Analysis of the Crime Reduction Plan - Essay Example

Francis Gichuhi FIVE POINT PLAN FOR CRIME REDUCTION Period: Spring Five Point Plan for Crime Reduction The present of criminality in the nation is both disturbing and alarming. Recent findings of the FBI assessment on the MS-13 showed that it is not only boosting its ranks, but is also expanding its operations nationwide. Now operating in 47 states, the MS-13, a gang that has been in the center of many criminal activities, has obviously launched a successful recruitment strategy consisting of promoting gangsters’ lifestyles and absorbing smaller gangs. This growing criminality is compounded by the fact that prison cells are bursting at the seams, which is hurting the country’s pockets. Yet, despite placing more and more individuals under the control of the country’s correctional center, the crime rate does not seem to be going down. A reasonable conclusion that can be reached from the aforesaid findings is that the present justice system is not working as expected. Alternative plans or policies, therefore, should be adopted to bridge the gap between law enforcement and effective reduction in crime rates. Such policies and measures should be able to address the shortcomings of the existing approaches to crime reduction as well as remedy the limited capacity of the criminal judicial system. Such measures should, at the least, include the following: reducing re-offence through education, training and employment; focused or individualized deterrence; addressing criminal gangs from the roots; Situational Crime Prevention (SCP), and; reducing drug use. Reducing re-offence through education, training and employment One way of reducing crime rates is to lower the rate of recidivism or reoffending. A study of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration conducted by the Bureau of Jail Statistics (BJS) in the 1990s on inmates released in 1994 showed that within three years, more than 50% of them went back to prison within three years from release. Thus, 73.8% of property offenders released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years and so did 61.7% of violent crime offenders, 66.7% of drug offenders and 62.2% rate of public order offenders (2002). In 2000, 42% of 459,000 US parolees reoffended within 18 months from release (Serin, 2005). A parallel study of reoffending in the UK published by the Audit Commission (1996) revealed that most repeat offenders come from disadvantaged groups, which could entail homelessness, unemployment, drug use, mental and alcohol problems. A majority of the offenders are unemployed at the time of arrest. The youth group has a high rate of recidivism, most of who are out of school. Generally, most prisoners lack necessary skills for employment (Audit Commission, 1996) Intervention should be applied both in the prisons and in the community. According to Ofsted (2009), education, training and employment are the best ways of reducing re-offence. Joblessness triggers some people to engage in crimes and join gangs to get money. Education and training for prisoners will provide them with important knowledge and skills, which will work to their advantage once they are released from prisons. Employment will be relatively easier and ultimately, reintegration into society. Being armed with the necessary education and training also reduce feelings of inferiority upon return to their respective communities. Difficulties in re-integration can cause depression and frustration and compel newly released prisoners to resort to recidivism. For the youth, this encourages them to seek the company of persons similarly situated, such as joining criminal gangs. Education intervention offers a chance for ex-convicts for a better life rather than engage again in criminality. Technical training is best for most prisoners because it is less academically oriented, but adult and juvenile prisons should receive the same level of education as those in mainstream schools. This will make it easy for the youth offenders to integrate back to their schools or continue with higher education upon release. Offender campuses that serve as centers of excellence and linked to mainstream education system should be developed (Audit Commission, 1996). The same study by the Audit Commission (1996) also recommended a job placement scheme targeting prisoners. Such a job placement scheme contemplates of linking offenders to employers even while the offender is still undergoing incarceration and should continue upon release to reduce the temptations of re-offending. If a prisoner knows that a job is waiting for him upon release, it makes him anticipate positively his actual release from prison. This is a form of creating a positive attitude towards life and the environment, which is crucial for an ex-convict. It is also advisable for job centers to aim at employing offenders. This approach will greatly reduce crimes committed as