control, prevention, pnishment; victimrs; criminal justice system Flashcards
situational crime prevention
CLARKE
> > > people commit offences when costs of offending less than benefits from offending
rational choice theory - people calculating in pursuit of own interests
people weigh up if potential offending carries small enough risks and high enough rewards to make it worthwhile
focus on specific point at which potential victims and criminals come together = harder for criminal to commit crime
to reduce crime - should reduce opportunities to commit
situational crime prevention
FELSON
> > > crime happen when offender and linkely target came together at particular time and place
likely to happen if no capable gardian to stop or discourage offending.
capable guardians - police, community officers, neighbours, parents = both informal & formal social control
> > > port authority bus terminal in nyc= building nortorious - site of crime before redesigned
homeless people lived in building & took drugs, sex, fight, died
crimes ike theft & assault & drug trades
design of building gave too much public space for criminals to move into with poor sight lines= hard to see criminal activity
quiet corners easy to sleep & live in
redesigned - better lighting so no dark comers, graffiti resistant stone walls, toilet attendants employed
obstacle to prevent skateboarding, benches/ surfaces made uncomfortable so homeless dont sleep
design out crime = urban planning, design of buildings& products made harder or risky to commit crime so it can be reduced regardless of conventional approaches like policing, underlying motives, causes
evaluation of situational crime prevention
positive
> > > attracted to policy makers = allow crime to be reduce using cheap simple initiatives that made targets less accessible or attractive or monitoring of behaviour
> taget hardening = ensure that more harder to steal things e.g lock houses & window, alarms & anti theft devices
area with high crime levels made physical changes to limit opportunities or benefits from it e.g cctv cameras
> > > > better car security resulted in less thefts of cars
redesign of market in birmingham - stalls further apart = fall in purse thefts
evaluation of situational crime prevention
negatives
GARLAND»> ignores causes of crimes, only deal with limiting extent & impact
»> no factors of ineuality, relative deprivation in causes
LYNG»> criticizes rational choice theory & suggests role of emotion & thrill as cause of crimes
> > > only work for street crimes & not domestic crime, white collar crime, state & corporate crime & green
> > > creates fortress cities = reduce civil liberties, increases surveillance & harms vulnerable people
evaluation of situational crime prevention
disadvantage
> > > lead to displacement = nature of crime is changed but total crime not reduced e.g CCTV limit crime in areas but crime rise in neighbouring areas
HAKIM & RENERT»> displacement can be spatial (offence in diff place) / temporal ( diff time) / tactical (safer method ) / target-based (diff victim) / functional ( diff & less risky type crime)
»> displacement happens = amount of crime stay same or increase
»> people might do less serious crimes but also commit more serious ones
»> spain; cctv cameras led to small reduction on streets installed
»> displacement as crime rose in nearby streets not have cameras
environmental crime prevention
> > > informal & formal social control measures way of preventing crime or prevent areas from deteriorating
based on right realist - WILSON & KELLING - broken windows theory - breaking of 1st window prevented = rest likely to be saved; stop minor crimes make major less likely to happen
> > > high levels of crime happen in neighbourhoods where lost formal & informal social control over minor acts of antisocial behaviour
low level anti social behaviour can be prevented then escalation to serious criminal acts can be stopped
visible signs of decay ( litter, broken windows, graffiti) = shows public disinterests = fear of crime greatest = respectable community members leave
physical disorder = less informal social control attract criminals & more crimes
undermine community’s ability to maintain order = decline follows
> > > Zero tolerance policing, target minor antisocial behaviour
giving police & local authorities power to issue antisocial behaviour orders, curfews, drinking bans, dispersal ban
whats targeted as antisocial behaviour depends upon local crime & local perception
USA three strikes’ rule = lengthy imprisonment those commit 3 serious offences
evaluation of environmental crime prevention
> > > not enough police to patrol areas that risk of deterioration to make impact & unaffordable to employ many police to enforce minor laws
REINER»> police better deployed focus on serious crime hot spots than clamping down minor forms of anti social behaviour
INTERACTIONIST»> give power to police = more labelling & criminal careers
> > > UK conservative gov use PNDS - penalty notices for disorder for fines = reduced police budgets = decline of police & community officers harer to do zero- tolerance policing
social & community crime prevention
> > > needs to focus on individual offenders & social context that encourages them to commit crime;
1. intervention = need to find groups most at risk of committing crime & put into action forms of intervention to limit their offending
what works approach= theorising causes of crimes less effective than learning lessons from empirical research & policy initiatives that show how crime can be cut
FARRINGTON»> longitudinal studies compare b/g of young males offended with those w/o police record group = diff b/w 2 groups & main risk factors :
low income & poor housing, living in run down neighbourhoods,
high level of impulsiveness & hyperactivity,
low school attainment,
poor parental supervision with harsh discipline & parental conflict & lone parent families
risk focused prevention = skills training to counteract impulsiveness
parental education of monitoring children & discipline
parental training to help them be effective
pre school programmes to help attainment
> > > e.g Perry Pre school project = 2 groups of african american children from disadvantaged b/g ; 1 group given pre school educational support & family had social workers visits
