Social Crime Prevention - Essay Example

Social crime prevention Introduction Crime prevention is a specific sphere of social and legal concern. In the paradigm of crime prevention in different centuries different kinds of approach to this issue were offered. Social and cultural background of the society of that period was a determinant factor of crime prevention approaches’ development. Thus in the beginning of XX century social crime prevention was a dominant theoretical background of crime prevention. This approach is considered in detail on the example of the Chicago School further on. In the beginning of 80s crime prevention was concerned about every particular incident and referred crime occurrence to the way of life of a certain society. A detailed discussion of the situational approach to crime prevention, presented further on, shifts accents from social context of crime prevention to a more subjective nature of crime. Prior social context was considered by the crime prevention theorists as a determinant one; starting from 80s more subjective and situational aspects were considered (Lawrence, 2000). Moreover, there is made an attempt to find similarities and differences between these two approaches, to evaluate their efficiency in modern practices of crime prevention. Crime Prevention: Social Approach Chicago School is a famous developer of social approach to crime prevention. The main suggestion of Chicago School is that crime is always caused by social force (Melville, Morgan, Norris and Walkington, 2006, p. 70). The primary goal of this theory was to develop welfare in the society through the expansion of welfare states, where no triggers of crime existed (Garland and Sparks, 2000, p. 195). Chicago School has made a significant contribution to crime prevention practices. Social theoretical approach applied by this school, made this study an outstanding laboratory for sociological research in the context of social relationships and influence caused by urbanism. Chicago School made an emphasis on the contextual considerations of crime. In terms of socio-cultural context crime can appear and can be prevented as well. Park and Burgess are sociologists who worked out basic claims of social crime prevention. Their main idea is a concurrent existence of five concentric zones in the process of cities’ development (The Chicago School I). The most risky zone is the “zone in transition” (Garland and Sparks, 2000, p. 189). Another claim of these sociologists can’t be discussed without arguing. Chicago School sociologists underline that well-being of the society is determined by their living conditions. In other words, if urban neighborhood of a certain society has a high level of poverty, then social structures and institutions may suffer from numerous present and potential criminals. At this point social disorganization happens (Boutellier, 2001, p. 362). Nevertheless this claim can be critically discussed in accordance with the works of other sociologists. Thus, for example, Sutherland makes an emphasis on inheritance of criminal behavior from older criminals. Thus social conditions are determined by this researcher as secondary ones. In order to define the volubility of contribution made by Chicago School into social crime prevention, it is necessary to overview the main claims of its representatives and consider them from different perspectives. Chicago school is focused on urbanistic factors in discussing crime prevention not unintentionally. Chicago School was found in the beginning of the XX century. This period can be described as a period of population growth in the cities resulted from migration. Under such conditions, social problems and poverty occurred. Furthermore, a positivistic nature of the Chicago School’s theories on social crime prevention can be explained by the fact that social positivism was a core issue for their considerations. At this point Chicago School’s Theory can be applied to early positivist crime theories. There are also echoes of deterministic approach in the School’s studies. With regard to deterministic approach, crime is considered to be a result of “consequence of biological, psychological and enviromental determents” (McLaughlin, 2002, p. 78). Moreover, positivist criminologists underline the inherited nature of criminal behavior. Positivist criminologists underlined the fact that inherited criminal behavior is explicitly visualized among potential criminals, i. e. “criminals are physiologically different to non –criminals and these criminals display observable physical signs and deformities” (Biglan, 1995, p. 480). Unlike Sutherland, positivist criminologists appeal to the society in terms of crime considerations. Thus they can reveal a potential offender only in the process of comparing him with other individuals. Another aspect of social crime prevention is developed by Durkhiem, who belonged to positivist criminals. The connecting line between positivist criminals and representatives of the Chicago School was framed in terms of a social positivist tradition. The main claim of this tradition is that crime has social underpinnings (Boutellier, 2001, p. 365). Thus, Durkheim claims that an influence of different social factors can be destructive for an individual and make him degrade. Different individuals share different kind of values. On this background deviances occur. Nevertheless criminal behavior is an inherent element of any society. Thus neither too much crime nor too few is favorable for any society. As far as we can see, Durckheim’s claims can be referred to interdependences of good and evil in the world. Thus social crime prevention presents a broad context for considerations about occurrence and consequences of crime in the society. The issues mentioned above, are considered by the Chicago School’s representatives on a macro social level. Another personality who exerted an influence on the Chicago School was Ernest Simmel. He started to develop a concept of ‘symbolic