There are several approaches to crime
prevention. These raise the issue of social control
- the capacity of societies to regulate behaviour.
SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION (SCP)
SCP strategies are a pre-emptive approach that
relies on reducing opportunities for crime. They
target specific crimes by managing or altering
the environment & aim at increasing the risks of
committing crime & reducing the rewards.
'Target hardening' measures including
locking doors, security guards,
re-shaping the environment to 'design
crime out' of an area.
Underlying SCP is rational choice theory:
the idea that criminal act rationally,
weighing up the risks & rewards of a crime
opportunity.
SCP measures may simply displace crime, moving it to
different places, time, victims, types of crime etc.
This approach may explain opportunistic
petty street crime but not whit-collar,
corporate & state crime. The assumption that
criminals make rational calculations may not
be true of violent & drug-related crimes.
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME PREVENTION
WILSON & KELLING argue that
'broken windows' (signs of disorder,
e.g. graffiti, begging, littering,
vandalism) that are not dealt w/
send out a signal that no one cares,
prompting a spiral of decline.
An absence of both formal social control (police) &
informal control (community) means members of
the community feel intimidated & powerless.
The solution is to crack down on
any disorder through an
environmental improvement
strategy (e.g. abandoned cars
promptly towed away) & a zero
tolerance policing strategy. This will
halt neighbourhood decline &
prevent serious crime taking root.
SOCIAL & COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION
Rather than emphasising policing, these strategies
emphasise dealing w/ social conditions that predispose
some individuals to future crime.
Because poverty is a cause of crime, general social policies
may have a crime prevention role; e.g. full employment
policies are likely to reduce crime as a 'side effect'.
The Perry pre-school project in Michigan gave an
experimental group of disadvantaged 3-4 year olds a 2
year old intellectual enrichment programme. The
longitudinal study following their process into adulthood
showed far fewer arrests for violent crime, property crime
& drugs compared w/ peers not in the project.
PUNISHMENT
There are different justifications for punishment & they
link to different penal penalties.
Deterrence - punishment may
prevent future crime from
fear of further punishment.
Rehabilitation-
reforming/re-educating
offenders so they no longer
offend.
Incapacitation - removing
the offender's capacity to
re-offend, e.g. by
execution, imprisonment
Retribution - the idea that that society is
entitled to take revenge for the offender
having breached its moral code.
DURKHEIM: A FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
DURKHEIM argues that the function
of punishment is to uphold social
solidarity & reinforce shared values
by expressing society's moral
outrage at the offence.
DURKHEIM identifies 2 types of justice,
corresponding to 2 types of society:
Retributive justice - traditional society has a
strong collective conscience, so punishment is
severe & vengeful.
Restitutive justice - in modern
society, there is extensive
interdependence between
individuals. Crime damages
this & the unction of justice
should be to repair the
damage (e.g. through
compensation).
MARXISM: CAPITALISM & PUNISHMENT
Punishment is part of the
'repressive state apparatus' that
defends ruling-class property
against the lower classes.
The form if punishment
reflects the economic base of
society.
Under capitalism, imprisonment becomes the
dominant punishment because, in the
capitalist economy, time is money &
offenders 'pay' by 'doing time'.
FOUCAULT: THE BIRTH OF THE PRISON
FOUCAULLT'S
Discipline & Punish
contrasts 2 different
forms of punishment,
which he sees as
examples of sovereign
power & disciplinary
power:
Sovereign power - in pre-modern
society, the monarch exercised
physical power over people's
bodies & punishment was a visible
spectacle, e.g. public execution.
Disciplinary power becomes
dominant from the 19th
century & seeks to govern
not just the body, but also
the mind through
surveillance. FOUCAULT
use the panopticon to
illustrate this.
FOUCAULT argues that other institutions
(e.g. mental asylums, barracks, factories,
schools) followed this pattern &
disciplinary power has now infiltrated every
part of society, bringing its effects to the
human 'soul' itself.
TRENDS IN PUNISHMENT
THE CHANGING ROLES OF
PRISONS
Pre-industrial Europe has a wide
range of punishments, e.g.
banishment, fines, flogging, execution.
Prison was used mainly for holding
offenders prior to punishment.