> members of group by 27 had half number of arrests of group that didn’t get interventions
gov in USA & UK idenitfy children at risk of offending & put interventions
- community = important to involve local community in combat crimes
»> Boston gun initative aimed to reduce gang gun crime - gang outreach workers, community groups & churches offered services to gang members to entice them away from crime
»> strong police message - gun crime not tolerated& dealt harshly
social & community crime prevention
MATTHEWS»> square of crime - tackle crime= need to understand how victim, offender, state & info social control interact
»> emphasis on offender & social conditions cause crime & aim to remove them
- consensus policing = rebuild relationship b/w police & public
»> decline in public confidence to police = more military policing that breaks relationship
»> more institutions hsould get involved in policing & reducing crimes - tackle structural causes»_space;» discrimination, racial & financial inequalities, lack of opportunities
»> gov provide decent jobs for all, higher minimum wage & better housing// community facilities
»> protect vulnerable groups; increase strict policing of hate crime, domestic violence, asbo
»> reverse exlusion or marginalsed groups
evaluation of social & community crime prevention
neagtives
TAYLOR>>> structural inequalities in capitalist society root of problem than dysfunctionalfamilies or lack of educational opportunities >>> programmes seen as blamign victims of inequality than structure of society >>> target working class crime in inner cities = dont address white collar, corporate, green crime
FOCAULT»> approaches as surveillance & control than real social change which prevents crimes
punishment control
JOYCE»> reduce crime to punish offenders justification required =
1. deterrence = publicly punish encourage potential offenders to think before doing crime = decide crime not worth risks
»> individual deterrence = indeterminate sentence so offender show they reformed before released
»> general deterrence = harsh punishment so people scared to offend
»> assumes offenders& potential offenders adopt rational approach to offending & swayed by severity of punishment & risks
- incapacitation = protect potential victims by stopping offender from repeating bheaviour
»> capital punishment or restrict freedom out prison/ prevent using internet/ house arrest - rehabilitation = prevent offcender committing crimes in future
»> change their attitudes, values, behaviour
»> educational programmes in prison & community punishment encourage desire to conform to society’s norms & values - retribution = give fair & just punishment to offenders - vengeance = deserved it
»> satisfy desire of victims, families, friends or society = justice
functionalist view on punishment
DURKHEIM»_space;> nature of legal system related to divison of labour = work divided b/w people & social groups
»> before industrialisation - few DOL = most people similar as held by solidarity = same moral values & shared beliefs - those broke beliefs seen deviant acts offended ociety
»> law based upon principle of retribution
»> offenders severly punished & people accepted strong punishment
> > > modern societies = DOL took specialist roles= differences = diff values, beliefs, norms- weak collective conscience
restitutive justice try return society to state before illegal behaviour
saw law being less vindicative & punishment less severe
boundary maintenance = establish & reinforce whats acceptable & not in society
Marxism view on punishment
> > > law not product of shred interest & shared beliefs of all but product of interests & beliefs of ruling class
systems of punishment corresponded to economic system; 3 eras where punishment dominant;
1. middle ages = main punishments involved religious penance & fines; workers high demand = not benefit landowners to imprison potential workers long time/ execute
2. later middle ages - brutal punishment norm & capital punishment
rich needed control poor & unemployed - threat to social order
3. 17th century= shortage of labour & prison developed = prisoners used to produce goods cheaply - plug gaps of workers available
MELOSSI & PAVARIN»> prison developed to impose discipline on workers = similar to those required in factories
those not submit to discipline sent to prison & learned be subservient labour force that’s exploited by ruling class
marxism view on punishment (2)
GORDON >>> 1. imprisonment of selected members of lower classes neutralises opposition to the system, keeping potential revolutionaries from forming together & take political action. 2. imprisonment of many members of underclass sweeps out of sight ‘worst jetsam of Capitalist society’ 3. punishing individuals & make them responsible for actions, defining as ‘social failures’ =ignore failings of system lead to conditions of inequality & poverty that create conditions - lead to crime. >>> attention is diverted away from immorality & greed of elite classes.
REIMAN >>> punishment enforce laws that protect private property of rich >>> working class suffer most even if behaviour is less harm to society than rich
post & late modernism view
social control/ punishment
criminal justice
FOUCAULT
FOUCAULT»> punishment changed from direct, immediate & physical to being incarceration & rehabilitation
»> today now less severe punishment
»> state expanded control over citizens - subtle & invades private lives more
»> more subjected to technologies of surveillance - watched & expected to reform
> > > e.g prisons = panoptic design = jailers watch what prisons doign in diff area of prison
lighting - priisoners cant see if they being watched = assume being monitored & ensure behaviour appropriate = self monitor behaviour
disciplinary power = power exercised through surveillance - people change behaviour as know being watched
seems more humane than physical punishment but more invasive as social control
like cctv camera, never know but monitor own behaviour & conform = computers also allow monitor
> > > does not see authorities & state as monopolising power
try to impose power over people by surveillance = always be a resistance
