Contemporary Trends in Social Welfare and Crime Control Policy - Essay Example

Explain and illustrate the claim that contemporary trends in social welfare and crime control policy are indicative of a punitive turn By Tutor’s Name Institution 10 February 2015 Explain and illustrate the claim that contemporary trends in social welfare and crime control policy are indicative of a punitive turn There have been many changes taking place in the modern societies. Some of the significant changes noted in some of the societies have been issues related to social welfare and crime control. The changes have been noted through various changes adopted by a number of countries. Currently, majority of the societies have been in constant search for security as well as engage in ways of mitigating threats to insecurity (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). These changes have been noted in both local and international realm. The focus has been noted through implementation of policies that touch on both local and international arena. The policies that are adopted relates to welfare and crime control. On the other hand, there has been perception that security has been a challenge to the Western societies. The societies are said to have faced social changes that are seen as a threat to security of these nations. Hence, public policies that are adopted by these countries focus on the management of security. Moreover, it has also been a challenge to disassociate crime control and welfare in these societies. Crime and welfare have been heavily exploited in a number of countries to come up with various policies such as the one aimed at reducing crime. Crime policies have been used to substitute welfare and at the same time welfare ideas of care and protection have been used in solving some of the challenges related to crime (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). Additionally, social changes have been linked to rising in threat and fear of crime. Hence, social welfare and crime control policies have been implemented to enable control of some of the challenges facing modern society. These changes have been noted in countries such as United States and the United Kingdom (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). This paper seeks to explain and illustrate the claim that contemporary trends in social welfare and crime control policy are indicative of a punitive turn. First, it is important to understand the contemporary trends in social welfare and crime control policy. Countries of the West have been faced with rapid and significant social changes. The changes in the context of ‘late modernity’ have been viewed as being fast and uncontainable set of social changes. Some of the factors said to have led to these changes are breakdown of community, migration, and instability of family (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). There has also been argument that current societies have introduced new things. Some of the things are seen as leading to a new pattern of inclusion and exclusion (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). This affects ways people faced some of the challenges. These factors such as exclusion have been labelled as making some people resort to crime especially the poor. Additionally, exclusion has also been associated with several factors. It has been shown to lead to criminality that is currently seen as an additional threat (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). As noted, massive social changes have made it challenging to attain a sense of identity. On the other hand, the rising rate of crime has led to the introduction of various policies and laws meant to reduce or minimise crimes. A number of governments have responded by passing more punitive laws and also increasing the number of those in prisons. Hence, the trend has been towards having more punitive laws (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). First, it is clear that the current trend in social welfare and crime control policies is indicative of ‘punitive turn’. The first evidence has been increasing rate of imprisonments among various societies of the world. The rate of imprisonment has also increased even in the young population with total disregard of various rights laid down for people of such age. Juvenile justice, as it exists, is characterised by large number of children in prison some who are even less than ten years old. The rate of such age group incarceration has been alarming in countries such as United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, different states around the world have engaged more on punitive response to the young that are involved in various forms of crimes (Muncie, J, 2008). There are alarming statistics that have been gathered in some of these countries. For example, in United States, juvenile incarceration rose by 43 percent in 1990,s reaching an estimated 105,600 in 2006 (Muncie, 2008, p.3). Additionally, in the United Kingdom, there has been the passage of draconian laws that are more punitive. There has been an increase of such laws in the last two decades. For example, in England and Wales, more than 3000 new offences were created for a period of nine years from 1997 to 2006 (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008, p.21). This has also led to increasing in number of prisoners in prison. The other worrying things are the execution that was taking place in the country. For example, some of the states continued to allow execution of young as age of 17 suspected of having accused of having committed serious crime (Muncie, 2008). Some of the states also retain the capacity to arrest minor even without the possibility of getting parole. The imprisonment rate in such western countries is an indicating of how policies have moved toward ‘punitive turns’. Secondly, extreme punishments are currently seen as the only means to lead to a reduction in crime rate. There have been cases where extreme measures in punishing laws have been used in juveniles (Muncie, 2008). This has been done with total disregard of the ‘best interest’ as far as juveniles are concerned. To make the matter worse, in some cases, juveniles have been transferred to the adult system. As