Criminal Justice towards Crime Prevention, Victim Responsibility and the Minimization of Risk - Coursework Example

Shift in the focus of criminology and criminal justice towards crime prevention, victim responsibility and the minimization of risk Criminology can be termed as the scientific study of crime and criminal conduct, which also looks at the effects of criminal behavior in the society. According to Muncie et al [2003], it pays special attention to the impact of the crime on the criminal, the victim and society at large. Criminology is an inter-disciplinary field that relies on other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, sociology and biology, to mention but a few [Eysenck &Gudjonnson, 1990].Since time immemorial, experts in the field of criminology have endeavored to explain the behavior of criminals. The field of criminology has undergone numerous and radical changes since the beginning of the twentieth century to become the way it is today. In order to understand this shift and its effect on criminology, a brief history of criminology is imperative. In the beginning of the twentieth century, criminology and criminal justice was a prerogative of the government only. Prior to the 1970s, criminal justice under the name “modern criminology” was characterized by the “penal welfarism” framework for dealing with criminals [Hall, 1978]. Under this approach, criminals were treated with humanity and decency and rehabilitating them was seen as the way to combat crime. In short, the penal welfare approach did not believe in punishing criminals, rather it used the foresaid correctional concept. Delinquents and criminals were regarded as unfortunate individuals who could benefit from societal and government support, and not as evil doers [Garland, 1985]. There were no general guidelines for dealing with criminals; each criminal act was handled individually. Criminologists were relied upon by the government to give expert advice on how to go about rehabilitating criminals, especially diagnostic treatment and penal sanctions [Taylor, Walton & Young, 1973]. Consequently, the penal welfare approach did not believe in punishing criminals. During the 1970s people began to challenge the effectiveness of the modern criminology approach, especially based on the penal welfare system [Donzelot, 1979]. The radicalization process had begun and people argued that rehabilitation and correctional approach were a total failure in containing crime. These radicals wanted the criminal justice system to be more linked to the society and concerned about the interests of the victims [Schur, 1974]. In the early 1990s, however, there was the emergence of the late modernity model in which, there were fixed guidelines for the sentencing of criminals, as opposed to sentencing criminals individually. Retribution was being carried out on criminals for their offenses, through deterrence and incapacitation. This change was occasioned by social changes such as technological advancements, restructuring of families, capitalism, social democratization and social ecology [Hughes, 1998]. In the technological sector, the mass media led to expectations and fears of the public being generalized and depreciation of culture. Family structures also experienced changes such as; women getting into paid labor, increased divorce rates and low birth rates. Capitalism, on the other hand, led to mass consumption, globalization and insecurity in the employment sector. Social democratization constituted a move to form the subordinating minority group and finally social ecology changed due to increase in commuter services and suburbs. This led to an increase in crime rates, and people especially in the United States and Britain started looking for better ways to deal with crime [Currie, 1985]. The government was no longer efficient in curbing crime, and the criminal justice system had failed in controlling criminals. This shift from the penal welfarism model is what eventually led to the present trend geared towards crime prevention, victim responsibility and the minimization of risk. Today, the field of criminology has experienced a shift from governments taking full responsibility for crime prevention and control, to individuals and communities taking more accountability for their personal safety [Garland, 2001, a]. The new criminology has it that the society has accepted high crime rates as a societal norm, blaming the criminal justice system of failing to guarantee law and order [ibid]. Beck [1992] categorizes high crime societies as having increased criminal openings, reduced situational regulations, an increased population that is at risk and finally a reduction in social and self controls. As a result, new criminological approaches focus on circumstances which lead to crime and controlling conditions which present prospects for crime. In broad terms, this means that focus has been put on risks that the community might face, rather than looking at the sources of criminal activities. According to [Mclaughlin, 