interactionism’ (West & Turner, 2010, p. 77). The scientist was focused on micro level sociological issues. He claimed that it is impossible to trace criminal nature of an individual. He underlined a subjective nature of an individual and his subjective considerations about his needs. Simmel claimed that the structure of the society is formed under influence of individuals’ interactions (Garland and Sparks, 2000, p. 192). We claim that Simmel’s claims are closer to current strategies of crime prevention. It is proven that practically, crime may be prevented if to consider a potential offender individually or on the background of his daily life, i. e. in the context of the closest environment. Therefore Simmel can be considered to be the most modernistic representative of Chicago School. Human Ecology is another trend of the Chicago School. Its founder was Robert Park. The main claim of this scientist concerned the organization of the city: in accordance with their claim it was as a “super organism” (The Chicago School I). He claimed that society needed social transformations for its consequential and successful development (Wilson, 1983). His follower and co-thinker Ernest Burgess helped him in ethnographic methods’ developing and his ecological study. In the result of their cooperation an “ecological study on the city of Chicago” occurred (The Chicago School I). It was called a “concentric zone model” (The Chicago School I). Consequently, these researchers claimed that certain social groups were located in a different manner not unintentionally. Richer groups lived further from the business center of the city and poorer classes located in the transitional zone. Thus, if to follow this theory, social changes exert direct influence on crime. This model can be questioned: it is clear at once that this model is not universal and is relevant only to a certain community, in a certain city, in a certain period of time. This model was developed in Chicago and its occurrence is caused by specific external factor of this city. This model has been criticized due to specific historical context of its development. Moreover, currently this theory can hardly be applied to crime, because a lot of rich people live close to the business center. Another drawback of this model is that it was developed on the basis of amount of data, which were analyzed with no specific considerations and didn’t concern various aspects of social life in other cities or states. From Social Prevention to Situational Prevention A move from social to situational prevention was not instant. It was a gradual shift of crime prevention strategies, caused by changes in the society. Situational crime prevention is another approach to crime prevention. This perspective is focused on considerations about crime commitment. Generally, situational crime prevention implies a strategy, when people feel safer because of reliable and protected physical environment. For example, neighborhood environment should have a better lighting; security systems should be available etc. To put it simply, the society can “look around” and see that no dangers exist. At this point we can remember of Environmental Design from Social crime prevention theory of the Chicago School. It is also possible to prevent crime if to refer to a more subjective approach. So-called “situational crime prevention” is a more subjective approach in comparison with social approach to crime prevention. The situational crime prevention is based on theoretical background developed by Larry Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979). These researchers underlined the relevance of their theory in 60s-80s. This theory implies that crime occur because of routine daily interaction of individuals in the society. Therefore this claim is illustrated by the following example: women worked hard in60s-80s and their children didn’t get a proper attention. A society was disorganized and crime was flourishing. Thus routine activity caused criminal activity (Melville, Morgan, Norris, and Walkington, 1991). In accordance with Farrell and Pease (2006) RAT is interpreted in the following way: “Crime occurs when a suitable target and a potential offender meet at a suitable time and place lacking capable guardianship” (p. 181). Furthermore, RAT underlines a natural background of crime. Its character depends on the background factors. For example, if a potential victim (a target) has no proper protection and the amount of reward is relevant, then the crime will occur for sure: “Crime does not need hardened offenders, super-predators, convicted felons or wicked people. Crime just needs an opportunity” (Farrell and Pease, 2006, p. 182). Another conclusion made by developers of RAT is the following: the society accepts a regular character of crimes’ occurrence. Victims of crimes do not often report to the police about crime. Thus crime has an ordinary character and it happens all the time. Unlike social crime prevention theory, situational crime prevention doesn’t acknowledge that crime happens on the background of unfavorable social development. Thus after WWII there were many flourishing countries. Nevertheless the level of crime was huge. Consequently, this claim justifies that situational crime prevention theory isn’t focused on crime occurrence explanation on the basis of social underpinnings, such as poverty, unemployment etc, as social crime prevention theory concludes. Moreover, Felson and Cohen claim that prosperity of the society leads to higher levels of crime, because there are many things to steal (Clarke, 2005, p. 40). We can suppose that routine activity theory is strictly criticized by the followers of social crime prevention theory. Nevertheless, it can’t go without saying that RAT gives an essential basis to the following types of crime: violation of author’s rights and copyright in the process of peer-to-peer file sharing; theft committed by employees or internal organization theft; organization