Crime Prevention, Disorder, and Community Safety - Essay Example

Crime Prevention, Disorder and Community Safety (What evidence is there that the public and policy makers are becoming more punitive) Introduction (The above image was taken and adapted from Photobucket Inc., 2009) ______________________________________________________ Harsher sentencing and increased use of imprisonment, 'three strikes' and mandatory minimum sentencing laws; 'truth in sentencing' and parole release restrictions; 'no frills' prison laws and 'austere prisons'; retribution in juveniles court and the imprisonment of children; the revival of chain gangs and corporal punishment; boot camps and supermax prisons; the multiplication of capital offenses and executions; community notification laws and pedophile registers; zero tolerance policies and Anti-Social Behavior Orders. There is now a long list of measures that appear to signify a punitive turn in contemporary penalty. -Garland, 2001: 142 (as cited in Matthews, 2005: 176) Crime hurts. Crime destroys. Crime kills. As each one of us may be in agreement, crime is perceived as a horrible action or series of actions that human beings can commit- whether intentional or unintentional. Indeed, it is feared by most, if not all, individuals, who, at the same time, could only pray that fate might be kinder to them in a way that they will not fall as victims of crimes or preys of the roaring predators. When a particular crime is completed, as common knowledge, it undeniably causes rage, anger, and a seemingly intuitive feeling and wanting of vengeance by individuals and families who are directly or indirectly affected by it. "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" is a popular bible verse, perhaps, a saying, which denotes an equal punishment to the crime that has been done. It must also be the thought that victims of crimes and their families have in their hearts and minds. In this regard, prompt punishment of the offenders is the common plea of the families who lost their loved ones, or even just an individual whose belongings are stolen by a thief. This would mean that, be it major or minor, crime offenders must be punished. On the other hand, in his research-study entitled "The myth of punitiveness", Roger Matthews (2005) shares that there is now a common belief, or consensus, that the modern people are becoming more punitive. This would mean that the contemporary society and the politicians who want the people's support are now demanding more punishment for criminals and other offenders (Matthews, 2005). Moreover, David Garland (2001) also claims that the contemporary society is now witnessing the advent of an era of punitiveness (as cited in Matthews, 2005: 179). In regard to the aforementioned facts, this paper shall dissect the evidences pertaining to allegations of this generation's punitiveness. As such, this paper aims to primarily answer this significant research question: What evidence is there that the public and policy makers are becoming more punitive Additionally, in order to support the answer to the main question, the following relevant queries must also be asked: Is there a truth that policy makers are becoming more punitive Is public opinion the force that urges the policy makers to impose punitive actions on criminals Furthermore, the answers for the aforesaid question must be duly based on relevant literatures and reputable references, which will guide us in the discussion and analysis portions herein, as well as in the formulation of a logical conclusion. On the other hand, theoretical perspectives, varying viewpoints, and empirical evidences shall also be presented to augment the explanation and thereby exemplifying the essence of this paper. Discussion and Analysis The concepts of crime and punishment Crime ______________________________________________________ Thus, it is impractical to try to 'cure' crime -Wilson and Herrnstein, 1986 (as cited in Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 6) The concepts of crime and punishment have already been noted ever since biblical times. The bible relates stories of crimes in terms of killing, stealing, and other forms. On the other hand, appropriate punishments were also given in accordance with rules, laws, and commandments, and were noted in some ways such as stoning to death and the renowned crucifixion, which was the punishment that was bestowed upon Jesus Christ. And as the world evolves and revolves, gone are those days of crucifixion, instead the current punishments given to criminals and offenders can be said as still lenient compared to those of the biblical accounts. To further understand the concept of crime, let us take a look at the facts gathered by Muncie and Wilson (2004): Crime is a symptom of declining moral standards... (Murray, 1990, as cited in Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 6). Crime, essentially, has biological roots which are not amenable to individual treatment or social engineering (Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 6). Individuals commit crime through rational choice. Lack of self-control and a lack of individual responsibility are at the root of all criminal responsibility (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990, as cited in Muncie and Wilson, 2004: 6). Wicked people exist; nothing avails but to set them apart from the innocent (Wilson, 1975, as cited in Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 6). The above