Topic 9 - Control, Punishment and Victims

Ron Clarke - Situational crime preventionThis is a 'pre-emptive approach that relies not on improving societal  institutions but simply on reducing opportunities for crime'.He identifies three features of measures aimed at situational crime prevention - They are directed at specific crimes The involve managing or altering the immediate crime environment They aim to increase the effort and risks of committing crimes, also reducing rewards.  'Target hardening; measures, such as locking windows and doors. This approach is underlined by the rational choice theory, which suggests that criminals act rationally, weighing up the pros and cons of committing.This contrasts 'root cause' theories that suggest crime is a result of aspects such as capitalist exploitation (marxist).Marcus Felson (1998) identifies an example of situational crime prevention in which the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York was redesigned so it didnt encourage crime.

Situational crime prevention

Displacement - One criticism of situational crime prevention is that it doesn't prevent crime only displaces it. Chaiken et al (1974) found that a crackdown on crime in a New York subway led to it being displaced onto the streets above.Displacement can take several forms Spatial - moving elsewhere to commit crime Temporal - committing it at a different time Target - choosing another victim Tactical - using a different method Functional - committing a different type of crime. Evaluation -   Situational crime prevention works to some extent to reduce crime, however there is likely to be some form is displacement.It tends to focus on opportunistic petty crime,e ignoring white collar crime etc.It assures that criminals make rational choices.It ignores the root causes of crime such as poverty.

Environmental crime prevention

This approach is based on the work of James Wilson and George Kellings 'broken windows'.They use the term Broken Windows to refer to any form of disorder or lack of control in neighborhoods, such as noise graffiti etc. In such neighborhoods, an absence of formal social control (the police) and informal control (the community), leads of crime as criminals believe they are not being controlled and therefore do not care as much, Contemporary example - A study was conducted din which a #5 note was left poking out a letter in a letterbox on a high street, the research found that individuals would be more likely to take it if the letterbox was covered in graffiti, yet more likely to post it if it was clear and respectable. 

Zero tolerance policing - Due to the idea of Wilson and Kelling that any disorder or absence of control leads to crime, they propose zero tolerance policing , which is the crackdown on any form of disorder. Two fold strategy - environmental crime prevention (making everything look nice)  then zero tolerance policing (making sure all crime is punished).Police in New York adopted a zero tolerance policy in the years 1993 to 1996 in which there was a significant fall in crime rates and a 505 drop in homicides.However it is unclear how far zero tolerance was the cause of the improvements, this is as the police department had hired 7,000 extra officers, and there was a general decline in crime rates across all US cities at the time.

Social and community crime prevention

Social and community crime prevention

These theories place firm emphasis on social contexts, they aim to improve the conditions that predispose individuals to crime.These are longer term strategies as they aim to tackle the root causes, such as poverty and unemployment. The Perry pre-school project - This was a project involving black 3-4 year olds from Michigan involved in a community programme.  A longitudinal study fol lowed their progress, it showed significant differences by the time they were 40 between those who had undergone the programme and those that hadn't. For example they had fewer lifetime arrests. 

8a16bbe3-7d54-48ac-9308-731b386b1004 (image/jpg)

Punishment

Reduction - One justification for punishing offenders is that it prevents future crime.Deterrence - Punishing them discourages them from future offending, making an example of them.Rehabilitation - the idea that punishment can be used to reform or change offenders so they wont offend again. Incapacitation - the use of punishment to remove the offenders ability to offend again. e.g execution. It gets them off the streets to reduce the potential risk. This justification is an instrumental one, the punishment is the means to an end, a crime reduction.

Retribution - Retribution means 'paying back', is it a justification for punishing crimes that have already been committed rather than preventing future crimes. It is based on the idea that offenders need to be punished .This is an expressive rather than an insturmental view to punishment.