Only later is
imprisonment
seen as a form of
punishment in
itself.
In liberal democracies, imprisonment is often seen as the
most severe form of punishment but, as most prisoners
re-offend, it may just be a way of making bad people worse.
Since the 1980s, there has been a move
towards 'populist punitiveness'.
Politicians call for tougher sentences,
leading to a rising prison population.
The UK imprisons a higher proportion
of people than almost any other
country is Western Europe.
Most prisoners are young, male
& poorly educated. Ethnic
minorities are over
represented.
GARLAND argues that the USA & to some
extent the UK are moving into an era of
mass incarceration. In the USA, over 3% of
the adult population now have some form of
judicial restriction on their liberty.
TRANSCARCERATION
There is a trend towards
transcarceration (moving people
between different prison-like
institutions), e.g. brought up in care,
then a young offender's institution,
then adult prison.
There has been a blurring of boundaries between criminal justice & welfare
agencies e.g. social services, health & housing are increasingly given a crime
control role.
ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
Recently, there has been a growth in the
range of community-based controls, e.g.
curfews, community service orders, tagging.
COHEN argues that this has simply cast the net of
control over more people. Rather than diverting
young people away from the criminal justice system
(CJS), community controls may divert them into it.
THE VICTIMS OF CRIME
One definition of victims is
those who have suffered harm
(e.g. physical or emotional
suffering, economic loss)
through acts that violate the
laws of the state.
CHRISTIE argues that 'victim' is a socially
constructed category; e.g. the stereotype of the
'ideal victim' held by the media, public & CJS is a
weak, blameless individual who is the target of a
stranger's attack.
There are 2 approaches to victimology:
POSITIVIST VICTIMOLOGY
POSITIVIST victimology focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence. It seeks patterns in victimisation &
aims to identify the characteristics of victims that contribute to their victimisation, e.g. victim proneness (i.e.
the characteristics that make victims different from & more vulnerable than non-victims, e.g. being less
intelligent), victim precipitation (e.g. WOLFGANG'S study of 588 homicides found that 26% involved the
victim triggering the events leading to murder, e.g. being the 1st to use violence).
This approach is close to being 'victim-blaming'.
Ignores structural factors such
as poverty & patriarchy.
CRITICAL VICTIMOLOGY
Structural factors, e.g. patriarchy & poverty, place
powerless groups such as women & the poor at
greater risk of victimisation.
Through the criminal justice process, the state applies
the label of victim to some but withholds it from
others; e.g. when police fail to press charges against a
man for assaulting his wife, she is denied victim
status.
TOMBS & WHYTE show that employers' violations
of the law leading to death or injury to workers are
often explained away as the fault of 'accident
prone' workers.
PATTERNS OF VICTIMISATION
Repeat victimisation - a mere 4% of the population are
victim of 44% of all crimes. Less powerful groups are more
likely to be repeat victims.
Class - the poor are more likely to be victims, e.g.
crime is highest in areas of high unemployment.
Age - the young are more vulnerable to
assault, sexual harassment,theft, & abuse
at home.
Ethnicity - minority groups are at
greater risk than whites of being
victims of crime in general & of
racially motivated crime.
Gender - males are of greater
risk of violent attacks; females
are more likely to be victims of
domestic & sexual violence,
stalking & harassment.
THE IMPACT OF VICTIMISATION
Crime may have a serious
physical or emotional
impact on its victim, e.g.
feelings of helplessness,
increased
security-consciousness,
difficulties in social
functioning.
Crime may create 'indirect'
victims, e.g. friends, relatives &
witnesses.
Hate crimes against minorities
may create 'waves of harm' that
radiate out to intimidate whole
communities, not just the primary
victim.
Secondary victimisation:
in addition to the impact
of crime itself, individuals
may suffer further
victimisation in the CJS,
e.g. rape victims.
Crime may create fear of becoming a
victim even if such fears are irrational;
e.g. women are more afraid of going
out for fear of attack, yet young men
are more likely to be victims of
violence.
FEMINISTS attack the emphasis on 'fear of
crime' for focusing on women's passivity when
we should focus on their safety - the structural
threat of patriarchal violence that they face.