1998] individuals and the community as a whole need to protect themselves against risk of crime by investing in their security and educating themselves on how to maintain law and order , while also combating security threats. This has led to the commercialization of risk management, whereby, insurance companies advise their clients on risk minimization measures, for example, by giving them statistics on crime rates in their locality. They also teach these clients on how to identify suspicious persons and how to ensure the safety of their belongings. Accordingly, everyone is being urged to be accountable for their own security by working collaboratively with other stakeholders towards the reduction of criminal openings [Garland, 1996:453]. This can be done through altering routine activities or adjusting criminogenic situations. For instance, people are advised to use credit cards as an alternative of cash, cameras are mounted on streets to monitor the behavior of people, among other risk minimization measures. Crime prevention has seen the criminal enjoy fewer rights as compared to the victim, the former who is usually locked up in penitentiary in order to defend the victim and society as a whole. Governments have continued to build prisons to incapacitate and curtail the movement of criminals. This form of deterrence ensures a reduction in the amount of crime committed, by legally punishing criminal acts, through retribution. Currie [1994] cites California as an example of how states have continually opened up and expanded prisons to hold high risk offenders who are seen as an intimidation to society. The death penalty, though contested by human rights activists has also been used to prevent crime. Prisons are used as institutions for isolating offenders and it is becoming increasingly difficult for criminals to gain parole. Garland [2001, b] notes that in the USA there are over two million citizens in jail and that the population in Britain’s prisons is on a steady increase. Governments usually protect their citizens against crime, primarily via the enactment of laws on criminal activities. In addition, it is important to note is that policing has changed from the way it used to be in the 1970s [Cohen, 1985]. The police no longer patrol streets rather they have come up with ways of tracking criminals. They have devised a database from which they trail all criminal activities and in turn give advice to the local populace on criminal statistics [Bierne, 1993]. Such statistics include the rate at which criminal activities occur, a prediction on risk probabilities in specific populations, depending on their lifestyle, as well as, compensation levels. The potential victims then devise ways to manage these risk threats. Crime prevention needs to take into account that different crimes are committed by different people for different reasons. For example, crimes committed on impulse, sensation and intoxication are as a result of deviancy and cannot be prevented through the criminal justice system [Hirsch, 2003]. Situational prevention works to reduce the opportunities for crime to occur. Communities have in the recent past also worked towards reducing crimes in their residential areas. Rubington & Weinberg [1981] argue that, Studies have shown that people commit crimes in relation to where they live, therefore, if the community is changed, crime might also be prevented. This explains the reason why in the early twentieth century, the Chicago School of Criminology laid emphasis on organizing the community in order to prevent crime on the South Side of Chicago. Since then, different areas have endeavored to change their physical as well as their social organization. These communities have modified the way buildings are designed, improved the physical appearance of areas of residence, community watch programs and initiated recreational programs to divert the attention of juvenile offenders [Young, 2011]. Developmental prevention deals with risk factors that predict delinquency. According to Downes & Rock [2003], as a child develops certain factors such as parenting, health, child abuse and school performance could influence him/her to become a delinquent. For example, the British legal system passed laws that restricted children from certain industrial areas introduced compulsory primary education and intervention in family life. Burt [1925] argues that delinquency was a result of poor parenting and urged the courts to treat each delinquency case individually. He also advocates for special guidance clinics to be set up for delinquents, in order to prevent future crimes. At present, the society’s emotion towards crime and criminals is one of anger and revenge [Loader & Sparks, 2010]. With the kinds of preventive measures being taken, it is evident that the society no longer cares about rehabilitating nor treating individual offenders, neither does it seek to regulate deviancy. Conversely, the society seeks to identify and marginalize these perceived dangerous individuals [Feeley & Simon, 