Growth of Crime Prevention in the UK - Essay Example

?Growth of Crime Prevention in the U.K. In recent years, crime prevention has become part of the criminal and social justice policy of Britain and several other European nations (Council of Europe and Nuttall 2000 p.48-66). Because of this, the developments of such policies are no longer seen simply as technical solutions to common problems. Appreciation of the growth of crime deterrence policies calls for the consideration of the situation in a wider political context. This paper will present an outline of political events that form the background to the developments in relation to crime deterrence since the 1980s. The essay will also discuss some of the key events and conflicts that have led to the development of these policies from the 80s to date. Finally, it shall discuss the limits to crime prevention as a strategy for controlling crime in Britain. The State Welfare Crisis Lea (1997) notes that the 1997 election of the conservative government under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher is significant in the development of the UK’s social policy. After the Second World War ended all the way to the 70s, a consensus was stuck embracing both the Conservative and Labor parties. The two parties came together in thought in what historians refer to the Keynesian Welfare state. The Labour party’s policy was based on the assumption that the economic policy of Keynesian would guarantee citizens full employment and economic growth. This would help in the elimination of poverty as well as associated social problems (Gilling 1997 p.35-66). Secondly, the Labour party campaigned on the ground that if elected to power, it would introduce a substantive system that respects social rights including the right to state education, healthcare, a minimum wage, and better housing. This in turn would ensure a cohesive, homogenous and stable economy. Lea (1997) reveals that around the 1960s, it became apparent that the zones within UK that still experienced high poverty rates, economic backwardness, and increasing rates of small criminal activities were opposed to the incorporation of general affluence. Because of this, they were associated with ‘social pathology’. These areas, which include decaying central city, and older industrial areas were perceived to be in need of strategic and decisive intervention of experts’ social engineering, that includes education, social work and skill training intervention in family pathology as well as at the additional economic resources level among others (Gilling 1997 p.35-66). Under the above spectrum of policies, criminality occupied a minor position (Lea, 1997). Lea notes that the rate of crime was relatively low even in places that were underdeveloped. Juvenile delinquency was not given much attention as it was seen as a maturity state from childhood to adulthood (lea, 1997). In this case, the main issue with regard to criminal justice policy between 1950 and 60s were those of penal reform (Gilling 1997 p 45-67). Lea notes that juvenile delinquents were mainly treated based on a strong philosophy that advocated for social reintegration. This was done through welfare, rehabilitation therapy, and special education instead of punishment as prescribed by the judicial system. Towards the end of 1970s, the new strategy developed by Keynesian Welfare State concerned severe political and ideological crisis (Lea 1997). To begin with, it was evident that the strategy had failed to do away with social iniquity and eliminate poverty. When Thatcher government came into power, it laid an elaborate decisive ideology transforming the welfare state from providing ineffective solutions to crime to fighting social injustice by establishing their root causes (Lea 1997). In this case, the philosophy of social collectivism and the welfare state were perceived to undermine the cultural entrepreneurship which had at one time transformed UK to a dynamic society. Under the Thatcher government, the increase in criminal activities and poverty were perceived as the result of dependence on welfare provisioning and the dislike for were that was a consequence of the same. Lea (1997) reports that the bourgeois’ fear of dangerous classes of early 19 centuries now became the fear of the developing ‘underclass’(Murray 1990 p.43-120). The main focus of the Thatcher administration was political, economic, and ideological management of the nation. The old Keynesian Welfare State was to be destroyed by separating poor nationals’ social issues from state responsibilities. However, the welfare state’s social citizenship was seen to debilitate passively. This led to its replacement by a new active citizenry with individual responsibility taking centre stage in the midst of personal misfortune (Lea, 1997). Nevertheless, the idea behind Thatcher’s slogan “free the people” culminated to authoritarian rule. In this case, citizens had to be “forced to be free” (Lee, 1997). Crime And Individual