Policing of Marginal Youth Groups in Public Places - Literature review Example

Policing of marginal youth groups in public places Introduction Police play a critical role as “gatekeepers” to the criminal justice system. To fulfil this duty, they employ a number of crime control strategies to govern public spaces. These strategies are often perceived differently by different stakeholders; for instance, some groups may appreciate the role of the police in controlling crime, while to some people, the actions by police may seen as targeting certain groups. The youth are particularly affected by police actions since some of their actions may be perceived to constitute crime. Many young people have tendencies to form groups to express their wishes away from home or schools rules, but some of their activities may be against existing laws. How police deal with such tendencies is important in determining their relationship with the youth since arbitrary arrests of young people may pit the young people against the police. This paper discusses these issues and also identifies a youth inclusive strategy that can help to facilitate better relationships between young people and the police in public places. Crime control strategies used by police/private security in their “gatekeeping” role According to Hunter (2010, p. 212), the crime control strategies used by the police and private security in public places can be divided into three categories. First is primary prevention, which is aimed at reducing a site or a person or a small group’s vulnerability or a potential offender’s perceptions of opportunity so as to curb the occurrence of crimes. Second is secondary prevention, which entails reducing an obvious vulnerability on the part of probable victims or crime sites, or addressing area or community issues that might encourage at-risk groups or individuals to be involved in criminal activity. On the other hand, tertiary prevention involves dealing with individuals or sites that have been victimised, or arresting and dealing with those groups of individuals who have committed crimes within an area or a community. Victim-based primary crime control strategies aim at preventing crimes from occurring by reducing susceptibility or target attractiveness. Examples of such strategies include crime awareness programmes, target hardening, providing private security to businesses and other measures that can help to reduce or deter vulnerability of specific individuals or groups (Hunter 2010, p. 212). For instance, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) indicates on its website that it is dedicated to preventing all Australians from becoming victims of online crime by enabling them to use technology securely and responsibly. The website provides resources for different people including parents, parents, carers and teachers, and communities. Youths can get information about cyberbullying, sexting, privacy management, e-security, reputation management and online grooming; whereas communities can access information on mobile banking, security on the Internet, online shopping, how to protect kids at home, how to protect PINs and passwords, and so forth (AFP 2012). There are also target hardening mechanisms which aim to bar potential offenders from accomplishing their intended actions by putting physical barriers in their way (Wortley 2002, p. 67). For instance, many homes have security alarms and electric fences manned by private security companies. Offender-based primary crime control methods emphasise reducing potential offenders’ perceptions of success. The activities aim to reduce the opportunity to successfully engage in a crime or make a target less attractive. Examples include presence of police in a public space, security personnel presence at sites such as banks, and aggressive police patrols (Hunter 2010, p. 212). For instance, it is estimated the US has more than one million security guards – that is about three for every two sworn police officers (Welsh & Farrington 2009, p. 93) to increase security presence in public places. Secondary crime control methods seek to address recognised or apparent vulnerabilities by first promoting consciousness of the victim, group or place in terms of their potential for victimisation. Examples include home security surveys, promoting good cash handling, and rape awareness among others. Other related techniques include educational programmes aimed to provide alternative activities for groups that are likely to engage in crime (Hunter 2010, p. 212). Victim-based tertiary crime control techniques seek to reduce the trauma of victimisation for people and suppress the potential for further victimisation. Such measures include crime mediation and neighbourhood crime watch programmes. Along the same line, offender-base tertiary crime control methods include restorative justice programmes, mandatory prosecutions, probation treatment, community corrections, restitution programmes and a myriad of other methodologies that attempt to dissuade offenders from becoming involved in further criminal activity (Hunter 2010, p. 212). Effect of crime control strategies on the relationship between police/private security and one marginal youth group According to Lee (2005, p. xi), “marginal youth” is a colloquial reference to youth-at-risk. It denotes a group of youth on the verge of becoming juvenile delinquents. This category of young people is perceived to be quite risky as they are likely to break the law and thus become official delinquents. Marginal youth are classified differently depending on the activities that different groups engage in. Hence, they could be gangs, school bullies, young substance abusers, cautioned juveniles and so forth. These young people are usually regarded as impulsive-natured individuals as opposed to hardcore criminals, and usually need the assistance of welfare services rather than punishment (Lee 2005, p. xi). The relationship between marginal youth and crime prevention strategies adopted by police and private security personnel can be said to be unfriendly. To start with, marginal youth get into this category because of their desire to express themselves in a manner that does not limit their space. Young people’s freedom at home and in school is limited by rules that try to channel them into doing organised activities (Valentine 2004, p. 83). As such, public space, and in particular the street, have always offered one of the main avenues for youth leisure (Muncie 2009, p. 254). Public space is ideally supposed to provide one of the few sites in which young folks can ‘hang out’ considerably free of direct adult supervision (Mcara & Mcvie 2005, p. 6). Ironically, it is on the streets that troubling aspects of young people’s behaviours are most apparent and where critical elements of the relationship between young people and the police are established (Muncie 2009, p. 254). The reason for this is that because of the measures put in