The Responsibility of Public in Crime Control Strategies - Essay Example

The Responsibility of Public in Crime Control Strategies Introduction This paper will discuss and critically evaluate the responsibilization of public in crime control strategies. Target hardening simply refers to strengthening the security of a building, locality or community in order to reduce the chances of crime. It often refers to the crime prevention through environmental designs including use Of CCTV Cameras, construction of defensible spaces etc. Crime prevention is considered as a varied concept and its overall boundaries keep on changing with the introduction and involvement of new stakeholders. It not only depends upon different institutional frameworks but also takes into consideration the geographical as well as linguistic considerations before it can actually be implemented in its entirety. It is however important to understand that the overall concept of crime control and prevention largely depends upon how State can actually play its part in defining the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders involved. During 1970s and 1980s it was strongly assessed that crime control and prevention may not be entirely under the control of State. Increasingly, government authorities believed that crime control is actually beyond the power of State. There were two important arguments which suggested this phenomenon i.e. the limited capacity of the criminal justice institutions in controlling the crime and there are crime control mechanisms which are outside the boundaries of the State. It was considered that by reforming the State institution as well as involving non-state mechanisms, government authorities can actually effectively devise new mechanisms to control and prevent crime. Defining Crime Prevention Crime prevention comprises of any acts taken by the public institutions or private individuals which are aimed at reducing the damage done by the acts which are defined as criminal acts by the State’s criminal laws. Public protection has become one of the key public issues and much legislation has been done in this regard to ensure that society can effectively deal with the criminal few and develop public protection to the point where society as a whole feel more safer.( Ashworth & Zedner,2012) The above definition therefore critically suggests the involvement of private individuals in crime prevention. The public and private partnership in order to prevent crime is considered as an essential tool in order to ensure that the society as a whole functions crime free. What is also however, important to understand that crime prevention is a relatively fluid term and it has been suggested that it needs to be classed in order to effectively understand the term and its application. It Is also important to note that this approach is largely based upon neo-liberal thoughts on State intervention. Neo-liberal philosophy advocates for the no intervention from the State and encourages the use of markets and private individuals to even tackle the critical issues such as safety and security of the individuals as well as the communities. This is often based upon the notion of risk management and the involvement of public as one of the stakeholders in preventing the crime. There are various reasons which can force an individual to actually commit a crime and initiate the cycle of more crimes. Firstly, aggression and anti-social behaviors along with habits and drug addictions can force individuals to commit crimes. Such crimes may be high or low in intensity but these factors actively contribute towards the creation of environment which encourages criminals to commit crimes. Further, the current life circumstances, unemployment as well as other social behaviors are also considered as contributing factors for creating such crimes in any given locality. (Smith, 1984) There are two main forms of crime prevention i.e. situational and social. Situational crime prevention is sort of physical prevention where the State institutions actually take physical measures to reduce crimes and further prevent it. The social aspect of crime prevention however is a relatively complex term and is also further sub-divided into developmental and community. Developmental crime prevention focuses on exploring and understanding as to what are the root causes of crime and how State and other organs can actually divert their efforts to overcome such root cause to reduce the crime. Community crime prevention however, relies heavily on the local community and efforts it can take to actually prevent crimes. This could also include community policing as well as the involvement of the community in different other related activities related with crime prevention. The overall concept of the crime prevention first needs to be viewed from the sociological perspective and especially from the view of what is called risk society. The overall concept of risk society suggests a postmodern world lives in future and therefore is focused upon the security. In such a society crime prevention therefore is necessary to fit into the overall orientation of the society as a whole. This theory also indicates that there is a manufactured risk within the society which often emerges as a result of science and technology. The increased level of risk within the society creates more security oriented citizens who emphasize more on creating a society which is safe for the future. The theory of risk society is based upon the notion of crime prevention. It also discusses the crime control and how to address to the root causes of the crime within society. Since the society is future oriented therefore this theory suggests that we must take precautions today in order to ensure that our future remains safe. This line of thinking therefore asks for active measures to prevent crime. Society however needs to develop that level of consciousness in order to put into place a systematic infrastructure, policies and procedures in place which can actually allow the society to prevent crime today in order to have a secure future. Crime prevention therefore is linked with the risk management specifically in terms of policing of the society as a whole. In such a society, State or government is replaced with the empowered and proactive local networks which participate in the overall process of crime prevention. This is based upon the active and engaged citizens who can actually contribute actively towards the achievement of the goals set for the achievement of a secure future. In such a society, active citizens as well as participation therefore avoids creating fortress cities while at the same time achieving the objective of crime prevention. It is however, important to understand that such societies may not be possible without the support of the State. State still has to play its part in creating a more active society where its members