Rational and Evidence-Based Australian Crime Policies - Essay Example

CRIME AND PUBLIC POLICY “Australian crime policies are rational and evidence-based, and are developed to represent the wider interests of the community”. 1. Introduction The statement claiming that Australian crime policies are rational and evidence-based, and represent the wider interest of the community is relatively cynical considering a number of long-standing issues involving research and rational policymaking. Evidence suggests that rationality of a crime policy is dependent on the adequacy of evidence and the mindset of policymakers thus an evidence-based policy is not necessarily rational. The following sections discuss issues concerning the rationality of an evidence-based crime policy and relevant social theories that can explain why some crime policies fail. These include examination of crime policies intended for graffiti offenders and unauthorised arrivals such as asylum seekers and refugees. More importantly, discussions on the affects of poor and limited research, ideological led decisions and universal perception of crime and criminals in our society. 2. Rationality of Evidence-based Crime Policy An approach to law and order is generally viewed rational if it is willing to go beyond a particular ideology, develop policies based on evidence, and be able to measure and monitor crime closely and objectively (Weatherburn 2004, p.36). It is therefore necessary to judge a crime policy based on these requirements and not solely on information given by a certain political party elected in government. For instance, a certain policy on drug use that may be described by government as rational and evidence-based may be developed by urban policy makers who examined evidence taken by researchers in the same area. Consequently, the resulting drug policy is geographically specific and not rationally applicable to rural parts of the country. According to Barclay (2007, p.72), some Australian drug and alcohol related policies implemented in rural and remote regions failed because little research was done on these parts of Australia. Similarly, crime policies such as those dealing with vandalism, graffiti, and other common offences may fail if based on inappropriate evidence. The failure of the 1999 evidence-based UK Crime Reduction Programme for instance was due to poor research and politically motivated decision-making (Argyrous 2010, p.21). Apparently, a crime policy that is not backed by a well-thought and adequately conducted research is likely to fail particularly when policymakers are being affected by their own personal notion of crime and accountability. An evidence-based approach to crime requires quality data collections as the appropriateness of policy-makers work are highly reliant on the completeness of information (Graycar & Grabosky 2002, p.125). Moreover, the success of an evidence- based approach is exceedingly conditional on the mindset of policy-makers who needs to be convinced that scientific knowledge is more accurate than anecdotal evidence and ideological led decisions (Sherman 2002, p.1). For instance, some policymakers particularly those that are highly politically motivated may be troubled by the thought that supporting unconventional crime prevention will make them look soft and their political career will be destroyed (Welsh & Farrington 2007, p.1). In other words, no matter what the evidence suggests, the course of action is to create a policy that is politically relevant rather than evidence-based. In view of these possibilities, it is therefore safe to assume that the reliability and rationality of an evidenced-based policy is dependent on the quality of information reaching the policymakers. In addition, the appropriateness of the resulting policy is also dependent on the understanding of policymakers of different social issues involved in a particular crime. This is because an evidence-based approach, as a minimum, normally requires results of thorough evaluation to be rationally integrated into the decisions of policymakers to succeed (Welsh & Farrington 2007, p.2). 3. Crime Policies and Social Theories Graffiti is often viewed as an act of illegally marking a property with words, symbols, and other graphics and this type of offence seems to emerge as key priority for most states and territories as evidenced by the existence of a number of prevention and reactive strategies (Australian Institute of Criminology 2010, p.1). For instance, particularly in public transportation, graffiti offenders in Western Australia and NSW may be charge using the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2009 and Graffiti Control Act 2008 respectively. As mentioned in the previous section, a rational and evidence-based crime policy should take into account not only the nature of the crime but the social issues involved. In other words, the data collection method, the scope of research and the evaluation process must be sufficient enough to provide policymakers real and relevant information they can use to effectively arrive in a conclusion. Similarly, policymakers must decide based on the evidence rather than their personal opinion or ideology and produce a rational policy. Policies such as those mentioned above can be rational and may benefit the wider community provided they have examined the social issues involved and did not succumb to politics and criminal stereotyping. Theoretically, an individual’s behaviour is considered morally right if it is acceptable to all (Durkheim (1925) in Walford & Pickering 1998, p.177). In Durkheim’s view, crime has a social function where altruistic (where graffiti offender belongs), and common criminals are agents for change (Vito et al., 2007, p.145). Mary Douglas also emphasised that morality is linked to a particular social structure and to be morally right requires compliance to the accepted system of morality (Douglas 2002, p.134). Similarly, collective fear of crime is in each individual consciousness (Foucault