Responsibility Under the ideology of Thatcher’s government, crime and its prevention was given much attention in the U.K. To begin with, crime had been continuously rising since the 1960s (Lea, 1997). Statistics from police showed that crime rate in Britain had doubled by 1980s while that of Home Office British Crime Survey (BCS) reported significant rise of crime rate in UK (Lea, 1997). He, however, notes that theft had been on the decline trend since 1992 with violent crime rising steadily. Moreover, the British Crime Survey showed that close to 30% of criminal acts were reported to state security authorities, something that contradicts previous statistics. The study talks much of public trust in the British criminal justice system (Lea, 1997). The social surveys and BCS note that crime was being seen as a social problem just behind unemployment. Lea argues that whatever the complexion of the political climate, there would be much concern over crime deterrence. It is for this reason that under the Thatcher government, crime prevention became integrated in critical and ideological projects. Lea (1997) asserts that crime is exceptional among social problems since unlike poverty or unemployment, it presents itself as an activity of law abiding citizens who otherwise choose to act against the law. In this regard, concern in regard to the increasing crime rate grew, particularly petty crimes by juveniles living in lowly areas, leading to a new ideology of individual responsibility to tackle the issue. On the other hand, the old welfare-oriented perception of crime as an artifact of poverty was met with alternative reasoning (Murray 1990 p.66-79). It was noted that there are poor citizens who are not criminals. The non-punitive treatment of juveniles was replaced with judicial punishments. Lea (1997) argues that alongside individual responsibility regarding criminal offenders, emphasis was also made concerning the responsibility of every UK citizen to take measures against crime. In fact, crime deterrence was the philosophy of the politically active UK citizens as propagated by New Right Conservatism (Lea, 1997). Lea notes that annual reports concerning rising crime changed from criticism of the police and government’s failure to that advocating for nationals to take active precautions to prevent common crimes. Some of the measures to be taken included locking windows and doors, and avoiding some parts of town especially after dusk. The most evident active citizen’s participation in crime prevention was on the Neighborhood watch scheme (Bennett1987 p.33-76). Lea (1997) reveals that, in 1983, the American immigration introduced in the UK required small groups of UK citizens within a given housing blocks or streets to organize themselves to be vigilant and report any suspicious characters to the police (McConville and Shepherd 1992 p.121-139). The police officers would in turn present a report and details of fresh crimes within the place in question, and advice UK nationals regarding the kind of information that they needed. In this case, the police officers might ask citizens to be more vigilant with regard to a particular individual or vehicle with history of crime. Lea reports that, by 1987, about 2.70 million households in the UK were covered by the scheme and toward 1996, the number had grown up to about 6 million. These organizations pursued an ideal of self-active citizens by establishing direct relationships between the police and citizens, instead of using a democratic forum advocated for by the local authority that conformed to conservative agenda of marginalizing the local authorities (Lea 1997). Public Housing and Crime Prevention In the UK just as in any other country, a large percentage of its ‘active citizens’ are middle class phenomenon. It is noted that Neighbourhood Watch proved ineffective with regard to crime prevention since most of these organizations were set in areas in which they were less needed (Bennett 1987 p.43-86). Lea (1997) argues that the middle class areas composed of people with strong sense of common interest based on good relations with police officers and property ownership were enthusiastic employers of Neighbourhood Watch (Power 1989 p.12-32). Nevertheless, these concentrated on areas where fear of crime instead of the crime itself was increasing (Bennett 1987 p.43-86). Lea notes that within the poor inner part of the city, unemployment, high crime rate, and lack of a strong sense and state of warfare between the police and the young people. These initiatives were considered worse than useless. Due to rising crime levels within housing estates around the 1980s, the local Authority took the mantle of crime prevention (Safe Neighbourhoods Unit 1995). Lee asserts that local authorities were seen by the central government to focus on crime control in everything that they did (Lea 1997). The antiquated language of integration and social rights was substituted by advocacy for lawfulness and risk