participate into the process of crime prevention and crime control. State needs to set up such infrastructure and other legislative frameworks which could help the development of such a society. It is also important to understand that such type of infrastructure and participation by the public requires the development of a certain type of society. All the types of societies required varied level of State support where citizens either involve or do not involve state in the prevention and control of the crime. In order to prevent crime, there are different techniques and tools which are being used over the period of time. One such method is to basically intervene at the early stage and reduce the risk at the very early stage. This requires tackling the risk measures and put into practices some protective measures which could lessen the chances of crime. Remedial intervention is also another option which can be exercised in order to ensure that the crime is prevented at the early stages. Remedial intervention requires identification of potential criminals and putting them through a systematic process of remediation which can help them to avoid falling into criminal tendencies. Another approach in which communities are empowered and given the responsibility is called the responsiblization. This initiative requires a significant effort to develop the effective relationships between the police and the general public. The subsequent section will discuss this phenomenon and will also highlight what consequences this may have for the crime prevention. Defensible Space Underlying the concept of responsibilization is the creation of defensible spaces which can help communities to actually reduce the crime. It requires deliberate restructuring of communities in such a manner which can reduce the number of opportunities for the offenders to commit the crime. This involves a complete restructuring of streets, corridors as well as other areas which can create the potential to commit the crime. (Cozens, Hillier,& Prescott,2001) It is also important to note that such efforts may not involve the direct involvement of the government and may have to be done by the communities on their own. When government empowers citizens and communities, it therefore becomes the responsibility of the communities to redesign and redevelop their localities in such a manner which can help reduce the crime. It therefore largely depends upon the support and active participation of the citizens to remove the chances of the crime by becoming more active in terms of their role in maintaining peace and preventing crime in the localities.( Hers, 1995) The creation of defensible spaces also suggests that as more ownership is created over a certain locality, chances are that the ownership of few will be created. When stakes are raised, it becomes more possible for the community as a whole to actually prevent the crime by becoming more active in the defense of their locality. Increasing the ownership of the areas therefore reduces the chances that these areas may be used for the purpose of committing crimes. (Cozens, Hillier& Prescott, 1999) Responsibilization of Public and its consequences Responsibilization as a term first appeared in the governmentality literature and indicates the process whereby responsibility is rendered to individuals for the tasks which were earlier responsibility of someone else. Usually the initially responsibility either lies on any state agency or that task was not recognized as a responsibility at all. This also means that the initially responsibility of the defense and protection may have been on the general public which was later taken over by the government. Responsibilization will actually make it happen to have the responsibility back to the original stakeholders of the responsibility. Though the overall concept is debatable in nature however, once implemented it can have significant influence on the way public and private partnership is created and how policing and crime prevention can be reshaped with the involvement of communities.( Garland, 1996) This process is often related with the neo-liberal political discourse where it is argued that these were the responsibilities which were earlier taken from the persons or the subject has altogether has avoided this duty in the past. It therefore becomes critical to assign back the responsibility to the individuals and allow State to focus on tasks which are its direct responsibility. It is therefore a process where government actually passes back the responsibility to the individuals to which this responsibility actually belongs to. From the perspective of crime prevention and crime control, the process of responsbilization has been assigned different meanings. First, it has been suggested that police and other crime prevention agencies have actually assumed duties and responsibilities which are varied in nature. Politicians as well as government has created a political discourse which critically suggests that some of the responsibilities of the Police should be reassigned to the public as police may not be fully capable of dealing with the issues of crime prevention and control. This argument is based upon the suggestion that police may not be able to provide the blanket protection therefore everyone can be potential victim of the crime and everyone should take steps for crime prevention. (Hughes, 2003) This argument is based upon the notion that public need to take sensible and cautious efforts in order to ensure that it remains safe and does not entirely rely on the police and other law enforcement agencies to offer them complete protection. Public needs to take certain efforts which can help them to protect on their own and without the active support from Police and other law enforcement agencies. Public therefore also need to contribute towards the creation of such neighborhoods which are safe and reduce the chances of burglary and other crimes. In order to achieve these objectives, police, government, insurance companies and other relevant organizations have actually provided the relevant information which can help public to actually create such neighborhoods and become relatively safer. Secondly, it also becomes the responsibility of the public to actually report any crimes to the police. It is critical that public should take active part in reporting such crimes to the public and become more involved in identifying the spots and places where either crimes have taken place or more vulnerable to crime in their localities. Citizens are made responsible for the surveillance of their neighborhood and properties and constantly remain in touch with the police to report to any illegal or potentially threatening situations which can create more risk in the future. This argument therefore indicates that whole communities should actually be involved in the policing of their neighborhood and form an active liaison with the police and other crime prevention departments.