Crime, Prevention & Victims

Crime Prevention & ControlClarke describes situational crime prevention as ‘a pre-

emptive approach that relies on simply reducing

opportunity for crime’. He notes three features of

measurements to ensure this…

Directed at specific crime

Involve managing or altering the immediate environment

of crime

Aim at increasing the effort and risks of committing crime

and reducing rewards

Underlying situational crime prevention is an opportunistic or

rational choice theory of crime (remember back to Clarke’s

rational choice theory in Right Realism!). This contrasts with theories

of crime that stress ‘root causes’. Clarke argues most

theories offer no realistic solution to crime. He argues the

most obvious thing to do it to focus on the immediate crime

situation as most crime is opportunistic. Felson gives the

example of a NYC bus terminal who ‘designed crime out’,

for example by putting in smaller sinks so homeless people

couldn’t take a bath. However, one criticism of this is that it

doesn’t reduce crime it merely displaces it; target hardening

will only make criminals go where targets are softer. It takes

several forms… spatial (moving elsewhere), temporal (committing

a crime at a different time), target (a different victim), tactical

(different method) and functional (committing a different type of

crime)

Nevertheless, situational measures were successful in the case of

suicide. In the early 1960s, over half of all suicides were by gassing.

From the 60s onwards, coal gas was replaced by less toxic neutral

gas so by 1997 the suicides by gassing were almost at 0. But, the

overall suicide rare decline so is this point valid?

Evaluation…

It works to some extent by reducing certain crimes but there is

likely to still be some displacement

Ignores white collar, corporate and state crime

Assumes criminals make rational calculations which is unlikely

(could be under influence of drugs/alcohol)

Ignores root causes of crime so it is hard to develop long-term

strategies

Norris and Armstrong found CCTV focuses disproportionally on

young feminists (remember feminists ‘male gaze from Unit 1!)

Wilson & Kelling’s article ‘broken windows’ is the basis for the

environmental crime prevention approach. The phrase

stands for all the various signs of disorder and lack of

concern for others. They argue leaving broken windows

unrepaired sends out a signal that no one cares. In these

neighbourhoods, there is an absence of formal and informal

social control. The police are only concerned with serious

crime and ignore petty, nuisance behaviour while

respectable members of the community feel intimidated

and powerless. Respectable people move out and the area

becomes a magnet for deviants. Wilson & Kelling’s key ideas

is to crack down on any disorder using a two fold strategy…

Environmental improvements

Zero tolerance policing to proactively tackle even the

slightest sign of disorder

Evidence of this is the NYC ‘clean car programme’. This

meant graffiti from cars was largely removed. Later, the

same approach was extended to the cities police precincts

crackdown on. There was a crackdown on ‘squeegee

merchants’ which discovered many had outstanding

warrants for violent and property crimes. Between 1993-1996

there was a significant fall in the number of crimes within the

city – from 1,927 homicides to 986.

However, how far was zero tolerance policing the cause of

the crimes…

NYPD benefitted from 7,000 extra officers

A decline in the availability of crack cocaine

Attempted homicide rate remained high so was the fall

in the actual number of homicide rate down to improved

medical emergency services?

By contrast, social and community prevention strategies

place the emphasis firmly on the potential offender and

their social context. The aim of these strategies is to remove

the conditions that predispose individuals to crime in the first

place. These are long-term as they attempt to tackle the

root of the problem. Because the causes of crime are often

rooted in social conditions, more general social reform

programmes addressing these issues may have a crime

prevention role.

The Perry pre-school project was for disadvantaged black

children in Michigan. An experimental group of 3-4 year olds

were offered 2 year intellectual enrichment programme

during which time they get weekly home visits. A longitudinal

study followed their subsequent progress. By the age of 40,

the experimental group had a lot less lifetime arrests and

more had graduated and/or were n employment.

These approached take for granted the nature and

definition of crime as well as disregarding crimes of the

powerful and environmental crimes. The definition of crime

problem reflects the priorities of politicians and agencies

tasked with crime prevention. Whyte conducted a study of

26 crime and disorder areas and found that vehicle crime

and burglary were the biggest targets of crime reduction

strategies whilst domestic violence was one of the least

targetted (only 8 areas targetted this). He points out that

there is no logical reason why such activities should not be

included in the crime and disorder partnership agendas.

Punishment

Punishment is believed to be an effective

crime prevention measurement. Given that

punishment involves deliberately inflicting

harm, two main justifications have been

offered for it…

Retribution

Reducton

Retribution: ‘paying back. It is a justification for punishing

crimes that have already been committed rather than

preventing future crimes. Society is entitles to its revenge. This

is an expressive justification as it expresses society’s outrage.