a result of joblessness, idleness and poverty. It also reduces the number of youths who are out of school. This is significant considering that out of school youths are the most predisposed to criminal activities than those who are in school. Education programs during incarceration have proven to have reduced reoffending rates in many states. A study by Cordon and Weldon (2003) that vocational completers while in prison had a low recidivism rate of 8.75% while GED completers fared even better at a lower rate of 6.71% . Comparatively, non-participating inmates had a recidivism rate of 26%. A study of the Texas correctional system by Fabelo (2002) of released inmates between 1997 and 1998 showed similar results. Released inmates with high educational attainment were able to get jobs after release from prison and had lower recidivism rate. Chappell (2004) also conducted a similar study of inmates between 1990 and 1999 and found the link between low recidivism and correctional education (cited Gonzales, 2008: 2). In the UK, a company was established to give jobs to ex-prisoners only. It has offered permanent jobs for 46% of the more than 200 recruits. Its records showed that reoffending rates among those who participated in correctional education is below 14% compared to the national reoffending rate of 60% (Ofsted, 2009). Focused or Individualized Deterrence The focused or individualized deterrence strategy particularly works for gangs such as the MS-13. This strategy had its origin in the Boston “Operation: Ceasefire” launched in the 1990s to reduce gang homicides in that area. In that operation, any homicide committed by a gang or a gang member brought the entire resources of law enforcement breathing down the neck of the entire gang. The underpinning rationale for this strategy was that gang members are naturally predisposed to committing crimes as part of their culture and therefore, general deterrence strategies are unlikely to dissuade them from committing crimes. Moreover, the gang hierarchy will voluntarily rein in their own members from committing crimes to prevent a crackdown on their organization. Thus, in this strategy, an individualized approach that brings with it a more severe threat of collective punishment is considered an option in preventing gang-related crimes (Delaney 2005: 4). A focused deterrence strategy, however, leans towards facilitating desired behavior among gang members particularly, rather than eliminating violent behavior in general. The drawback to this is once the threat is lifted or withdrawn, the possibility that the same nature of criminality will reappear. Nonetheless, its effectiveness in reducing gang violence is without question as proven by the Boston Operation: Ceasefire as evident from the reduction of homicide from 44 youth homicides (between 1991 and 1995) to 26 in 1996, down to 15 in 1997 and a downward trend until 1999. The operation was deemed successful in reducing gang violence through four intervention categories: suppression; social intervention; opportunity provision, and; community organization (Decker and Reed, 277-283) Several key elements should be adopted in this approach. First, the offenders should be aware that they are under scrutiny. They should know that special attention will be given to their activities. Second, they should know the consequences of their lack of co-operation. This will cause them to develop some sense of fear and the need to avoid crime. They should be informed on what they could have done to avoid enforcement and the support and opportunities that can be offered to them. In Operation: Ceasefire, for example, the authorities focused on gun trafficking and gun-related violence and conducted face-to-face forums with gang members (Braga and Glenn, 2005). Nevertheless, it was also considered that other factors may have influenced the favourable results of the operation changes in unemployment rate, youth population, violent index crimes and other variables (Decker and Reed, 2002: 277). The success in Boston in the 1990s has encouraged cities like Rochester in New York and Winnipeg in Canada to implement a similar strategy. In Rochester, gangs account for 60 to 80% of its homicides. In 2003, the city launched its own Operation Ceasefire by organizing a meeting with all gang members in the area as a parole/probation condition. In the meeting, gang members were warned that a homicide offense committed by any of the members of a gang will warrant a collective crackdown on the entire gang using all legal resources of the authorities (York, 2005). In Winnipeg, the operation was aimed at reducing auto theft. It led to a 75% decrease in the crime between 2004 and 2009, which is three times higher than the reduction experienced nationally. Savings from this operation is approximately $38 million per year. The same approach has also led to a 32% reduction in gunshots and 25% reduction in gun injuries. Figure 1 