The Historical Feld of Crime Prevention - Case Study Example

How have crime prevention policies reflected changing dis s on young people in the UK? This paper will examine how crime prevention policies reflect the changing discourses on young individuals in United Kingdom. The paper will first look at the historical field of crime prevention, and how approaches to crime prevention have developed. The paper will also address the factors that have shaped these changes, and the effects the changes have on young people’s opportunities and experiences. Lastly, lessons from this evaluation for future policy practices and developments will be outlined. In the recent years, crime prevention has turned to be a crucial part of criminal and social justice policies in most countries, in Europe. The main reason is that it is not possible to have development of such policies just as a set of technical solutions to agreed problems. A clear picture of the crime prevention policies is based on the wide political context (Cohen and Felson 588). It is often assumed that the main aim of criminal justice system is crime prevention. Background It is reasonable to assume that the criminal justice system exists to prevent crimes. This assumption can be supported by the frequency in which the term “prevention of crimes” is seen in historical documents linked to different parts of justice systems. For example, the term appears in the title of an act of parliament in 1908, which was concerned with the introduction of Borstal system for the juvenile offenders (Gilling 128). Crime prevention occurs not only within the criminal justice system, but also outside. There exist four forms of crime prevention. They include law enforcement, communal, developmental, and situational forms of crime prevention. The forms of crime prevention can also be classified as tertiary, secondary or primary prevention forms. The primary prevention form seeks to reduce the chances of crimes through protecting the targets or victims. Secondary prevention forms seek to change individuals who are considered being at risk of offending. The tertiary prevention aims at truncating the criminal careers for those who have offended, hence it is within the domain of traditional criminal justice (Gilling 137). A review of the development of crime prevention policies in UK A key point to be noted is that crime prevention has become an area of practice and policy that has developed notably over the last few decades. The historical account, for the rise of modern justice system, from the late 18th century, shows the number of times that rationalization has been justified in the name of prevention of crimes. Preventive principle was a key legitimating element at the arrival of permanent policing in 1829 (Gilling 138). The preventive principle was used in various instances such as; codification of criminal law, introduction of measures to punish juvenile offenders, extension of imprisonment to be a penal sanction, and the development of probation services. Early development of crime prevention could be traced back in 1950s. The home office was under pressure from insurance companies to come up with strategies to prevent crimes on property. This stemmed from an increase in the cost of insured property losses, which was followed by the post-war increase in crimes. There are two key points that can be noted in the early crime prevention policy (Cohen and Felson 592). Situational crime prevention provided the main orientation for crime prevention (The term situational crime prevention was not used until 1970s). It focused on the lessening the opportunities for the property crimes through ordinary means using slogans like “watch out, there are thieves” and “lock it to avoid losing it.” Secondly, the idea of partnership among the state and the government was integral from the fact that the idea of preventing crime laid beyond the direct action or control of the government. In the 1980s, there was a significant leap forward in the policy development (Bullock and Tilley 47). The crime prevention unit was established by the home office following development work and research on the situational approach. Two circulars were established in 1984, and 1990, pressurizing the public agencies to set up non-statutory partnerships in local crime prevention. The home office also funded two initiatives; the safer cities program and five towns’ initiative. Safer cities program covered more than 40 urban centers across the United Kingdom. It also operated in two different phases in 1988 up to mid-1990s. A crime prevention coordinator was employed, using the funding from the home office. His mandate entailed looking into various crime prevention initiatives. The new labor crime and disorder act of 1998 was established from the partnership model. The youth justice board is an executive, public body, controlled by the secretary of state for justice in England and Wales (Hope et al. 18). This board was established to run the youth justice system and prevent reoffending and offending among young people and children under 18 years of age. The board ensures that children and young people under 18 years of age are secure, safe, and able to confess the cause of the criminal behavior. The board members are responsible for the oversight and implementation of resettlement and accommodation, custody, alternatives to custody, health, education, employment, training, and diversity of these groups of people. The situation of crime control today is quite appealing. The number of overall crimes has dropped significantly from the mid-1990s. There have been genuine concerns on the trends of serious offenders particularly those involving young people. Young people and children are becoming law abiding citizens (Hope et al. 21). The development of crime prevention policy has encountered various challenges from the citizens. The risk factors that influence the likelihood of offending among young people can be categorized into four (Linsenn 37). There are risk factors such as poor parental discipline and supervision, family historical background of crimes, family conflicts, poor housing and low family income. The second risk factor is the school. School risk factors include bullying in schools, lack of proper engagement, lack of or less commitment to school activities including truancy, and low achievements in schools beginning from primary level. Thirdly, there are community risk factors. They include a disadvantaged neighborhood, availability of drugs, lack of proper neighborhood attachment and high turnover, and community neglect and disorganization among others. Lastly, individual risk factors include impulsivity and hyperactive, lack of and alienation of social commitments, poor mental health, peer influence and early involvement in substance abuse and crimes, among others (Linsenn 40). There is also another perspective of looking at the risk factors of crimes. First, not everyone welcomed the emphasis on situational crime prevention. Local practitioners prefer a social crime prevention strategy, as opposed to home office preference of situational crime prevention. The local practitioners were talking of community safety, as opposed to crime prevention, which seems to be a progressive approach. The development of community safety shows the politics behind crime prevention, as people have alternative ideas of how to contextualize and