crime. Therefore a correlation between social approach to crime prevention and situational approach is impossible, but it is evident that considerations about crime from these two perspectives present a multi-sided approach to crime prevention. Thus crime is considered on different levels, from two opposed points of view: social crime prevention theory is focused on social conditions causing crime occurrence (e.g. material welfare, living conditions, community services etc). Routine activity theory claims that social conditions and factors exert direct influence on crime (Chan, 199, p. 252). Nevertheless routine activity theory considers patterns of daily behavior/activities and their influence on crime rates. The association of crime with daily patterns of behaviors/activities can be simplified. The development of communities and societies lead to changes in their activities/behaviors. Thus offenders may be motivated by patterns of daily activities/behaviors, but these patterns can be different in different periods. Therefore routine activity theory has a dynamic nature and a changeable character of offender’s motivations (Pease, 2002, p. 951). A turn from social crime prevention to RAT is possible to explain by the uncovered issues of the former theory. Routine activity theory covers more issues than social crime prevention theory. Such kinds of crime as “fights, illegal markets, and white-collar crime” (Crawford, 2009, p. 13) can be prevented if to follow routine activity theory. An interesting fact (Crawford, 2009)is that the routine activity theory can be integrated with the situational approach to crime prevention in order to investigate organization internal crime and crime in local communities. As far as we can see, in the modern world situational crime prevention is more relevant (Crawford, 2009). Though tendencies of globalization are influential in the modern society, a subjective approach to crime is flourishing. This can be explained by criminologists’ considerations about crime as a specific phenomenon, independent from external factors. Empirical Evidence of Social Crime Prevention Community involvement in crime prevention is a vividly discussed issue currently. With regard to the discussed theories of social crime prevention and routine activities theory, either direct or indirect influence of the society exerted on crime is essential (Gladstone, 1980). With regard to the reforms introduced by UK police, a strong social background is a perfect opportunity to forecast and prevent crime (Winn, Newall, Coie, 2007; Waddington, 1999). A mutual work of officers of police, cooperation with local officials, and creation of interaction with community on the background of social issues is a perfect example of mutual goal setting of the society and police officers directed on elimination of the levels of violent behavior, crime and misconduct (Bayley, 1983). Public safety is a core issue for UK police. Therefore an emphasis made on public needs proves a sincere intention of UK police– to ensure public safety (Goldsmith, Lewis, 2000). Community involvement in public order protection ranges from “local authority community safety staff, staff employed by housing associations and private security employees” (Crawford & Lister, 2007, p. 872). Thus representatives of any from these three groups may be chosen as “accredited officers” (Rayner, 2010). The main functions of accredited officers are to issue fixed penalty notices, caused by violations of environmental or aesthetic issues. Another example from Canada defines a positive effect of community-police cooperation. A street watch projected launched in the village of Four Marks created a “community cohesion” (Rayner, 2010). Thus crime could be prevented on the background of social development (Greenberg, 1990, p. 64). In accordance with street watch coordinators: “Across the district, we have adopted a far greater targeted and enforcement approach towards anti-social behavior. The emphasis is made on investigation to identify those responsible with a clear enforcement policy where criminal offences are committed” (Rayner, 2010). Thus it is evident that street watch in Canada presents a wider scope of issues to be dealt with in comparison with the British accredited officers. It is even possible to claim that cooperation of community and police and active role, which is played by community in crime prevention, is a perfect alternative to ordinary taken crime prevention measures. Moreover, such kind of community involvement in crime prevention implies “community support and reassurance” as well as “understanding, tolerance and acceptance” (Kelly, Caputo, Jamieson, 2005). It is also important that representatives of different levels of the society take part in crime prevention. Thus community cohesion occurred in the result of cooperation is a strong underpinning for assurance in public safety and mutual reliability (Sullivan, 2001). Thus the primary goal of community involvement is fulfilled: “Across the district, anti-social behavior, criminal damage and violent crime continues to fall and we will aim to keep up the momentum and partnership work” (Sampson, Raudenbush, Earls, 1997). Moreover, other positive results are evident: as it was mentioned above, community involvement in crime prevention has led to mutual reliability in the society and created fundamentals of the state-society trusted relationship. Therefore an active cooperation of the community and police leads to creation of trusted and reliable relationship in the society. It is even possible to claim that such kind of interaction doesn’t only prevent crime, but also is a starting point of a further development of the state and public interaction in different contexts and on different levels. Conclusion The considered approaches of crime prevention can’t put an end to this root of evil, but both of these two approaches can offer interesting alternatives for crime prevention. The majority of researches and criminologists claim that crime can be eliminated, if crime reasons are eradicated. Therefore social conditions of living should be favorable and available to any individual or family. It’s no need to make the society silk-stocking, but it is necessary to provide the society with conditions for a decent life (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Bourduin, Rowland, Cunningham, 1998). Moreover, in spite of the fact that social crime prevention is not relevant in the modern world, it is a perfect basis for community-police interaction establishment. It’s no need to consider about inefficiency of social crime prevention, it is better to think about useful claims of Chicago School and project them on crime prevention in the modern context. Works cited 1. Alderson, J. 1979. Policing freedom. Plymouth: Macdonald and Evans. 