noted, an estimated “7500 children are being held in adult jails at any time” (Muncie, 2008). As these figures indicate, the rate of ‘punitive turn’ is alarming in America and other parts of the world (Muncie, 2008). The same case has been found in UK. In the country, the number of children in the prison perceived as secure state has been doubling in the last two decades (Muncie, 2008). The rising number of children in prison is an indication of how majority of western countries have adopted criminal measures as a way of addressing problems persistent in the societies. Moreover, there have been changes in the current societies as tolerance is concerned. In the past, most of the issues that face modern societies were solved through welfare interventions. However, as it is today, the solution has been tied to justice based procedure and principles (Muncie, 2008). Insecurity and fear of crime in different parts of the world have led to various policies perceived as punitive and lacking tolerance. The rate of intolerance is evident in a number of countries in Europe. For example, in Belgium, insecurity and lack of safety have been seen as leading youth to commit crime and this has led to police being involved in initiatives such as curfew and zero tolerance (Muncie, 2008). The effect has been increased number of juveniles in prison (Muncie, 2008). This means that other long-term measures meant to protect the youth are disregarded. Lack of tolerance has also been evident from politicians. For example, Sarkozy re-election in France in 2007 was followed by a declaration that re-offenders aged 16 and above would receive the same treatment as adults (Muncie, 2008). All these measures are seen as toughening response to young offenders. Most of the societies see them as a way of reducing problems depicted by juveniles and hence fails to see the lack of tolerance nature, as well as ‘punitive turn’. Based on this trend, it is likely that more punitive measures are in the offing. On the other hand, the trend has also been seen in the family setup. Families have been changing as well as the social policies relating to families (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). The policies have been able to recognise various issues such as injustice that have been taking place in the families in the past. Some of the injustices that have been recognised by law include child sexual abuse. As a result, the appropriate response has been achieved from the criminal justice system (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). Most of these crimes have been punished through incarceration in prison. In most of the western societies, potential for violence and abuse in families has gained recognition. Hence, social policies have been implemented to offer protection of individuals within the family as well as offering protection of society from the failures of the families (Cochrane & Talbot, 2008). For this reason, many punitive measures have been adopted as a way of maintaining social order. The other trend has been welfare legislation. The legislations have been out in place with the aim of securing a certain standard of socially acceptable behaviour. For example, in UK there has been welfare legislation aimed at maintaining normalcy in the society as far as behaviour is concerned. Hence, the criminal law put in place is seen as having a social role. A number of legislations have been put in place in the UK as far as regulation of antisocial behaviour is concerned. The common legislations are the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (Larkin, 2007). The two laws are a clear example of how both civil and criminal laws are applied in the country as a way of controlling the behaviours seen as inappropriate to the society. The laws are seen as a way of controlling human excesses. In the country, breach of these laws results in a criminal conviction. For this reason, it is clear that punitive measures are used in the country as a way of guiding the behaviour of benefits recipients (Larkin, 2007). Moreover, a contemporary trend has been towards realisation of a welfare state. Such states engage in behaviour that is seen as punitive. In most countries such as Britain and America, the receipt of any social security benefit is tied to ‘socially acceptable’ behaviour (Larkin, 2007). The basis is to ensure there is good, acceptable behaviour among the working class. The social security has been aligned together with the criminal justice system (Larkin, 2007). An example of such is Child Support, Pensions, and Social Security Act 2000 (Larkin, 2007). Some section of the Act links the benefit to the acceptable behaviour. As a result, failure to comply may lead to withholding of benefit by a court of law (Larkin, 2007). In worst scenario, the Act allows probation officers to give a formal warning to offenders for failure to comply with what is stipulated in the community sentence. Further violation of terms may lead to incarceration and complete removal of benefits (Larkin, 2007). This is a clear indication in which laws have been used to regulate conduct. The regulation has been made punitive through implementation of the law. In conclusion, it is clear the contemporary trends in social welfare and crime control policy are indicative of a punitive turn. The trend has been possible through imprisonment, intervention in family problems, and passing of legislation with the aim of instilling acceptable conduct. It is clear that a number of countries have adopted this trend with the most common being United States and the United Kingdom. United States appears to be the pioneer of changes in social welfare and crime control. Finally, it is clear that the trend is likely to spread to other countries with the rising rate of strange behaviour and crime. References Cochrane, A & Talbot, D, 2008. Security: Welfare, Crime and Society. London: Open University Press. Larkin, P, 2007. ‘The ‘Criminalization’ of Social Security Law: Towards a Punitive Welfare State?’ Journal of Law and Society, 34(3), pp. 295-320. Muncie, J, 2008. ‘The ‘Punitive Turn’ in Juvenile Justice: Culture of control and rights compliance in Western Europe and the USA.’ Youth Justice, 8(2), pp. 1-27. Read More