conceive the problem of crimes (Bullock and Tilley 48). The second problem in the development of crime prevention policy is that crime prevention aims at stopping the crimes from occurring. In this way, it is rather difficult to identify whether it is effective or not. When crimes do not occur, is it because the prevention of crimes is effective or not? Some policy makers argue that what was established in the 1990s was crime reduction instead of crime prevention. There are a variety of factors that have led to the rise of crime prevention strategies in the United Kingdom. First, the period from 1950s onwards recorded a high increase in crime rates; this made people think that the criminal justice system was inefficient. They thought that crime could not increase so alarmingly, yet there was a system meant to prevent crimes. Secondly, apart from the ineffectiveness of the justice system, other researches and victimization surveys showed the unrecorded and unreported crimes. The revelation that crimes were undercounted by the police led to a need for the rise of crime prevention (Tonry 122). Thirdly, there was a political transformation in the late-modern Britain; among the issues addressed was crime prevention. Fourthly, crime prevention has faced many changes ranging from economic, social, political, and cultural factors enclosed around globalization. Globalization has led to increased insecurity in many countries; problems such as crimes have emerged. Following globalization, there has been flourishing and expanded market for security especially in residential areas (such as gated communities, and private security patrols) and commercial and leisure areas (such as CCTV systems and security guards). Crimes have evolved following globalization (Gilling 140). New forms of crimes such as cybercrimes have emerged in the past few years. The crime prevention policies have had an effect on young people’s opportunities and experiences in various ways. There are groups which have gained significantly as a result of these changes while others have lost out. There are several key facts about crimes in UK (Tonry 124). Young people in the country are exposed to an acute combination of various risk factors. These risk factors range from family neglect, school under-achievement, poverty and lack of a proper role model. These risk factors make young people more likely to offend, than those unexposed to risk factors. The other fact is that one out of four young adults who commit behaviors that are antisocial commits serious offences (Linsenn 24). In UK criminal justice system, one young person costs the government an average of 200, 000 pounds before the age of 16 years. Moreover, maintaining a young person out of criminal justice system costs about 50, 000 pounds by the time he or she is 16 years old. In the youth justice board, in the country, just 7 % of its funding is directed to crime prevention among the young people. In 2007, it was observed that 37.5 percent of juvenile offenders and 39 percent of adults released from prison reoffended within less than a year (Tonry 126). This rate was a drop from 40 % and 43 % respectively 11 years ago. The reoffending rate among young people who have served in the prisons is extremely high (about 80 %) compared to 60 % among adults who have served a custodial sentence. Prolific offenders have the lowest frequency of reoffending like, in 2010, the rate of reoffending among individuals subject to prolific offences reduced by about 29 percent. The number of young people under the age of 18, who were in custody, in 2010, was 2,209 in England and Wales. The total number of offences recorded, and committed by young people in 2007/2008 was 277,896 (Hope et al. 23). In March 2007, 2,413 young people aged between 15 and 17 were in prison. The increased pressure on the car industry, to come up with crime prevention, has reduced vehicle theft from the year 1995. From these facts, it is evident that young people have suffered a lot from crimes. The crime prevention strategies in United Kingdom benefit the young people more than other groups. The government, which is funded by the taxpayers, has also suffered from the increase in crime. A lot of funds are spent every day in maintaining the crime prevention programs. If these crime prevention policies turn to be effective, the government will reduce its spending on punishing the criminals. The crime prevention policies have benefited the government, young people and all taxpayers in UK. Those who have lost out are the young offenders, and those who depend on crimes for their survival. Those who have benefited from the crime prevention policies outweigh those who have lost out. Young people have had an opportunity to exploit the opportunities available for them as the rate of crime has dropped significantly. The crime prevention policies in 2010 not only assisted in reducing the rate of crimes, but also aimed at improving the quality of society life (Tonry 127). Conclusion and Lessons for Future Development Policies In conclusion, in order to succeed in fighting the antisocial behavior among the youth, and ensure they do not commit serious offences, there should be increased enforcement coupled with support. There are several lessons learnt from crime prevention policies. Having leisure activities does not reduce crimes on their own; rather, interaction with appropriate models can assist in diverting young people from crimes. For any long-term crime prevention program to be effective, it should aim at intervening with the young people together with their parents. This government has made a significant start in the area of crime prevention. However, much needs to be done so that support programs reach the vulnerable individuals at their childhood years. The government has put significant efforts to reduce the frequency of re-offending, although, there is a group of young offenders and others serving custodial sentences whose re-offending rates are extremely high. More emphasis should be laid on ways of reducing the opportunities for crimes, and introduction of an early warning system, which may identify the crime trends in the country. There should be reliable data on the crime trends. This can play a vital role in informing those with capabilities to design crime opportunities, and call for an action. Some aspects of crime prevention policies are a matter of common sense and not rocket science. The other suggestion involves strengthening of family intervention programs. These programs can address the issue of anti-social behavior among young people and their families. Works cited Bullock, Keagan & Tilley, Nathaniel. Crime Reduction and problem Oriented Policing. UK, London: Devon publishers, 2003. Print. Cohen, Larry & Felson, Michael. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 1979, Vol. 44. Print. pp. 588-608. Crawford, Adams. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: politics, policies, and practices. Washington D.C: Longman, 1998. Print. Gilling, Daniel. Crime prevention: theory, policy, and politics. London: Routledge, 1997. Print. Hope, Tim, Philippe, Robert, Sybille, Smeets, & Carrol, Tange. Evaluating Safety and Crime Prevention Policies in Europe. London: Vubpress, 2010. Print. Linsenn, Ruth. Quality in Crime Prevention. Berlin: Books in Demand, 2006. Print. Tonry, Michael. The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Read More