Last Updated on September 3, 2025 by Karl Thompson
Axel Rudakubana committed a shocking knife attack in Southport in July 2024, murdering three young girls. In January 2025 he was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison.
His sentencing hearing revealed multiple missed opportunities by authorities to intervene. Rudakubana had been permanently excluded from school and had numerous prior interactions with the police due to violent behavior. He was also referred to the Prevent counter-extremism program multiple times but was never deemed a serious threat.
There has been widespread criticism of the failure of institutions, the limitations of Prevent, and the broader issues of fragmented public services and underfunded mental health support. Commentators argue that rather than repeating the same post-tragedy inquiries, the government must take concrete action to prevent such incidents in the future.
Labelling Theory and the Southport Child Murders
Labelling theory, as developed by Becker (1963), argues that individuals who are labelled as deviant may internalize that label, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rudakubana’s case aligns with this theory, as he was permanently excluded from school and repeatedly criminalized from a young age. Once labelled as a problem student, he faced increased interactions with the police, reinforcing his outsider status.
His exclusion from mainstream education could have led to the formation of a deviant identity, pushing him further towards violent tendencies. As Howard Becker suggests, labelling does not just describe a person’s behavior but actively shapes it. The state’s failure to provide alternative positive interventions for Rudakubana meant that rather than being rehabilitated, he was further marginalized. His known fascination with violence and extremist materials was overlooked, allowing his deviant trajectory to escalate.
Additionally, his racial background (his parents had fled Rwanda) might have influenced how he was perceived and treated by authorities. Labelling theory suggests that racial biases in policing and education often lead to harsher treatment of minority youth, exacerbating the school-to-prison pipeline.
Functionalist and Marxist Explanations of Violent Crime
📌 Functionalist Theory of Crime
📌 Marxist Theory of Crime
Functionalists such as Durkheim argue that crime is a natural and necessary part of society, serving as a warning that something within the social system is malfunctioning. In this case, Rudakubana’s violence signals failures in education, mental health services, and policing. The fact that multiple agencies had contact with him but failed to intervene highlights systemic dysfunction.
From a Marxist perspective, crime is a reflection of social inequality and class struggle. Rudakubana’s background—likely shaped by structural disadvantage—may have contributed to his sense of alienation. His exclusion from school represents how working-class and marginalized youth are often pushed out of formal institutions, leaving them with limited opportunities for social mobility.
Marxists also argue that state institutions protect the interests of the powerful rather than addressing the root causes of crime. The focus on individual responsibility (such as blaming Rudakubana’s personal choices) diverts attention from broader issues like austerity, funding cuts to youth services, and the failure to address deep-rooted socio-economic inequalities.
Right and Left Realist Theories Applied to the Southport Murders
📌 Right Realism and Crime
📌 Left Realism and Crime
Right Realism: The Role of Tougher Policing
Right realism, associated with figures like Wilson and Kelling (1982), argues that crime is the result of individual pathology and weak social control. From this perspective, the Southport murders occurred due to the state’s failure to impose stricter discipline on Rudakubana. His previous violent incidents (such as attacking a pupil with a hockey stick) should have led to harsher consequences.
Right realists would advocate for stronger policing and zero-tolerance policies, arguing that leniency allowed Rudakubana to escalate his behavior. His involvement with extremist content might also be seen as a failure of surveillance—indicating that the state should expand its monitoring of potential threats.
Left Realism: Social Deprivation and Marginalization
Conversely, left realists such as Lea and Young (1984) argue that crime is rooted in relative deprivation and marginalization. Rudakubana’s personal history—his exclusion from school, alienation from mainstream society, and apparent lack of mental health support—suggests he was a socially excluded individual with few legitimate pathways to success.
Rather than simply punishing offenders, left realism emphasizes tackling the socio-economic conditions that produce crime. Had there been more support for struggling students, investment in youth services, and a holistic approach to crime prevention, Rudakubana’s violent tendencies might have been addressed earlier.
A Failure of Prevent Policy?
Prevent is a counter-extremism program designed to identify individuals at risk of radicalization. However, as the article points out, Rudakubana was referred to Prevent multiple times, yet his case was closed without intervention.
One of the key criticisms of Prevent is that it disproportionately targets Muslim communities while failing to address other forms of radicalization. Rudakubana’s “salad bar extremism”—a mix of influences from jihadist manuals, incel ideology, and violent historical events—did not fit neatly into Prevent’s traditional categories of Islamist or far-right extremism. This highlights a fundamental weakness in the program: its inability to adapt to evolving threats.
Furthermore, Prevent’s focus on surveillance over genuine intervention may have contributed to the authorities’ failure. Rather than viewing Rudakubana as a troubled individual in need of mental health support, he was categorized as a potential extremist and then dismissed when he didn’t fit the expected profile.
Critics argue that a more holistic approach to countering violence is needed—one that integrates social services, education, and community-based initiatives rather than relying on security-focused measures. The Southport case underscores the need for a national agency dedicated to tackling extreme violence, regardless of ideological motivation.
Conclusion and Further Reading
The Southport murders reveal significant failings in multiple areas: education, policing, counter-terrorism policy, and mental health services. From a sociological perspective, they highlight the dangers of labelling, the influence of social exclusion, and the limitations of punitive crime control measures.
Rather than merely repeating post-tragedy inquiries, the government must take concrete steps to address these systemic issues. Stronger early interventions, better coordination between agencies, and a more inclusive approach to tackling radicalization and violence are essential.
For further sociological perspectives on crime and deviance, including theories on crime prevention, policing, and education, visit:
📌 Sociology of Crime and Deviance