illustrates the assessment results for the impact of individual deterrence in Winnipeg to curb vehicle theft (Hastings, 2010: 9-10). A problem-based approach to criminal gangs; addressing it from the roots Individual intervention, enforcement and suppression, however, are not enough as evidenced by the increasing criminality in society. Most of the existing gangs, for example, are youth gangs. In order to effectively to reduce, if not eliminate, gang-related crimes, the problem of gang involvement should be clearly defined and its causes clearly understood. These causes should then be addressed as matters of priority (Bullock and Tilley, 2003). There is need to reach to the roots of gang formation and involvement. There should be a shift from over-emphasizing reactive solutions like enforcement and suppression, which only deals with those who have gotten the attention of the judicial system. This means that the causes of gang formation, enrollment and behavior should be the main point of focus. This will help to address areas in which law enforcement responses to gangs and gang behavior has failed. This is important because there are limits to the criminal justice system in terms of its capacity, though it plays a very important role. For example, its mandate to deal with the many risk factors that increase the possibilities of youths joining gangs (Rosenbaum et al, 1998). The criminal judicial system is also limited in capacity in terms of resources. It is also limited in its ability to provide better options that can provide the youth with benefits similar to those they are seeking through gang involvement. According to Bullock and Tilley, (2003), a problem-based approach should be adopted. Once the problem and its solutions are identified, then suitable actors for delivering the intervention must be involved. In this plan, we imagine these youths as people who are following a three-basic stages career path. The first stage is called ‘before’, the second is ‘gang involvement’ and the third stage is ‘exit’. In the first stage, the focus should be to identify risks and protective factors related to involvement with gangs. These could be personal, structural, relational or local factors. In the second stage, the youth, in example, has already decided to join the gang. The main focus here is the gang as a solution to these youths’ problems and provider of benefits to its members. The problem here is that involvement in gangs could facilitate or require criminal actions. It is at this point that these youth get the attention of the judicial system. At the third stage, the youth exits from the gang. The focus is to look for incentives and alternatives ways that will offer them the same benefits as those they used to get from gang involvement. This should be relevant enough so as to encourage them to keep away from crime and violence. According to Rosenbaum et al (1998), a good reintegration program, should be developed. This will enable the youth offender to be easily reintegrated into the society. Improper reintegration will trigger re-offence with the intention of going back to prison or as a reaction to rejection. This means the local communities should be educated on how to accept them back and why. In Dane County, Wisconsin, the average recidivism a year was 42% before 2006, until it implemented a reintegration program for ex-offenders called The Journey Home. The program resulted in an astounding 5.4% recidivism rate in the first 12 months of implementation for ex-offenders who became part of the program and 25% for those outside of the program. The Journey Home is underpinned by the REST philosophy, or the Residency/Housing, Employment, Support and Treatment factors. In the Support part, the ex-offenders are encouraged to join Circle of Support program or Voices Beyond Bar, which are community-based programs. In Circle, a freshly released offender is linked to another ex-offender, who is a member of some church congregation in the County, to assist the former in his reintegration to the community. In Voices, the ex-offender is given the opportunity to give back or serve the community through various community services assisted by volunteers (Jones, 2007: 1-3). Situational crime prevention (SCP) SCP strategy has proved to be effective in the UK. It is designed to prevent crimes by increasing the risks involved and reducing opportunities. It is a quick way of responding to crimes because their occurrence at a certain time and place is already anticipated. It provides a practical focus for crime reduction, especially where traditional methods have failed. Its key concepts are the physical environment and opportunity. It focuses on the setting and context of crime and the victim instead of focusing on criminals. SCP uses technology and techniques that manipulates the environment so as to make the target inaccessible. This makes criminal activity difficult. This main principle for this