Reduction (instrumental – punishment is a means to an end)

Deterrence: punishing the individual discourages them

from future offending (e.g. Thatcher’s ‘short, sharp,

shock’ regime)

Rehabilitation: punishment can be used to reform or

change offenders so they no longer offend (e.g.

providing education in prison)

Incapacitation: punishment can remove the offender’s

capacity to offend again (e.g. imprisonment)

Durkheim, a functionalist, sees the function of

punishment as upholding social solidarity and

reinforcing shared values. It is primarily expressive.

Through rituals of order, shared values are

reaffirmed and members come to feel a sense of

moral unity.

While punishment functions to uphold social

solidarity, it does so differently in different types of

society. Durkheim identifies two types of justice

(corresponding to two types of society)…

Retributive

Restitutive

Retributive: in traditional society, there is little

specialisation and solidarity is based on similarity to one

another. This produces a strong collective conscience

which responds with vengeful passion to repress the

wrong doer. Punishment is expressive, so severe and

cruel.

Restitutive: in modern society there is extensive

specialisation and solidarity is based on

interdependence between individuals. Crime damages

this interdependence so it is necessary to repair this

damage (making a restitution). Motivation is instrumental

but it has an expressive element (shows collective

emotion)

In reality, however, traditional societies often have restitutive

rather than retributive justice as Durkheim thought. For

example, blood feuds are often settled by payment of

compensation rather than execution.

Marxists see the function of punishment as maintaining existing social order. As part of the ‘repressive state apparatus’, it is a means of defending ruling class property against the working class. Thompson says 18th Century punishments were part of a ‘rule of terror’ by the landed aristocracy over the poor.

The form of punishment reflects the economic base of society. Rusche & Kirchheimer argue each type of economy has its own corresponding penal system. Under capitalism, imprisonment becomes the dominant form of punishment as it is based on the exploitation of wage labour.

Melossi and Pavarini also see imprisonment as reflecting capitalist relations of production…

Capitalism puts a price on the workers time; ‘prisoners ‘do time’ to ‘repay’ for their crime’

The prison and the capitalist factory both have a similar strict disciplinary style

Foucault distinguishes between two different forms of

punishment…

Sovereign Power was typical of the period before the

19th century when the monarch had power over people

and their bodies. Inflicting punishment on the body was

the means of asserting control and was usually a

spectacle

Disciplinary Power becomes dominant from the 19th

century. In this form of control, a new system of discipline

seeks to govern not just the body, but the mind/soul

through surveillance

Foucault illustrates disciplinary power with the panopticon –

a design for a prison in which all the prisoner’s cells are

visible to guard in a watch tower but the guards are not

visible to the prisoners. So, the prisoners only knew they might

be being watched so they had to behave at all times. This is

self-surveillance and self-discipline so the control is taking

place inside the prisoner. Foucault argues prison is one of a

range of institutions that increasingly began to subject

individuals to disciplinary power to induce conformity

through self-surveillance. In his view, it has now infiltrated

every part of society brings its effects ‘to the most minute

and distant elements’ (to the human soul).

Therefore, he argues the change in forms of punishment also

tells us how power operates in society.

Although Foucault’s work has stimulated considerable

research into surveillance and the exercise of disciplinary

power, he has been criticised…

The shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment is less

clear than he suggests

Unlike Durkheim, he neglects the expressive aspects of

punishment

He exaggerates the extent of control. Goffman shows

how inmates are able to resist controls in institutions such

as prisons and hospitals

Until the 18th Century, prison was used mainly for holding

offenders prior to their punishment. Following the

enlightenment period, prison was seen as a form of

punishment. In liberal democracies, prison is the most severe

form of punishment but it isn’t an effective rehabilitation

method. Many critics regard prison as an expensive way of

making bad people worst. But, since the 1980s, there has

been a move towards ‘populist punitiveness’ where

politicians have sought electoral popularity by calling for

tougher sentences, for example in 1997, New Labour took

the view that prison should be also a deterrent for persistant

petty offenders. So, the prison population swelled in size.

One consequence is overcrowding (poor sanitation, barely

edible food, clothing shortages, lack of education). The UK

imprisons a higher proportion of people that almost any

other country in Western Europe. 139 people out of 100 000

are in prison compared to 99/100000 (France). But, this figure

is higher in the USA and Russia.

Garland believes, especially the USA, is moving into an era

of mass incarceration. From the 70s, the prison population

rose rapidly in – in total over 3% of the adult population are

in prison. He argues the reason for mass incarceration is the

growing politicisation of crime control. For most of the last

century, there was a consensus – what Garland calls ‘penal

welfarism’ – that punishment should reintegrate offenders

into society. Since the 70s, there has been a move towards a

new consensus based on a more punitive and exclusionary

‘tough on crime’ policies which has led to a rising number in

prison. Another reason is the use of prison to wage USA’s

‘war on drugs’.

