Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society - Case Study Example

Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society In the olden times, crime control was simply about punishment, often with no concept of the rights of the accused or due process. Women who were accused of being witches were burned at the stake, slow and painful deaths were used to punish petty criminals.  Criminal justice in any mature society always involves a balance of two competing interests: the need to protect the rights of the accused, and the need to combat crime and instill peace and order in society. “Legally, a crime is any act or omission proscribed by the criminal law and thus punishable by the state through the criminal justice system” (Davies, Croall and Tyrer, 2005) Legal systems in the civilized world – whether in civil or common law jurisdictions -- have, at least in theory, given primacy to the rights of the accused, understanding that ambiguity should be resolved in his or her favor. In practice however, we see how police officers routinely violate the human rights of those they apprehend. The implicit message is that these are criminals anyway – thugs, petty thieves, gangsters, punks, drug addicts, alcoholics – and they are doing society a favor by treating them brusquely. Indeed if there is one thing that distinguishes (or should distinguish) crime control strategies in contemporary times from medieval times or less-than-modern societies, it is the regard for due process and the rights of the accused. Furthermore, crime control is attended by rehabilitation for the offender and helping him take steps towards reintegration. In contemporary times, we see a departure, albeit gradual, from strong-arm tactics. It has, after all, been proven that there is a higher incidence of crime in states where the police force is known for their brutality. For example, in states like New York and Los Angeles where there is a relatively great number of cases filed against members of the police force for misconduct, the crime rate is astronomical. The strong-arm tactics of law enforcement officers have done little to quell the rising tide of crime and have in fact exacerbated it. On the other hand, the desire to preserve society and prevent crime is equally valid. It would seem that society has been ill-equipped to come up with answers and solutions to address it definitively (Norrie, 1996). It is imperative however to disabuse oneself of the simplistic approach that is often used when analyzing crime rates. Many are wont to believe that a rise in crime rates signifies a social problem, and a decrease is something to be lauded. In fact, a rise in recorded crime rates could actually mean better police efficiency, a willingness of the victims to come forward, and a desire by society as a whole to condemn criminals. The significance of making this initial assertion is explained by Matthews (1995) as follows: Making this point at the outset is important for two reasons: First it helps to free us from the disarming grip of pessimism that is often associated with the assertion that increases in crime and inevitable and undesirable. Second, it reminds us that crime is a social construct and is the outcome of a complex process of action and reaction. Crime is reducible neither to an act or to a biography. Rather it is a process that requires both an offender and a victim – direct or indirect – to interact within a milieu of formal and informal constraints. The main point driven at is that crime control methods in contemporary society have to be holistic in approach. And it simply cannot be born out of the desire to seek revenge or to punish. It must be seen as but a part of a body of efforts to ensure that peace and order is maintained. Another trend that is visible is the cooperation among various government agencies. In the past, crime prevention is seen as merely the job of the police force. Now, a host of government agencies are expected to do their part and more importantly, to cooperate with each other. A good example is in the issue of child abuse. The creation of the Children’s Charter expanded and added additional layers of protection for children and avenues for address. In 1974, following the death of Maria Cowell, there was a realization that the lack of coordination between child protection services imperiled the child. Hence Area Child Protection Committees (ACPC) were created for the purpose of ensuring greater coordination. In 1989, the Children Act came into force. One of its aims was to provide “a consistent framework for regulating all forms of substitute care” (Masson, 1992). In 1991, the “Working Together Under the Children Act” was passed, which granted investigatory powers to the ACPC to look into cases of child abuse. Community Safety and Crime Prevention The effective strategies that have thus far been implemented is making sure that society participates in crime prevention and in taking action against offenders. Community crime prevention has been described as: “…actions intended to change the social conditions that are believed to sustain crime in residential communities. Different approaches have evolved, which can be best understood as a succession of policy paradigms emerging as responses to changing urban conditions, community organizing, tenant involvement, resource mobilization, community defense (both intentional organizing and environmental modification); preserving order and protecting the vulnerable. (Hope, 1995) According to Skogan (1988), participation in anticrime groups is based on awareness of local problems and is linked to socio-economic status and class linked attitudes. But how indeed should society protect itself? And how can the community empower itself to fight crime? It is often the case that members of a community band together to fight crime that is a common threat, for example drug pushing and gang wars, but tend to look the other way when the crime is one that involves only a specific individual. We go back to the issue of child abuse. First, in a 2000 study it was revealed that most of the violence perpetrated against children is committed in the context of the family and the home. To quote: The survey results have identified the extent to which violence towards children is primarily a family affair. The only arena outside the family where it occurs with any frequency is between age peers at school or in other settings where the young congregate. Violence by unrelated adults, including professionals, is rare. Within the family, it is primarily birth parents who mete out the violent treatment, though sibling violence and step-parent violence also occur. (Cawson, 2000.) The fact that most cases of child abuse take place in the home reveals that there is a greater danger that the issue is kept hush-hush. The secrecy of domestic affairs makes it imperative that someone – a well-meaning adult known to the