approach is that it is possible to reduce crime by significantly reducing the opportunities for crime. SCP discourages criminal activities in certain places identified as potential targets for crimes, such as offices, factories and apartment buildings. Preventive action is taken to prevent potential offenders from offending in such places by exclusionary measures such as making access to the place difficult by providing impediment to entrances and exits or by outright barring certain persons from entering a place. Crimes are, therefore, prevented or if they already happened, quickly disrupted, frustrated and its harm reduced. In the latter case, stolen credit cards and phones, for example, should be immediately blocked and rendered unusable by the offender (Garland and Alison, 2000). The first technique is target hardening. This means reducing accessibility and vulnerability of the target. This is achieved by stepping up natural/human and techno-surveillance, for example, Closed-circuit television (CCTV) and alarms. This makes the crime action more difficult because it will require more effort. It is also achieved by making criminal activity less rewarding and riskier. This strategy shifts crime reduction from the hands of criminal justice agencies to the community, hence making it more practical. It is best implemented by schools, business enterprises, communication departments, entertainment centers and transport authorities. This approach was launched in 1997 in the UK. Since then, there has been notable reduction in crime rates. Burglary rates have reduced by 21% from 1997. There is also a reduction in victimization rates, reduced in 1999 by 30%. Access control ‘defend space’ is also applied in SCP. The access to offices by offenders is controlled. Strict rules should be followed when accessing computers, bank accounts and installation of entry phones (Clarke, 1997) and pin numbers should be applied in monitoring people. Table 1 in the appendix illustrates the rating of various respondents to 25 SCP techniques. Reducing drug use The percentage of offenders using illicit drugs cannot be ignored and it is substance abuse and addiction that is behind the rise of prison population the US. Of the 2.3 million people behind America’s bars in 2006, 84.8% were involved with substance abuse. Involvement in drugs is a chief factor in all kinds of crimes. In violent crimes, 77.5% involved drugs; in property crimes, 83.4% also involved substance, and; in other offenses with supervision element, 76.9 also involved the use of drugs (CASA, 2010). Fish (2006) reveals that there is a high chance of offending among drug dependent people. According to the 2004 US Bureau of Justice Statistics 17% of offenders committed crime to get money for drugs. Drug use accounted for 72% of stabbings, 41% of forceful rapes, 83% of homicides and 67% of child beating. The rate of offence is higher for those who have problems in using these drugs. A 2005/06 Arrestee Survey in UK indicated that 79% of those arrested during that period had been to jail at least once in the last year. Fifty-seven per cent had been tested earlier in police stations. Therefore it is most appropriate that their chances for using these drugs be reduced. Violent crimes are mostly reported among drug depended offenders. In an effort to fund their drug requirements, some end up being street-level dealers. This predisposes them to violence associated with drug markets. Most of the violence in drug markets is linked to organized crime gangs. Organized crime is defined by its attributes, which are: structure; restricted membership; continuity; violence or the threat of violence; illegal enterprises; legitimate business penetration; corruption, and; lack of ideology (Finklea 2010:2). By its nature, organized crime is inevitably linked to drug considering the huge revenue potential in drug dealing. There is, therefore, an inherent and natural bond between drug use and criminal activities (Kleiman, 1994). Police authorities can therefore, intervene in the drugs-criminal activity chain in prisons through the prison-based therapeutic communities and using community base programs. This policy will help reduce drug related crimes (Chin, 2002). Though it may be challenging to treat, rehabilitate and reintegrate drug addicts due to interaction problems, it is more profitable. Compulsory testing should be conducted immediately after arrest. This is done especially for those people who are suspected to have a problem with drug use. In this case, it is mainly for those who commit a ‘trigger offence’, for example robbery, theft or burglary. Upon testing positive for drugs, participation in treatment and assessments should be made mandatory depending on the level of drug dependency and influence. A program similar to UK’s Counseling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare, which is a scheme established to assist drug-dependent prisoners while