Ac3.2 - Describe The Contribution Of Agencies In Achieving Social Control Flashcards
1) environmental design
Some criminologists argue that the built environment affects crime level in 2 way:
- by influencing potential offenders - presenting them with the opportunity to crime
- by affecting people’s ability to exercise control over their surroundings
this means they believe agencies such as architects, planners and councils can ‘design crime out’
Oscar Newman
Defensive space VS indefensive spaces
Indefensible spaces
Indefensible spaces are where crime is more likely to occur, in what he calls ‘confused’ areas of public space such as anonymous walkways and stairwells. They belong to no one, are cared for by no one, and are observed by no one. For example in his study of high-rise blocks in New York, Newman found that 55% of crimes occurred in public spaces such as hallways because no one felt they ‘owned’ them
Defensive space
Defensive space are areas where there are clear boundaries so it is obvious who has the right to be there. Defensive spaces have low crime rates because of 4 key features - territoriality, safe image, surveillance and protected location
Territoriality
- sense of ownership among residents - they can control it
- certain layouts tell outsiders that areas are for the private use of residents
- cul-de-sacs project a ‘private’ image and encourage a sense of community
Surveillance
- street level residence allow residents to identify and observe strangers
- cul-de-sacs allow residents to overlook each other’s homes
- high rise blocks have concealed entrances
Safe image
- building designs should give the impression of a safe neighbourhood
- unkept areas attract offenders
Safe location
- neighbourhoods located in the middle of a wider crime free area are insulated from the outside world by a ‘moat’ of safety
CR Jeffery’s CPTED:
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
access - territoriality - physical maintenance - order maintenance - surveillance
CR Jeffery’s CPTED:
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
Continued
- crime results from opportunities presented by the physical environment
- crime can be reduced by:
Creating open spaces
Lack of hiding spaces
Clear visibility
Further examples:
Name the two
Alice Coleman
Gated lanes
Further examples:
Alice Coleman
In the UK Alice Coleman analysed 4099 blocks of flats in two London boroughs. She concluded that poor designs of many blocks produced higher rates of crime and anti-social behaviour.
Alice Coleman continued
Three features which encourage crime is being anonymous, lack of surveillance and easy escape.
Methods to deter crime:
1. No more blocks to be built
2. Each existing block should have its own garden or private space
3. Overhead walk ways should be removed
For example, on the Lisson Green estate in West London the removal of overhead walkways led to a 50% reduction in crime
Gated lanes - example of CTEP
- gated lanes, also known as gated alleys, is an example of CTEP to ‘design crime out‘ gated lanes are lockable gates installed to prevent offenders gaining access to alleyways etc.
Gated lanes continued
This was supported by:
In a review of 43 studies sidebottom et al found gates reduced burglary rates by, they provide a physical barrier, puts ownership on the residents to close the dates, gating indicated it is a cared for space will not promote the broken windows of crime
Limitations of gated lanes
- in areas where neighbours don’t know or trust each other may be less likely to install gates
- gated lanes can also restrict access for emergency services and waste collectors
CPTED - environmental design
Positive contribution
- promotes a sense of ownership
- Felson’s routine activity theory - explains the importance of ‘capable guardian’ protecting potential crime targets. I.e mutual surveillance by neighbours
CPTED - environmental design
Criticisms of CPTED
- crime may be displaced to another area rather than being prevented
- an area’s reputation rather than design may cause high crime rates
2) prison designs
What are the two prison designs
Panopticon style prison - Jeremy Bentham
Super Max Prison -
Panopticon style prison - Jeremy Bentham
- Prisoner’s cells are visible to the guards from the central viewing point
- the prisoners cannot see into the guard’s tower
- prisoner’s know whether or not they are being watched - this leads to self surveillance - prisoners discipline themselves
- an example of panopticon style prison is HMP Pentonville, London
Super max prison
- the most secure levels of custody
- aim is to provide long term, segregated housing for prisoners who represent highest security risks - including those who pose a National or international threat
- a supermax prion costs 2 to 3 times more to build and operate
- example of super max is ADX Florence in Colorado, USA
Bastoy Prison
- Bastøy Prison in Norway is designed as a self-sustaining community emphasizing environmental ethics and human ecology.
- Inmates live in houses shared by 3-4 individuals, work in various roles such as farming, carpentry, and cooking, and contribute to the island’s operations, fostering responsibility and respect for nature and each other.
