Explaining the differences in offending

Question 1

When did Asian crime begin to be seen as a problem?

Answer 1

In the 1990’s, with media concerns about the growth of ‘Asian gangs’

Question 2

What are the 2 main perspectives for ethnic differences in the statistics?

Answer 2

1. Left realism

2. Neo-marxism

Question 3

What do Left realists such as Lee and Young argue?

Answer 3

Ethnic differences in the statistics reflect real differences in the levels of offending by different ethnic groups

Question 4

What is one reaction to being unable to legitimately reach materialistic goals?

Answer 4

• The formation of delinquent subcultures
• This produces higher levels of utilitarian crime as a means of coping with relative deprivation
• Due to not having any organisations to represent their interests, this leads to non-utilitarian crime also

Question 5

What do Lee and Young (LR) argue about the likelihood of discriminatory policing?

Answer 5

• Over 90% of crimes known to the police are reported by members of the public rather than discovered by the police themselves

Question 6

How are Lee and Young (LR) criticised?

Answer 6

• They ignore the view that Asians are seen as passive so less likely to be arrested and blacks are seen as dangerous thus more likely to be arrested

Question 7

Gilroy (N-M): the myth of black criminality

Answer 7

• According to Gilroy, black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African Caribbeans and Asians
• However, as a result of the CJS acting on these stereotypes, ethnic minorities came to be criminalised and therefore have a greater place on official stats
• Black crime is a form of political resistance (similar to critical criminology)

Question 8

How do Lee and Young (LR) criticise Gilroy (N-M)?

Answer 8

• First-generation immigrants in the 1950’s and 60’s were very law-abiding, so it’s unlikely they passed down a tradition of anti-colonial struggle to their kids
• Most crime is intra-ethnic
• Asian crime rates are similar to or lower than whites… police racism only towards blacks and not Asians is unlikely

Question 9

What do Hall et al (N-M) describe the 70’s to be?

Answer 9

A moral panic over black ‘muggers’ which served the interests of capitalism

Question 10

How do Hall et al (N-M) explain this?

Answer 10

• The ruling class are normally able to rule through consent
• But: 1970’s- high inflation and rising unemployment, conflict in NI, student protests
• When opposition to capitalism begins to grow, the ruling class may need to use force to maintain control

Question 11

How is the increase in mugging linked to the crisis of capitalism?

Answer 11

• The myth of the black mugger served as a scapegoat to distract attention from the true cause of problems such as unemployment
• By presenting black youths as a threat to society’s fabric, the moral panic served to weaken opposition to capitalism and to win consent for more authoritarian forms of rule

Question 12

How have Hall et al (N-M) been criticised?

Answer 12

1. Downes and Rock: argue that Hall et al are inconsistent in claiming that black street crime wasn’t rising, but also that it was rising because of unemployment
2. They don’t explain how the capitalist crisis led to a moral panic, nor evidence that the public were blaming crime on the blacks
3. Left realists argue that inner-city residents’ fears about mugging aren’t panicky, but realistic

Question 13

More recent approaches:

Answer 13

1. FitzGerald et al:
   - The role of the neighbourhood factors in explaining the greater involvement of black in street robbery
   - Found that rates were highest in very poor areas and where deprived young people came into contact with more affluent groups
2. Sharp and Budd:
   - Black offenders were more likely than whites to be caught/arrested because
   - Types of crimes blacks are most likely to do include robbery
   - Being identified by victims/witnesses is easier
   - Which raises ‘visibility’ to the authorities