Crime Prevention and Control

Left realist view of crime

There are 3 factors that cause crime- multi- causal approach: relative deprivation, marginalisation and subculture (s). Left realists focus on street crime and their ways of tackling crime is community-based approaches. They ignore corporate crime and structural causes of crime such as unemployment and poverty. Left-realists say that the w/c are more likely to commit crime if they are relatively deprived and marginalised and if they join a criminal subculture.

Right realist view of crime

They look at the need for realist and practical approaches to crime. They agree with the Marxist view to an extent but they disagree with labellists. Their ways of tackling crime is the Broken Windows thesis (Wilson and Kelling), situational crime prevention (target hardening measures) and taking a zero-tolerance approach towards crime.

Situational crime prevention- summary

Clarke describes situational crime prevention as a ‘pre-emptive approach’ towards reducing opportunities to commit crime. There are 3 features of measures- directed at specific times, involve managing or altering the immediate environment of the crime, increase of effort- to reduce rewards of committing crime.

Situational crime prevention- strategies

Target-hardening measures- e.g locking doors and windows increases the effort of a burglar- increasing prison sentencing.

Situational crime prevention- studies

Clarke- Rational choice theory: criminals act rationally, weighing up the costs and benefits of a crime opportunity before deciding to commit it.

Situational crime prevention- evaluation

Lyng- it doesn’t explain thrill-seeking/emotional crimes. Crime can be displaced- doesn’t reduce it, it just moves the crime to a different location. 1) Spatial, 2) Temporal, 3)Target and 4) Tactical. It ignores the causes of crime.

Environmental crime prevention

Wilson and Kelling used the ‘Broken Windows Thesis’- areas that had become neglected with graffiti, begging, dog-fouling were more prone to criminal behaviour. Neighbourhoods need to be rebuilt to reduce the possibility of crime. There, also, needed to be a zero-tolerance policy from the police towards crime by penalising small or minor offences to reduce the possibility of higher rates of crime with more serious offences.

Environmental crime prevention- strategies

Zero-tolerance policing- crack-down on any disorder, using a two-fold strategy: environmental improvement strategy- clean up broken windows and a zero-tolerance approach- tackling any sign of disorder.

Environmental crime prevention- studies

Clean car program- this was instituted in New York on the subway, in which cars were taken out of service immediately if they had any graffiti on them, only returning once clean. Graffiti was largely removed from the subway.

Environmental crime prevention- evaluation

Reiner argues that the police should tackle crime hotspots- murder/rape is not the best use of the police’s resources, tackling minor deviant criminal acts is. Heavy handed policing can alienate communities and reduce cooperation with the police- over policed and under-protected.

Social and Community Crime Prevention

They do not focus on removing opportunities to commit, but instead focus on removing factors that lead people into crime- e.g poverty and unemployment. Social and community prevention strategies place the emphasis firmly on the potential offender and their social context. The causes of crime are often rooted in social conditions such as poverty, unemployment and poor housing.

Social and community crime prevention strategies

Aim of strategies- EAZs- remove the conditions that predispose individuals to crime in the first place. Increasing employment which will reduce opportunities to commit crime- LTM.

Social and community crime prevention studies

Perry pre-school project (example of early intervention to reduce crime in the LTM)- disadvantaged black 3-4 year olds in Michigan, US, were offered a two-year intellectual programme- this was a longitudinal study that showed by 40 they had significantly fewer lifetime arrests for violent crime than those not offered the programme.

Social and community crime prevention evaluation

Weakness: LTM effects can be ineffective with successive governments- it is uncertain that they will continue to implement the policy. It overlooks and underestimates the role of individual agency and personal responsibility in criminal behaviour. Strength: it addresses the root causes of crime- targeting poverty, poor education (SureStart), it builds social cohesion as it encourages community involvement (informal social controls).