-This approach has faced criticism from those who believe that serious offenders should endure harsher conditions, arguing that the prison’s environment is too lenient.
-However, supporters highlight its effectiveness, noting Bastøy’s recidivism rate of just 16%, significantly lower than rates in the U.S. and U.K., suggesting that its rehabilitative design better prepares inmates for reintegration into society
3) behavioural tactics
What are the three sections
Anti social behaviour orders (ASBOs)
Criminal behavioural orders
Token economies
- ASBOs
- Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO’S) was created by Tony Blair to (in 1998) deal with low level offences
- ASBOs are a civil offence not criminal however if a person broke the terms of the ASBO it was criminal offence and punishable for up to 5 years
- however it was clear ASBOs was not working e.g between 2000 to 2013 ASBO’s were issues to over 24000 people but 58% breached the conditions and over 10000 repeatedly breached the terms
- ASBOs can be applied to the labelling theory - self fulfilling prophecy (ASBO became a ‘badge of honour’)
- criminal behavioural orders
To overcome the criticisms of ASBOs, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced ASBOs with two new measures:
What are they?
- criminal behavioural orders continued
What are they
1) Injunctions
2) Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs)
- criminal behavioural orders continued
1) Injunctions - aims to deal with low level nuisance and annoyance, breaching of this can result in two years in prison for adults and three-month detention order for under-18s.
2) Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) - deals with serious anti-social behaviour, a CBO lasts for at least 2 years for adults and one to two years for under 18’s. (breaching 5 years for adults and 2 years detention for under 18).
Negative requirements - CBO forbids a person from doing something or seeing someone etc.
Positive requirements - unlike ASBO a CBO can require something positive to improve behaviour i.E treatment programmes.
- token economies
• Token economy is behaviour modification based on the views of operant learning theory by B.F. Skinners
• Token economy aims to achieve social control by obeying the rules, interacting positively with staff and other inmates, staying drug free and engaging in ‘purposeful activity’ - Behaviour in positive ways prisoners earn a token.
- token economies continued
How effective is Token economy:
1) Hobbs and Holts study of 125 boys ages 12-15 in a correctional institution in Alabama USA found that the behaviour change lasted throughout the 14 month study.
2) However other studies have highlighted it is only effective in prison and not in society
3) Some have argued token economy is only managing behaviour in prison to make it easier for prison staff rather than reforming.
4) institutional tactics
Institutions can use a variety of methods to reduce deviant behaviour and achieving social control for example:
1) The use of sanctions (positive and negative/ formal and informal)
2) Criminal justice institutions
institutional tactics continued
• The courts - sentencing offenders (individual and general deterrence) and punishments by the court i.e. community order.
• Probation - supervising offenders, once released if they breach their
license they are sent back to prison
• Prison - prison’s have a set of rules which must be followed such as rules of not escaping prison, damaging the prison, use of drugs or alcohol, not obeying the staff etc. breaking of rules can result in punishment or confinement, serious offences can result in 42 days being added to a sentence. (Disciplinary tactics)
- gaps in state provisions
What are the sections
Budgets
Technology
Unreported crimes
Existing laws
Budgets
1) Budget cuts have impacted on social control for example between 2010 and 2018:
• The police budget was cut by 19% (loss of 20,000
officers)
• The CPS budget was cut by 25% and the organisation
lost a third of its staff.
• The prison budget fall by 16% and staff levels by 15%
Technology
- another reason why state agencies are less able to achieve social control is due to digital technology - CJS are failing to looking into all digital technology due to mass amount of data I.E texts which has resulted in many rape or sexual offences not being investigated or dropped i.e Liam Allen
Unreported crimes
Criminal justice agencies can only
investigate, prosecute or convict
offenders if their offence has been
reported, only 40% of crimes are
reported.
1 in 4 rapes or attempted rapes are
reported
White collar and corporate crimes goes
unreported.
htt
Existing laws
Social control can only be achieved if there is
laws in place to charge a person.
For example social media and the law, the
right-wing terrorist who massacred 51
Muslims in a mosque in Christchurch, New
Zealand was allowed to live stream on social
media. Social media sites can not be found
criminally liable for sharing of material
promoting hate or terrorism.
However in Germany in 2017 a law was
created to remove hate speech etc straight
away or face fines of up to 50m euros.
