8. Locality, crime and justice
Introduction/key assumptions

Official crime statistics show that crime and offenders are concentrated in inner city areas and low income housing estates.

Victim surveys show that those who live in inner city areas, low income areas and rented accommodation are more likely to be victims of a range of crimes and also fear crime more. Offending is often intra-local (committed by people who live in
those areas).
Explaining locality (regional/spatial) differences in offending
Environmental theories
Evaluation of environmental theories
Response to official crime statistics
Empirical evaluation
Environmental theories accept official crime statistics and therefore believe that crime is concentrated in inner city/urban areas and
poor housing estates.
 Environmental theories have gained empirical support.

Sampson and Groves (1989) support the claim that crime rates are highest where informal social control is
weak.

Brantingham’s (1984) supports routine activities theory. They claim that most offenders commit crimes in areas
they are familiar with (they link this to cognitive mapping).
This suggests there is some validity in the environmental theories ideas.
The causes of urban/inner city crime and deviance
1. The Chicago school


Shaw and McKay (1942) found in Chicago that the zone of transition
(characterised by the poorest housing) had higher levels of crime than
other areas.
They believed that this was because this area had high population
turnover and ethnic/cultural diversity which gave way to social
disorganisation. This is where informal social control (e.g. public
surveillance and reporting crime) is weakened and hence more crime and
deviance.
Theoretical evaluation (minimum of 2)
 Postmodernism and left realism



2. Differential association


Sutherland (1942) maintains that crime tends to be highest in
urban/inner city areas because criminality and deviancy is less likely to be condemned.
He also claims that individuals associate with others who have favourable attitudes about crime and are therefore influenced
by them (criminal/peer influence).
3. Tipping theory


Bottoms (1989) suggests that the extent and type of crime is linked to housing areas.
He claims that less desirable areas gain bad reputations and get ‘tipped’ which has negative consequences such as:





Attracts ‘problem’ families
Physical and social disorder
Little Informal social control
‘Respectable’ people move out
Criminal subcultures emerge
Postmodernists and left realists criticise environmental theories for focusing too
much on the environment, thereby neglecting wider structural causes of inner
city/urban crime.
Postmodernists link crime in inner city/urban areas to a growing underclass that
have become ‘ghettoised’ in certain areas.
Left realists link crime in inner city/urban areas in late modernity to
marginalisation, relative deprivation and subcultures (see LT6).
 Interactionism


Interactionist/labelling theory criticise environmental theories for
underestimating the way in which the geographical distribution of crime and deviance is socially constructed.
They argue that much inner city/urban crime is due to selective law enforcement, labelling, self-fulfilling
prophecies and consequent subcultural formation/membership. They therefore reject the structural causes
suggested by environmental theories.
 Right realism



4. Routine activities theory


Crime is highest in areas that have: likely offenders, attractive targets and a lack of social control.
In addition offenders tend to commit crime in areas they engage in routine activities (familiarity) – e.g. areas in which they go to
work, shop, places of entertainment.

Right realists lend some support for environmental explanations,
stressing inn particular the problem of inadequate social control.
For example, Cornish and Clarke (1986) suggest that crime is
linked to the situations in which deviants find themselves.
They argue that individuals commit crime when opportunities
present themselves which involve little risk. For example when
there is a lack of social control/crime prevention e.g. no window
locks. This is most typical in inner city areas and low income
housing estates.
Wilson (1975) argues that a breakdown in social order in certain neighbourhoods (e.g. where unruly
behaviour, drug dealing, prostitution etc are common.) leads to more crime and deviance as sense of community
is lost, and with it informal social control (e.g. people fear reporting crime).
In conclusion - left realism offers a strong theory as it recognises that inner city/urban crime is not just about the environment but has underlying social and economic causes. However, all sociological theories, including left realism, need to look more
closely at rural crime and deviance. Recent Home Office evidence suggests that crime and deviancy is growing in rural areas and locate the causes in terms of unemployment, feelings of relative deprivation (as suggested by left realism) boredom and
lack of leisure facilities. Furthermore, a full understanding of regional crime must consider wider national and global changes (see globalisation LT) which impact on crime levels in local areas (e.g. drugs).
Sample questions
1a) Examine some of the reasons for regional differences in crime and deviance (12 marks).
1b) Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess sociological explanations of the relationship between crime and locality (21 marks).
1b) Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the contribution of environmental theories to a sociological understanding of locality and offending (21 marks).
Further reading
Pages 274-279 Moore et al (2006) Sociology A2 for AQA, Collins.
Pages 200-205 Pilkington and Yeo (2006) Sociology in Focus for AQA A2 level, Causeway Press.