place by the police and private security people to curb crime, the meaning of public space is transformed, in that young people are no longer free to do whatever they would like to do in the streets or any other public space. As Malone (2002, p. 162) puts it, public space is not reflected as an open space where teenagers are freely in a position to partake in street life or establish their own ways of relating and utilising space. Malone (2002) adds that the public space is highly controlled or closed, and young people are expected to show respect to adults in accordance with what adults perceive as fitting behaviours, levels of noise and so on. Hence, crime control strategies in public places such as presence of police, surveillance cameras, and arrests serve to pit the youth against the police and other private security personnel. A notable group of marginal youth are the young people who are perceived to loiter in public spaces. In their role as “gatekeepers” to the criminal justice system, police frequently arrest youths for loitering or idling around, which makes them to be perceived as potential criminals. For instance, in Queensland, the public nuisance offence was introduced in 2004 (Walsh 2008, p. 160). This law has resulted in a wider use of powers to charge people for engaging in disorderly and offensive or disorderly behaviour. Additionally, in 2006, police powers to cause people to move were extended beyond the scope of prescribed places to all public places in Queensland (Walsh 2008, p. 160), and Queensland’s Vagrant Act has remained relatively unchanged since it was enacted in 1931 (Muncie & Goldson 2006, p. 98) . Similarly, in Scotland, the Criminal Procedure Act (1995) gives police powers to stop, search and restrain individuals even without arrest, charge or formal caution (Mcara & Mcvie 2005, p. 10). And in Chicago, police officers have powers to order people believed to be members of criminal gangs to disperse, and any person who does not comply can be charged for violating the law (Lippman 2009, p. 541; Spergel 2007, p. 100). What such laws imply is that more people, especially young people who want more space, are likely to be condemned by the police for ‘idling’ around or for being gang members even if their congregation in public spaces is meant for other purposes. Inclusive to help facilitate better relationships between young people and the police in public places One inclusive strategy that can be applied to improve the relationship between young people and the police in public places is the school-based officer programme model. Under this model, police are placed in schools on a regular basis (Wood & Marks 2008, p. 266). In particular, individual officers are assigned roles as School Resource Officers and regularly pay visits to schools and partake in school events. The objective of this model is to change young people’s thoughts about the police via friendly and informal contacts with them and to maintain security in school. The concept behind this approach is that ongoing presence of police officers in schools is regarded as the most effective way to establish healthy and trusting rapport with students (Wood & Marks 2008, p. 266). That is, when young people get used to interacting with the police, the probability of them becoming enemies of the police or becoming offenders is likely to be small. In addition, Flint and Smithson (2007, p. 178) and Newburn (2011, p. 3) note that enhanced interaction between young people and police officers increases positive encounters such as cooperation from the young people, and this is likely to reduce incidences of young citizens being held in custody or appearing in criminal courts. Conclusion In conclusion, although police play a critical role as ‘gatekeepers’ to the criminal justice system, they often come in conflict with young people because they deny them the opportunity to interact and express themselves freely in public spaces away from their homes and school. This comes from the fact that there are laws that prohibit idling or loitering and assembly of criminal gangs in public spaces. Thus, although public spaces offer safe havens for youth to congregate and interact, this freedom is limited by the police who apparently are playing their role of maintaining law and order. Hence, there is often a state of enmity between marginal youth and the police. To avoid this, it is important to encourage children to start interacting with the police from their early stages of life by adopting strategies like the school-based officer programme model. References Australian Federal Police (AFP) 2012, ‘Crime prevention’, viewed 29 April 2013, Flint J & Smithson, H 2007, ‘New governance of youth disorder: A study of local initiatives’, In R Atkinson & G Helms (eds), Securing an urban renaissance: Crime, community and British urban policy, The Policy Press, Bristol. Hunter, R D 2010, ‘Crime prevention: Micro, meso and macro levels’, in B S Fisher & S P Lab (eds), Encyclopaedia of victimology and crime prevention, volume 1, Sage, London, pp. 211-213. Lee, F W 2005, Working with youth-at-risk in Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. Lippman, M R 2009, ‘Crimes against public order and morality’, In M R Lippman, Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies, 2nd ed., Sage, London, pp. 523-563. Malone, K 2002, ‘Street life: Youth, culture and competing uses of public space’, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 14, pp. 157-168. Mcara, L & Mcvie, S 2005, ‘The usual suspects? Street-life, young people and the police’, Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 5-36. Muncie, J & Goldson, B 2006, Comparative youth justice, Sage, London. Muncie, J 2009, Youth and crime, Sage Publications Ltd, London. Newburn, T 2011, ‘Policing youth anti-social behaviour and crime: Time for reform’, LSE Research Online, pp. 1-12, viewed 30 April 2013, Spergel, I A 2007, Reducing youth gang violence: The little village gang project in Chicago, Rowman Altamira, Lanham. Valentine, G 2004 ‘Contested terrain: Teenagers in public space’, In G Valentine, Public space and the culture of childhood, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 83-98. Walsh, T 2008, ‘Policing disadvantage: Giving voice to those affected by the politics of law and order’, Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 160-164. Welsh, B C & Farrington, D P 2009, Making public places safer: Surveillance and crime prevention, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wood, J & Marks, M 2008, ‘Generating youth safety from below: Situating young people at the centre of knowledge-based policing’, In T Williamson (ed), The handbook of knowledge based policing: Current conceptions and future directions, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 263-278. Wortley, R 2002, Situational prison control: Crime prevention in correctional institutions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More