( Gowri, 2003) It will therefore not only ensure that the communities are becoming risk free in terms of reduced crime but also form effective communication with the police departments. Forming an effective partnership with the police and other law enforcement agencies also suggests that the communities will receive the policing which deserve and the overall outcome of the whole policing department could be improved. Such links with the police not only result into better audit of the police departments but also it can create communities as the customers of the police department. The evaluation of the performance of the police will therefore be directly linked with how local communities actually view the performance of the police. This could not only increase the level of activity of the police on their own but will create an extra check and balance over their performance in terms of their overall ability to liaison and coordinate with their local communities to prevent the crime.( Walklate, 1998) Responsibilization also indicates that the offenders actually make choices to commit the crimes on their own. Though a welfare state may suggest that social conditions may have been responsible for the creation of offenders however, ultimately it is their own choice which makes them take actions which are considered as criminal in nature. Since offenders make choices on their own it therefore becomes the responsibility of the government departments as well as the public to manage the risk and actively participate in reducing the number of opportunities which can entice offenders to engage into crime.( Zarafonitou,2004) One of the key critiques of the responsibilization approach however, is based upon the argument that it is focused on blaming the victim. It puts back the responsibilities on the victim to protect herself without active support from the police and law enforcement agencies. The overall consequences of such approach therefore may indicate that public may not readily accept this arrangement and may not actively participate until educated properly. It has also been argued that the individual responsibility for tackling the problems have been laid on the communities however, the overall origins of such problems are multi in nature. Accordingly, it is argued that the individuals may not be held responsible for problems which are created due to multiple reasons and government has to play its part in ensuring that it serves as the major contributor towards dealing with any such problems. (Seagrave , 1996) Larger criticism has been from feminists who argue that women may not be completely equipped to deal with high risk problems. Responsbilization suggests that women should avoid high risk areas and should not rely completely on the police to provide them protection. Since women are naturally weak in nature and may not be completely able to defend themselves therefore leaving women at the mercy of their own judgment may contribute towards the risk management. It has also been argued that responsibilization will actually create the consequences of relieving the government as well as the police from their essential responsibility. It is viewed as devolving of government downwards as government willingly relinquishes responsibilities which are essentially its own. It is considered as a calculated effort by the government to actually relieve itself from the responsibilities and make public responsible for the actions and duties which are essential their own. It therefore also gives an impression that government has actually empowered markets to take care of the important issue like security of the public and relieved itself from one of its basic and most critical responsibilities. Conclusion Crime prevention is considered as a varied concept and its overall boundaries keep on changing with the introduction and involvement of new stakeholders. It not only depends upon different institutional frameworks but also takes into consideration the geographical as well as linguistic considerations before it can actually be implemented in its entirety. It is however important to understand that the overall concept of crime control and prevention largely depends upon how State can actually play its part in defining the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders involved. Responsibilization of public in crime prevention can have both the positive as well as negative consequences. It can help to create active participation of the communities in generating an environment which is safer and adequate for living. It creates opportunities for the public to form effective alliances with the police and other law enforcement agencies and become more active in creating communities which can help them to live a secure life. It also provides a tool to improve the performance of the police and other law enforcement agencies and make public directly responsible for evaluating the performance of police. Creation of defensible spaces requires that the communities should radically change their physical infrastructure in order to ensure that they create localities which are safer to live and discourage crime. It is however important to understand that public may not be entirely able to accept this concept as it has been suggested that the public may consider that government is deliberately devolving its responsibilities to the government. References 1. Ashworth, A & Zedner, L ,2012, Prevention and Criminalization: Justifications and Limits New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 15(4) , pp. 542-571 2. Cozens, P, Hillier,D & Prescott, G, 2001 Crime and the design of residential property – exploring the theoretical background - Part 1, Property Management, 19(2), pp.136 – 164 3. Cozens,P, Hillier, D & Prescott, G 1999 The sustainable and the criminogenic: the case of new-build housing projects in Britain, Property Management, 17(3), pp.252 - 261 4. Garland, D. 1996 The Limits of the Sovereign State : strategies for crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36 (4), p.445-471. 5. Gowri, A.2003 Community policing is an epicycle, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(4), pp.591 – 611 6. Hers, B, 1995. Defensible Space Cityscape, 30(1) pp. 69-70 7. Hughes, G, 2003 A brief history of community safety: a critical reflection from the academy", Safer Communities, 2(4), pp.22 – 28 8. Seagrave J, 1996 Defining community policing, American Journal of Police, 15(2), pp.1 – 22 9. Smith, S, 1984, Crime and the Structure of Social Relations (1984)Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 9(4) , pp. 427-442 10. Walklate, S, 1998, Crime and Community: Fear or Trust? The British Journal of Sociology, 49(4) , pp. 550-569 11. Zarafonitou, C, 2004, Local crime prevention councils and the partnership model in Greece, Safer Communities, 3(1), pp.23 – 28 Read More