descriptions about crime from various respected authors point out that the execution of crime depends upon several factors. Foremost is the individual who decides to commit crime through a rational choice, thereby making himself or herself as a "criminal or an "offender". Another factor that has been pointed is the environment where an individual exists. As such, the society's morality and values were equated to be 'declining', in so doing, they contribute in producing criminals. Other factors include biological (innate to an individual to commit crime), lack of self-control and lack of responsibility. Further, as regarded in the opening quote of this section by Wilson and Herrnstein (1986), it is indeed difficult to 'cure' or prevent the occurrence of crime because of the fact that factors or conditions fairly exist in our daily lives. Thus, we now have a substantial understanding about the concept of crime. Punishment Every criminal behavior comes with a responsibility, a consequence- punishment. Let us now take a closer look at the concept of punishment as chronicled in the following paragraphs. ______________________________________________________ There is no neat, polished final justification for punishment: there are only arguments for and against it, which apply differently not only within different political systems but also according to the social and economic conditions holding in different societies in which the institution exist -Lacey, 1988: 15 (as cited in Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 5) Accordingly, three essential ideas are evident in its contemporary definitions, which are as follows (Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 5): It is deliberately administered by state officials on an individual who is legally defined as being subject to the laws of that state. It requires some normative justification that the pain/deprivation/suffering is warranted. Its primary purpose is usually represented as being instrumental one of reducing or containing rates of criminal behaviour. The above depictions on punishment suggest that it is duly implemented by governing bodies as mandated by laws. In this way, criminals are held subjects to restrictive interventions as a result of their unacceptable behaviors. In a similar vein, the pain, deprivation or restriction, and the suffering experiences that are purposefully inflicted to criminals are fairly justified according to the established norms. In addition, incapacitation, retribution, just deserts, and deterrence are found to be the dominant philosophical justifications in regard to punishment (Muncie & Wilson, 2004: 5). Hence, the aforesaid idea from Lacey (1988) reveals that there is not really any perfect set of punishments nor are they flawless. The punishment would really vary in different nations, which may be due to political, social, economic and cultural factors. The significant roles of Public Opinion and Policy Makers in making and implementing policies on punishment and sentencing ______________________________________________________ There can be little doubt that public opinion, today, is a reality - in at least some senses of the term. It exists. If it did not, the activity of all those who claim to explore, measure and interpret it would be a little odd The activity of politics, of advertising, of marketing, indeed public debate itself seems unimaginable without reference to public opinion... -Osborne and Rose, 1999: 5 ______________________________________________________ The need to sustain public confidence in the administration of justice means that public opinion plays an important, albeit indirect, role in sentencing policy and practice. -Hough and Roberts, 1999 Evidently, the public, or the population, can truly speak of their needs and wants, not to mention about their 'say' on the policies that must be implemented to better serve them. In this manner, public opinion can really influence the way penal policies should be implemented. This idea is supported by the literature as Roberts et al. (2002, as cited in Roberts and Hough, 2002: 1) uphold that "legislators, policy-makers, judges, and other criminal justice professionals often cite public opinion when making and implementing policy". In this manner, it is undeniable that public opinion, as an element of social sciences, creates appreciable influences- public opinion help create phenomena (Osborne and Rose, 1999). Conversely, the fact that public opinion and the policy-makers exert some influence on each other to make penal policies and determine sentencing, they have been pointed as 'culprits' that cause the emerging punitiveness of this generation. In fact, this is the main concern of David Garland (2001, as cited in Matthews, 2005), as he asserted the idea, which is highlighted as follows: There is now a relatively populist current in penal politics such that the dominant voice of crime policy is no longer that of the expert or even practitioners but the long-suffering and ill-served public. The argument of Garland suggests that the public pushes the policy makers to implement policies according to their wants. If this were Garland's idea, then the following concept is more likely to be pondered: "If the public wanted to take vengeance, then the policy makers must implement harsher sentencing and punishments, thereby depicting the so-called punitiveness." On the contrary, Roberts and Hough (2002) maintain that public opinion is still poorly explored by policy