on custody and even on release, (Harman & Paylor, 2005) should be adopted in all prisons. This will enable proper assessments, support and treatments to be offered to the offenders. Drug and non-drug services should be given to those offenders who experience problems with drugs both in custody and after release. In Europe, the Enhanced Addictions Casework Service (EACS) was established to deal with offenders who are chronically under the influence of drugs. Conditional cautioning is a technique in this strategy. A drug-dependent offender undergoes rehabilitation, for example, for drug treatment. If the offender refuses at some point, they are cautioned that they will face prosecution for their original offence (Fish, 2006). A similar program could be also established in the US. Prison-based therapeutic communities have proved to be effective in offering of prison-based drug treatment (Fish, 2006). These have reduced the rates of illicit drug use and re-offence. A support for this strategy is the drug courts the maintenance opioid detoxification and methadone in communities and in prisons, prison-based therapeutic communities and the RAPt 12-Step abstinence-based program. Conclusion Traditional methods of curbing crimes like enforcement and suppression are not sufficient in controlling the existing and emerging criminal activities. Furthermore, these approaches are harsh and create rebellion. They do not prevent crimes but deal with its aftermaths. Therefore there should be a shift from these traditional to strategic policies. Reduction of crimes should be a shared vision and responsibility. Necessary resources, knowledge and skills should be incorporated in order to see the success of this Five Point crime reduction plan. There should be adequate and continuous support for local communities. The public should be informed and engaged. Their support and co-operation is also very necessary because they are the main victims of such criminal activities. They should show willingness to support this plan. References: Audit Commission (1996). Misspent youth: Young people and crime, London: Audit Commission for Local Authorities and NHS in England and Wales. BJS (2002) Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf. Braga, A. and Glenn, P. (2005). “Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets in Boston: The Effects of Operation Ceasefire on the Supply of New Handguns to Criminals”. Journal of Criminology and Public Policy, (4) pp 23-30. Bullock,K. and Tilley, N. ( 2003) : Crime Reduction and problem Oriented Policing. Devon, UK. Willan CASA (2010) ‘Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population’ The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/575-report2010behindbars2.pdf. Chin, G.(2002). “Race, the War on Drugs, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction”, Journal of Gender, Race, Justice, (6) pp 253. Clarke, R. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed). New York. Harrow and Heston. Decker, S & Reed, W (2002) Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and Research. Philadelphia: DIANE Publishing. Fish, M. (2006). Drugs and society: U. S. public policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Finklea, K (2010) ‘Organized Crimes in the United States: Trends and Issues for Congress’ Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40525.pdf. Garland, D & Alison, W. (2000). Ethical and Social Perspectives on Situational Crime Prevention : Oxford. Oxford, Hart Publishing. Gonzales, P & Romero, T & Cerbana, C (2007) ‘Parent Education Program for Incarcerated Mothers in Colorado’ Journal of Correctional Education Dec 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4111/is_200712/ai_n21186148/. Kleiman, M (1994) ‘Organized Crime and Drug Abuse Control’ Handbook of Organized Crime in the United States by Kelly, R & Chin, K & Schatzberg, R. Greenwood Publishing Group. Korgen, K O (2008) Contemporary Readings in Sociology, Pine Forge Press. Hasting, R (2010) Workshop Report: Developing a Strategic Approach to Criminal Youth Gangs, http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/ipc/eng/documents/final_report.pdf. Jones, A (2007) ‘Coming Home – Overcoming Barriers to Success’ United Way of Dane County, http://www.unitedwaydanecounty.org/reports/ImpactReportRecidivismPilot.pdf. Ofsted (2009).The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2008/9. London. Ofsted. Rosenbaum, D. Lurigio, A. and Davis, R. (1998). The prevention of crime: Social and situational strategies. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth. Serin, R (2005) ‘Evidence-Based Practice: Principles for Enhancing Correctional Results in Prisons’ National Institute of Corrections, http://www.cjinstitute.org/files/Prison_BoxSet_Sep09.pdf. York, M (2005) ‘Breaking the Gangs Down, a Merciless Step at a Time’ Rochester Journal, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/nyregion/28rochester.html Read More