et al., 1990, p.142). It is universal and encourages public support for the principle of law and order that in turn often result to aggression against criminals (Kury 2008, p.372). Consequently, as David Garland suggest, crime avoidance has become an integral part of people’s lives, institutionalised, and being accepted widely as cultural facts (Cools et al. 2010, p. 89). Moreover, such attitude toward crime and subsequent punishment is a different criminology that sees criminals as monstrous aliens that do not deserve sympathy (Garland 1996:446 in Carrabine et al. 2009, p.131). Considering that perception of crime and criminals is strongly affected by common social perception, the rationality of a crime policy is therefore questionable. For instance, given that the research conducted is appropriate and sufficient, and the evidence collected is evaluated cautiously, the decision of the policymakers (aside from personal political agenda) is still subject to their individual understanding of morality and level of fear. According to Carrington & Pereira (2009, p.38), the criminal justice system in Australia is still affected by the principle of deterrence and rational choice where criminal behaviour is considered the result of offender’s preference and calculation. A good example of how the level of fear or the notion fear of crime is affecting the policymakers’ decision is the immigration policy for unauthorised arrivals. According to Schloenhardt (2003, p.398), the mandatory detention policy for unauthorised immigrant is the most notorious among other states and receiving severe local and international criticism. This is because rather than facilitating their speedy return, people with incomplete papers such as asylum seekers and others are automatically detained upon arrival and held in detention centres for a long time until decisions are made (Australian Human Rights Commission (2010, p.1). The objective of such policy is apparently to deter asylum seekers and to prevent crime and other problems in general. Evidently, policymakers that created the policy is influenced by their fear of crime and arrived in a decision that is less humane and offensive. Similarly, anti-graffiti policies may also suffer from lack of rationality as graffiti offences are not ordinary occurrences and requires further study. As evidenced by an article released by the Australian Institute of Criminology (2009, p.1-6), the motivation of graffiti writers is not yet established and the distinction between art and vandalism is still unclear. The fact that some major crime policies concerning the offence is actually in effect and being implemented in some territories, it can be assume that offenders are being treated unfairly. Clearly, at least in these policies, the Australian government claim of having a rational, evidence-based, and community oriented crime policy is not generally applicable. In fact, it can be assume that such claim is unfounded if not politically motivated. 4. Conclusion Approaches in law and order are generally considered rational if it is free from politics, based on evidence, and measurable. Moreover, a crime policy must meet all the requirements and should not be accepted as rational just because the current government endorsed it. An evidence-based crime policy only succeeds when data collection is conducted properly and the mindset of those who would use it is convinced that scientific knowledge is helpful and more accurate than traditional approaches. Moreover, understanding social issues involved in committing a crime is important as it is the key component of rational and evidence-based crime policy. In theory, morality and social perception of crime affects individual decisions and therefore should be recognised when formulating a policy. Evidence suggest that some of Australia’s crime policy fails because of poor research and ignorance of a number of social issues thus the claim of being rational is not entirely true and questionable. 5. References Argyrous G., 2010, Evidence for Policy and Decision-Making: A Practical Guide, UNSW Press, Australia Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010, Asylum seekers and refugees, available online at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html Australian Institute of Criminology, 2009, Research in Practice: Summary Paper No. 06, AIC, Australia Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010, AICrime Reduction Matters: Strategies to Combat Graffiti, AIC, Australia Barclay E., 2007, Crime in Rural Australia, Federation Press, Australia Carrabine E., Cox P., & Lee M., 2009, Criminology: a sociological introduction, Taylor & Francis, US Carrington K. & Pereira M., 2009, Offending Youth: Sex, Crime and Justice, Federation Press, Australia Cools M., Ruyver B., & Easton M., 2010, Safety, Societal Problems and Citizens' Perceptions: New Empirical Data, Theories and Analyses, Volume 3, Maklu, US Douglas M., 2002, Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, Routledge, UK Foucault M., Kritzman L., & Sheridan A., 1990, Politics, philosophy, culture: interviews and other writings, 1977-1984, Routledge, UK Graycar A. & Grabosky P., 2002, The Cambridge handbook of Australian criminology, Cambridge University Press, Australia Kury H., 2008, Fear of crime: punitivity: new developments in theory and research, Brockmeyer Verlag, Germany Schloenhardt A., 2003, Migrant smuggling: illegal migration and organised crime in Australia and the Asia Pacific region, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands Sherman L., 2002, Evidence-based crime prevention, Routledge, US Vito G., Maahs J., & Holmes R., 2007, Criminology: theory, research, and policy, Jones & Bartlett Learning, US Walford G. & Pickering W., 1998, Durkheim and modern education, Routledge, UK Weatherburn D., 2004, Law and order in Australia: rhetoric and reality, Federation Press, Australia Welsh B. & Farrington D., 2007, Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims and Places, Springer, US Read More