Durkheim: A functionalist perspective

Durkheim argues that the function of punishment is to uphold social solidarity and reinforce shared norms and values.Two types of justice - Retributive - in traditional society there is little In traditional society there is little specialization, and solidarity between individuals is high. As they are also similar, when a crime is committed it is punished harshly due to a strong collective conscious. There is vengeful passion towards the wrongdoer and punishment is cruel and severe. Restitutive justice – in modern society there is extensive specialization and solidarity is based on the resulting interdependence of individuals. Crime damages this interdependence, is consequently necessary to repair the damage through compensation. Durkheim calls this restitutive justice as it aims to restore things to how they were.

Marxism: Capitalism and punishment. Marxist see society as divided into two classes, in which the ruling class exploits the labor of the subordinate class. They are interested in how punishment serves the needs of the ruling classes.For Marxists, the function of punishment is to maintaining the existing social order as part of the ‘repressive state apparatus’. Melossi and Pavarini (1981) see imprisonment as reflecting capitalist relations of production. Capitalism puts a price on workers time, they tell prisoners to ‘do their time’ to repay their crime. Both the prison and the capitalist system have strict disciplinary styles.

Foucault: Birth of the prison

Foucault identifies a striking contrast between sovereign power and disciplinary powerSovereign power: typical of the period before the 19th century, when the monarch had all the power. Inflicting punishment on the body was the means of asserting control. Punishment was a spectacle.Disciplinary power: This became dominant in the 19th century. This new system seeks to govern not just the body but the 'soul'. He illustrates disciplinary power with the panopticon - a design for a prison in which all cells her visible from the guards watch tower but the prisoners cannot see the guards. They behave at all times as if they are being watched but they are not. This creates self-surveillance. 

Evaluation:Foucaults research has been criticized on several grounds : The shift in punishment is less clear than he suggests, as some forms still exist today, especially in the East,Unlike Durkheim, he neglects the expressive (emotional) aspects of punishment.He exaggerates the extent of control. For example Goffman (1962) shows how inmates are able to resist control in institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals.

The victims of crime

Positivist victiminology - Miers (1989)Positivist victiminology has three features It aims to identify all factors that cause people to become victims It focuses on the interpersonal crimes of violence It aims to identify victims who have contributed to their own victimization. Examine whether or not victims incite the crime by being the type of person that they are. Evaluation -  It ignores wider structural influences such as poverty It can easily tip over into victim blaming. Amir (1971) claim that one in five rapes are victim precipitation, which is not any different than from saying that the victim 'asked for it'.

Critical Victiminology this theory is based off conflict theories such as marxism and feminism.  Structural factors - Mawby and  Walkate argue that structural factors such as patriarchy and poverty which place powerless groups such as women and the poor at greater risks of victimsation. It is a form of 'structural powerlessness'.  The state's power to apply or deny the label of victim - 'victim' is a social construct in the same way as 'crime' and 'criminal' - Criminal Justice Process applies the label of victim to some extent but withholds it from others it from others - able to deny victim-status: for example, when police decide not to press charges against a man for assaulting his wife. Tombs and whyte note the ideological function of this 'failure to label'. By concealing the true extent to victimization, it denies the powerless victim and retribution. In the 'hierarchy of victimisation' the powerless are more likely to be victimized, yet less likely to be acknowledged for this.

Victimisation

Patterns of victimisation -Class - poorest groups are more likely to be victimised. Crime rates are typically highest in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Marginalised groups are most likely to become victimsAge - younger people  are at more risk of victimisation. Those most at risk of being murdered are infants under one. Teenagers are more vulnerable than adults to offences including sexual assaultEthnicty - minority ethnic groups are at greater risk than whites of being victims of crime in general as well as racially motivated crimesGender - males are at greater risk than females of becoming victims of violent attacks. Women are more likely to be victims of DV, sexual violence, stalking etc.Repeat Victimisation - If you have been a victim once, you are likely to be one again

Impact of victimisation - There may be serious physical or emotional effect on victims  May create 'indirect' victims such as witnesses to the crime. Hate crimes against minorities may create 'waves of harm' that radiate out to affect others.