There is also a trend towards transcarceration (individuals

become locked into a cycle of control, shifting between

different agencies, for example, they may be brought up in

care then sent to prison). Some see it as a product of the

blurring of boundaries between criminal justice and welfare

agencies.

In the past, ‘diversion’ dealt with young offenders. The focus

was on welfare and treatment, using non-custodial,

community based controls. In recent years, community

based control methods have grown but at the same time

the number in custody has been rising steadily. So, Cohen

argues this growth has cast the ‘net of control’ over more

people. Following Faucault’s ideas, he argues the increased

range of sanctions available enables control to penetrate

even deeper into society. Community controls may divert

young offenders into society, for example using ASBOs as a

way of fast-tracking young offenders into custodial

sentences.

Victims of CrimeThe United Nations defines victims as those who have

suffered harm through acts of omissions that violate the laws

of the state. Christie believes ‘victim’ is socially constructed

(similar to Palmers ideas about childhood – Unit 1); that the

stereotype of a weak, innocent person is favoured by the

media, criminal justice system and the public. The study of

victims is called victimology and there are 2 main

perspectives…

Positivist

Critical

Miers defines positivist victimology as having three features…

It aims to identify the factors that produce patterns in

victimisation – especially those that make some

individuals or groups more likely to be victims

It focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence

It aims to identify victims who have contributed to their

own victimisation

The earliest study focused on the idea of ‘victim proneness’

and sought to identify the social and psychological

characteristics of victims that make them likely to be victims.

(Hans Von Hentig identified 13 – e.g. being female, elderly).

The implication is that victims ‘invite’ victimisation by being

the kind of person they are. For example Wolfgang’s study of

588 homicides in Philadelphia found 26% involved victim

precipitation.

Brookman notes Wolfgang shows the

importance of the victim-offender

relationship

This approach ignores wider structural

factors influencing victimisation

It can easily tip over into victim blaming

Ignores situations where victims are

unaware of their victimisation or harm is

being done but no laws are being broken

Critical victimlogy is based on conflict theories such as

Marxism and feminism. It focuses on two elements…

Structural Factors (e.g. patriarchy and poverty) which

place powerless groups at greater risk of victimisation. As

Mawby and Walklate argue; victimisation 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’ or

‘criminal’. Through the criminal justice process, the state

applies the label of victim to some but withholds it from

others, for example when police don’t charge a man

with domestic violence they are denying the women her

victim status

Tombs and Whyte show ‘safety crimes’ are

often explained away as the fault of

‘accident prone’ workers. This denies the

victim status by blaming them for their fate.

They note the ideological function of the

‘failure to label’ is that by concealing the

true extent of victimisation and its real

causes, the crimes of the powerful are

ignored. In the hierarchy of victimisation, the

powerless are most likely to be victimised yet

least likely to have this acknowledged by the

state.

This approach disregards

the role victims may play in

bringing it on themselves

It is valuable in drawing

attention to the way ‘victim’

status is constructed by

power and how this benefits

the powerful at the expense

of the powerless

The average change of someone becoming a victim of a

crime in any one year is around 1 in 4. But, the risk is very

unevenly distributed between social groups…

Class: the poorest group are more likely to be victimised.

Newburn & Rock found homeless people were 12x more

likely to experience violence than the general population

Age: younger people are more at risk of victimisation

(e.g. infants under one are most at risk of being

murdered). The elderly are at risk of abuse too but it

could take place in a nursing home so would be less

visible

Ethnicity: minority ethnic groups are at greater risk of

being victims and feeling ‘over-policed and under-

protected’

Gender: males are at greater risk than

females of being victims of violent attacks,

especially by strangers. About 70% of

homicide victims are male but women are

more likely to be victims of domestic

violence, stalking etc.

Repeat Victimisation: according to the

British Crime Survey, about 60% of the British

populaton have not been victims of any

type of crime in a given year, whereas a

mere 4% of the population re victims of

44% of all crimes in that period

Crime can have physical and emotional impact. It can also

create ‘indirect’ victims such as those who have witnessed a

crime. Pynoos et al found a child who witnessed a sniper

attach had altered behaviour and grief-like dreams a year

later. Hate crimes can created a ‘wave of harm’ – these are

‘message’ crimes aimed at intimidating the whole

community and challenging the value system.

Secondary Victimisation is the idea that individuals may

suffer further victimisation at the hands of the criminal justice

system. (feminists argue women are treated poorly in rape

cases – think of Walklate & gender differences in crime)

Crime can also create a fear of becoming a victim. Some

sociologists argue this fear is often shown as irrational, for

example women are least likely to go out at night but men

are most likely to be victims of violent attacks by strangers.

But, feminists argue we should focus on women’s safety, not

their state of mind.