child, for instance, like a neighbor – come forward and inform the State that a child is being abused or could be in danger of being abused. This requires both faith in the system, and faith in the community – that the crisis of one is the crisis of all. Prevention is, of course, the best cure. Of late, legislation has been passed wherein convicted child sex offenders have to be registered so the community will be able to protect itself. In the United States, this is known as Megan’s Law. Crime Control, Imprisonment and Community Sentences The parliament is vested with the power to create laws that have coercive effect. It is essentially in their province to come up with regulations to maintain order and peaceful conduct in the society, while ensuring that a human rights framework is always in place. Over the past two decades, there has been a steady stream of legislation, marking the evolution of Criminal Justice as it is known in the present time. Indeed, the constant changes in the Criminal Justice Act reflects the constantly changing public mindsets on crime and its concomitant issues. The Criminal Justice Act of 1991 was introduced to reflect the notion of “just deserts”, It also provided for some protections for the accused, in particular, a provision stating that past offenses should not be taken into consideration when sentencing a felon, except in certain circumstances. However, some feel that in practice, proportionality gives rise to many problems and within six months of being in force, the CJA 1991 was already being undermined. (Hudson, 1994). There are also those who perceive the CJA 1991 as a case of government valuing efficiency over democracy (Lacey, 1994). After three years, the CJA 1993 was enacted, which removed the unit fines that were introduced in 1991. The CJA 1993 dealt primarily with drugs and anti-trafficking. Given the proliferation of illegal drugs and considering its pernicious effects on the youth population, the Parliament deemed in necessary to create legislation addressing this specific problem. In 1998, the Crime and Disorder Act was enacted, which introduced the concept of Anti Social Behavior Orders which in the United Kingdom is defined as conduct which caused or was likely to cause alarm, harassment, or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as him or herself and where an ASBO is seen as necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the Defendant.’ A criticism of this is forwarded by Sanders (1998): It created Anti Social Behavior Orders, breach of which is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, more draconian restrictions on sex offenders who have already served their time, and child curfew schemes, to give just three examples. This is all consistent with Howard’s 1997 legislation in its intolerance of diversity and its disregard for civil liberties, standards of proof and modern criminological research. Crime and disorder will no doubt increase despite (or even as a result of) these measures, but only the naïve believe that Home Secretary Straw will learn the obvious lessons from this. Of course, not to be forgotten in 1998, is the creation of the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act 1998 received royal assent on November 9, 1998 and came into force on October 2, 2000. The objective of said Act was to harmonize the domestic law of the United Kingdom with the European Convention on Human Rights and to provide for stricter human rights guarantees to be followed by all states. The provisions on free speech, freedom of assembly and due process all impact heavily on the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom. In 2000, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 was enacted, which created the National Probation Service and allowed for compulsory drug testing for offenders. (Davies, Croall and Tyrer, 2005) It also increased maximum penalties for offences relating to child pornography. To address the burgeoning problem of terrorism following the World Trade Center bombings in the United States, the Anti Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was enacted, to enhance police power and facilitate information sharing between the different branches of government. (Davies, Croall and Tyrer, 2005) In 2004, however, the Law Lords declared Part 4 of the Act incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Part 4 allowed the Home Secretary to certify any non-British citizen whom he suspected to be a terrorist and have him detained indefinitely. The highlight of 2003, of course, is the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which rebalances the Criminal Justice System in favour of witnesses, victims and the community. (Davies, Croall and Tyrer, 2005) It is an attempt to modernize the system as it amends the law with respect to the powers of the police, appeals, and admissibility of evidence. The over-all aim is to reduce the possibility of the system being abused. Indeed, a modernization of the system is long overdue. In order to keep up with the times and to keep a society that is protected from crime while at the same time maintaining its adherence to human rights and civil liberties, the system needs to be revisited from time to time. Antiquated concepts must be thrown out. Conceptions in criminal justice is constantly evolving, the variety and nature of crimes committed shift as well. The key is to be able to adapt with constantly rising developments, while remaining firmly committed to the timely ideals of justice. References Cawson et al., 2000, Child Maltreatment in the UK: A Study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect, NSPCC. Davies, M., Croall, H. & Tyrer, J. An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales. London: Pearson Longman. 2005. Hope, T. “Community Crime Prevention” Crime and Justice, Vol. 19, Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention (1995), pp. 21-89 Hudson, B. “Beyond proportionate punishment: Difficult cases and the 1991 Criminal Justice Act.” Crime Law and Social Change. Vol. 22, No. 1, 1994. Lacey, N. “Government as Manager, Citizen as Consumer: The Case of the Criminal Justice Act 1991” The Modern Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Jul., 1994), pp. 534-554. Masson, J. “Implementing Change for Children: Action at the Centre and Local Reaction” Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 320-338 Matthews, R. “Crime and Its Consequences in England and Wales”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1995. Norrrie, A. “The Limits of Justice: Finding Fault in the Criminal Law”. The Modern Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jul., 1996), pp. 540-556. Sanders, A. “What Principles Underlie Criminal Justice Policy in the 1990s?” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 533-542. Skogan, W. “Community Organizations and Crime” Crime and Justice, Vol. 10, 1988 (1988), pp. 39-78 Read More