, attention should not be confined only to the crime for which proceedings are being held in court; rather, the court should consider the offender’s entire record and propose a sentence accordingly, so that the criminal may be kept away from society for the maximum possible period and given no further opportunity to commit crimes. In this matter as well, the role of the public is very important. They should organize themselves and arrange local watch and patrol systems.
As mentioned above, right-wing realism does not turn a blind eye to the operational crisis of crime. In the view of these realists, the crime rate in the United States is among the highest in the world.
This realist approach gives priority to the restoration and stabilization of order over justice, which it expresses in the following ways:
Even if different individuals have committed relatively minor offenses, the police should, in practice, strive to restore order, and such efforts should also be visible to the public.
Police intervention should take place in those areas that have not yet reached a point of no return and can still be restored, rather than in those areas that have gone beyond the threshold of recovery.
Similarly, action regarding drugs should not be directed against those who have become fully addicted; rather, it should target those who have only recently begun using drugs, because they can still be stopped. As for habitual addicts, their condition is already entrenched.
Habitual offenders greatly increase the crime rate. They should be imprisoned to render them incapable of committing further crimes.
While sentencing them, two factors should be considered: the severity of their crimes and the interests of society and the public.
No Comments