1992:452]. This is because potential offenders and victims usually meet in criminogenic situations, in which, potential offenders seek to maximize on the criminal opportunities that present themselves. On the other hand, a potential victim will seek to reduce such opportunities. Such offenders are usually referred to as rationally “motivated offenders” since they carefully weigh the probability of criminal opportunities presenting themselves [Melossi , 2008]. This leads to a clash of interests with either party seeking to have their way. In case an opportunity presents itself, the rational criminal will have identified a target. If he/she goes ahead and attacks and a crime does occur, the criminal will be castigated by the criminal justice system and a future crime will have been prevented. This form of justice where the criminal gets punished is then considered as a form of risk minimization [Valier, 2002]. This is because the chances of the criminal getting out of prison are very low, meaning that one more criminal has left the society. Through actuarial calculation, the number of potential offenders goes down with every criminal, who is put behind bars. This is because the criminal justice system sees every crime as a risk to be managed. The effects of the new approach have been largely felt across the field of criminology and society at large. The prevention of crime strategies has seen the government collaborate with the public to ensure crime reduction. Since the late modernity, model focuses on punishment of criminals for their crimes, prisons all over the world have experienced an upsurge in inmates [Taylor, 1999]. In most cases, these prisons hold up to two times their capacity, leading to congestion and deaths in prisons. Risk management, on the other hand, has caused the public to seclude individuals deemed as high risk offenders, from the society. By locking themselves up in “fortified cities” as Lea [2002] calls them, the potential victims end up isolating the potential offenders. In order to survive, the latter are forced to engage in criminal activities, which may be they would not have considered had the victims not pushed them away. Moreover, worrying is the notion that victims should take responsibility for protecting themselves against criminals. Due to the negative emotions of the public towards criminals, the latter is at risk of mob justice [Miller & Rose, 1998]. Going by the fact that the public has lost faith in the government’s ability to control crime, the former might decide to handle situations in their own way and administer punishment on the criminal. On the flip-side, community policing has been encouraged to give an alternative to policing by the state. In conclusion, it has been argued that a new language is emerging in the penology sector. This new language does not rely on the conventional concerns of criminology and criminal justice focusing on the individual. In contrast, it considers the actuarial aggregates. Consequently, a new type of criminology is emerging to replace the one we have today. Imprisonment will be the norm of the society and criminal groups will be continually be surveyed to assess the risk they pose to the society, as well as, the control the opportunities for criminal acts. References A.Giddens, Modernity & Self Identity (1991) A.Von Hirsch, Giving Criminals Their Just Deserts. (In J.Muncie et al) 2003 C. Burt, The Young Delinquent, (London, 1925). C. Valier, Theories of Crime & Punishment (2002). C.Lemert, Human Deviance (1972) D. Downes & P. Rock, Understanding Deviance: A Guide to Sociology of Crime & Rule Breaking, (2003) D. Garland, New criminologies of the self ( 2001) D. Garland, The Culture Control: Crime and Social order in Contemporary Society (2001) D. Melossi, A comprehensive, critical engagement with the character of criminology thinking in Europe and North America (2008). D.Garland, British Criminology Before 1935 (1996) D.Garland, Punishment & Welfare (1985) E. Schur, Radical Non-Intervention (1974) E.Currie, Confronting Crime (1985) E.Currie, Reckoning – Drugs, Cities & America’s Future (1994) E.Mclaughlin, Probation Work: Social Work or Social Control (1998) Feeley & Simon - The New Penology (1992) G.Hughes, Understanding Crime Prevention: Social Control, Risk & Crime Prevention (1998). H.Eysenck & G.H.Gudjonnson, The Causes & Cures of Crime (1990) I.Taylor, Crime in context: A Critical Criminology of Market Societies. (1999) J. Lea, Crime and Modernity, 2002 J. Young, The Criminological Imagination, 2011 J.Donzelot, The Policing of Families (1979) J.Lea & J.Young, What is to be Done About Law & Order (1984) J.Muncie et al (eds), Criminological Perspectives, 2003 L.Loader & R. Sparks, Public Criminology (2010) P. Miller & S. Rose, Governing the Present, 1998 P. Walton & J. Young, The New Criminology, 1988 P.Bierne, Inventing Criminology (1993) Rubington & Weinberg, Deviance – The Interactionist Perspective (1981) S.Cohen, Visions of Social Control (1985) C. Burt, The Young Delinquent, (London, 1925). Read More