2. Anderson, D.A., 1999. The aggregate burden of crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 42, pp. 611–642. 3. Bayley, David H., 1983. Accountability and control of police: lessons for Britain. In Bennett, Trevor, ed. The future of policing: papers presented to 15th Cropwood Round-table Conference. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology, December 1982, pp. 146-162. 4. Biglan, A., 1995. Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior into a lower prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, pp. 479–492. 5. Bittner, E., 1970. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. Washington DC: National Institute of Mental Health. 6. Boutellier, H., 2001. The convergence of social policy and criminal justice. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 9, pp. 361-380. 7. Brogden, M., & Nijhar, P., 2005. Community policing: National and international models and approaches. Cullumpton: Willan. 8. Chan, J. B.L., 1999. Governing police practice: limits of the new accountability. British Journal of Sociology, 50(2), pp. 251-270. 9. Clarke, R., 2005. Seven misconceptions of situational crime prevention. In N. Tilley, ed. Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Cullompton: Willan, pp. 39-70. 10. Crawford, A., 1998. Crime prevention and community safety: Politics, policies and practices. Harlow: Longman. 11. Crawford, A., 2007. Crime Prevention and Community Safety. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, and R. Reiner, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 872-909. 12. Crawford, A., 2009. Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective. Cullompton: Willan. 13. Culver, J. H., 1975. Policing the police: problems and perspectives. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3(2), pp. 125-135. 14. Farrell, G. and Pease, K., 2006. Criminology and Security. In M. Gill, ed. The Handbook of Security. London: Palgrave, pp. 179-199. 15. Garland, D. and Sparks, R., 2000. Criminology, social theory and the challenge of our times. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), pp. 189-204. 16. Gladstone, F.J., 1980. Co-ordinating Crime Prevention Efforts. In R.V.G. Clarke and P. Mayhew, eds. Designing Out Crime, London: HMSO, pp. 139-171. Home Office, 2010. Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting Police and the People. London: HMSO. 17. Goldsmith, A. J. & Lewis, C. eds., 2000. Civilian oversight of policing: governance, democracy and human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 18. Greenberg, M. A., 1990. The control of police conduct: a key issue for security executives. Journal of Security Administration, 13(1&2), pp. 63-72. 19. Henggeler, W.W., Schoenwald, S.K., Bourduin, C.M., Rowland, M.D., Cunningham, P.B., 1998. Multi-systemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford. 20. Kelly, K.D., Caputo, T. and Jamieson, W., 2005. Reconsidering Sustainability: Some Implications for Community-based Crime Prevention. Critical Social Policy 25 (3), pp. 306-324. 21. Lawrence, R., 2000. The Politics of Force, London: University of California Press. 22. McLaughlin, E., 2002. The crisis of the social and the political materialization of community safety. In G. Hughes, E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie, eds., Crime prevention and community safety: New directions, London: Sage, pp. 77-101. 23. Melville, G., Morgan, K., Norris, G. and Walkington, Z., 2006. Psychological Explanations for Criminal Behaviour. In I. Marsh, ed. Theories of Crime. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 91-133. 24. Pease, K., 2002. Crime Reduction. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, and R. Reiner, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 949-79. 25. Rayner, G., 2010. Hampshire village of Four Marks launches street patrol to tackle antisocial behavior, Telegraph.co.uk, [online]. Available at: . [Accessed 18th September 2010). 26. Sampson R.J., Raudenbush S.W., Earls F.J., 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, pp. 918–924. 27. Sullivan, H., 2001. Modernization, democratization and community governance. Local Government Studies, 27(3), pp. 1-24. 28. The Chicago School I: Park & Burgess. "Social Ecology". [online]. Available at: http://www.crimetheory.com/Soc1/Chic1.htm [Accessed 19th September 2010]. 29. Tilley, N., 2003. Community policing, problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing. In T. Newburn, ed. Handbook of Policing. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 311-339. 30. Waddington, P.A.J., 1999. Policing Citizens, London: UCL Press. 31. West, R., & Turner, L., 2010. Symbolic interaction theory. In Micheal Ryan & Katie Stevens., eds. Introducing communication theory analysis and application, pp.76-91. New York: McGraw-Hill. 32. Wilson, J. Q., 1983. Thinking about crime. New York: Random House. 33. Winn, D.M., Newall, B., Coie, J.D., 2007. The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group Fast Track morphs into On Track: The dissemination of a conduct prevention program in Manchester, England. Child and Family Policy Review, 3, pp. 7–10. Read More