management. Homelessness was seen as social problems to a lesser extend since they were social rights violations and more due to their contribution of criminality and danger. The agenda of the welfare and integration was then substituted by those of security and protection (Lea, 1997). The Police and Crime Prevention Under the Thatcher administration, any notion that crime control ought to be a local democratic involvement process under local authority’s guidance was an anathema (Lea, 1997). In this regard, in case the local government was to be involved, then it was to be one agency among others. This meant that the element of democracy would be limited by the need to involve and discuss about other responsible non-democratic bodies. Lee notes that the position occupied by the police in Britain is complex. He, however, argues that local authorities in the UK have limited impact on the formulation of policing policies. In 1980s, the central government had a lot of faith in police and believed that they cannot do wrong. It is for this reason that the government expanded its budget on police between 1979 and 1984. Thatcher’s aim was to connect social protest of the 70s and 80s to crime. It is then that he decided to group together political protests, Union military and criminality together as “ungovernability” of the UK to which the necessary reaction was uncritical support of the criminal justice system and police force. Despite such attempts, crime continued to increase throughout the 80s. The increased presence of police meant their greater visibility as targets of public criticism (Lea 1997). However, the government responded swiftly to re-establish public confidence in the police especially after the end of conservative government in 1997. In this case, the police engaged in the crime deterrence movement. Today, the police force of UK plays a vital role in crime prevention and maintenance of law and order. The growth in crime prevention in UK has also been attributed to the effects of terrorist attacks. This is mainly due to the fact that Britain has occasionally fallen victim to terrorist attacks, one instance being the London train bombing. Immediately after the country witnessed the attacks, the government found it prudent to put in place preventive measures to prevent such from happening. This has seen the country develop stringent anti-terrorism measures to prevent crime within the country. Limits To Crime Prevention As A Strategy For Controlling Crime It is appreciated that prevention is the best strategy of crime management. These strategies must have a limit for them to succeed. This is because, the burden of crime prevention cannot solely be carried out by the police, penal system or the courts instead, even the public themselves have a role to play (Brake and Hale 1992 p.69). Crime prevention should, therefore, have normative results that are strategically and empirically oriented toward the creation of a better society. The strategies developed should, however, obey the sovereignty of other states to avoid incidences of aggressions. Furthermore, the strategies should obey the fundamental human rights. That is, right to privacy, association and movement in the country. In conclusion, to be clear about where Britain is headed, it is necessary to be certain about where the country stands now with regard to crime prevention. This is by separating divergent political perspectives on crime control and distinguishing these aspects from a variety of methods and techniques available. The country should better be able to situate the various limits and responsibilities pertaining to crime prevention as the country heads into the twenty-second century. References Brake, M., & Hale, C. (1992). Public order and private lives: The political of law and order. New York: Routledge. Bennett, T (1987). An Evaluation of Two Neighbourhood Watch Schemes in London, Cambridge: Institute of Criminology. Council of Europe, & Nuttall, C. (2000). Crime and criminal justice in Europe. London: Council of Europe. Gilling, D. (1997). Crime Prevention: Theory, policy and politics, London: UCL Press. Lea, J. (1997). From integration to exclusion: the development of crime prevention policy in the United Kingdom. Retrieved on 13 April 2012 from http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/misc/polis.htm McConville, M., & Shepherd, D. (1992). Watching Police, Watching Communities, London: Routledge. Murray C. (1990). The Emerging British Underclass. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Power, A. (1989). ‘Housing Community and Crime’ in D. Downes ed. Crime and the City, London: Macmillan. Safe Neighbourhoods Unit, (1995) ‘Successes and Failures in Neighbourhood Crime Prevention’, Housing Research 149. White, R. (n.d) Situating crime prevention: Models, methods and Political Perspectives. University of Melbourne. 97-113. Retrieved on 13 April 2012 from http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_05/05_White.pdf Read More