makers. They suggest that efforts must be made to hear what the public has to say and to observe their attitudes towards sentencing and penal policies. Hence, through exploring public attitudes, the policy makers will enable to improve the public knowledge in the area of penal policies and will be able to deal with their opinions in a more rational way. Consequently, Garland's assumption that policy makers' decisions are being influenced by the public is somewhat refuted by Roberts and Hough's statement that public opinions and attitudes are still less explored and less informed. Now, how can the public exert influence to the punitive becoming of this generation when they are even less explored, perhaps, less heard, about this area of concern Therefore, extensive efforts must be made possible to understand and manage the public opinion and public knowledge, in order for them to rationally and objectively contribute to penal policies and perhaps, to some reforms in due course of time (Roberts and Hough, 2002). Punitiveness explained ______________________________________________________ The notion of punitiveness is most commonly associated with retribution and vengeance. It is seen as essentially reactive rather than consequentialist. -Matthews, 2005: 178 Since the heart of this paper is to identify and dissect the evidences of the emerging punitiveness of the public and policy makers, it would be apt for us to foremost explicate the term 'punitiveness'. The following definitions of punitiveness were synthesized and compiled by Matthews (2005). Punitiveness is characterized by: 1. Coercion; 2. Formalism; 3. Moralism; and 4. The infliction of pain on individual legal subjects by a third party (Cohen, 1994: 67-8, as cited in Matthews, 2005: 178). The term 'punitiveness' normally carries connotations of excess, that is, the pursuit of punishment over and above that which is necessary or appropriate (Matthews, 2005: 179). The above elaborations pertaining to the term 'punitiveness' were seemingly directed to one palpable idea: an exaggerated punishment! 'Punitiveness' is more likely to be associated as beyond what is due to a particular criminal. Moreover, it is seen as an act of vengeance that must be implemented to mend the pain that the offenders had caused to the victims and their loved-ones. If this were the case in the current time or if punitiveness were really existing, then the criminals can be viewed as pitiful as they are suffering twice, thrice or many times than they ought to have. Therefore, it is such of particular interest to find out what evidences are there that this phenomenon really do exist today. The alleged or claimed 'evidences' of the punitive becoming of this era The introductory portion of this paper showcased a set of alleged evidences that punitiveness takes its turn in the modern era. These were enumerated by Garland (2001, as cited in Matthews, 2005: 176) as follows: 1. Harsher sentencing and increased use of imprisonment, 'three strikes' and mandatory minimum sentencing laws; 2. 'Truth in sentencing' and parole release restrictions; 'no frills' prison laws and 'austere prisons'; 3. Retribution in juveniles court and the imprisonment of children; 4. The revival of chain gangs and corporal punishment; 5. Boot camps and supermax prisons; the multiplication of capital offenses and executions; 6. Community notification laws and pedophile registers; and 7. Zero tolerance policies and Anti-Social Behavior Orders. At first glance, the above listing may truly exemplify the term 'punitiveness' and may even bring us to a point of viewing those current policies as harsh matters that are implemented to the criminals. On the other hand, although criminals made heinous and inhumane acts, they are still human beings and their rights need to be protected. If severe pain and agonizing punishments were [to be] implemented to them, then they could only wish that their lives be just ended so they could no longer feel the suffering that they ought to pay as a consequence of their criminal actions. Nevertheless, these evidences are a subject to numerous arguments and varying viewpoints. In fact, Robert Matthews (2005) depicted significant arguments about the notion of punitiveness, which, in turn, became the title of his research study, "The Myth of Punitiveness". In line with this, the following section explicates the different arguments and standpoints against punitiveness. The image below was taken and adapted from Bail.com (2009). This image, which I adapted and modified to fit into this paper, depicts a prisoner's hands over the jail's bars. Now, could these be the hands that welcome this generation's punitiveness The different viewpoints and arguments against the concept of punitiveness ______________________________________________________ Punitiveness and related concepts are poorly theorized and the histories that are presented are selective and unconvincing, while critical connections tend to be assumed or asserted rather than explained. There is no viable strategic or political programme that follows from these accounts. Rather, there is an overriding sense of fatalism and inevitability. Their ultimate limitation is not only that they present one-sided, EXAGGERATED OR MYTHICAL accounts of the development of crime control... -Matthews, 2005: 195-196 ______________________________________________________ It would be wrong to characterize the British public as being, on balance, highly punitive, or as being consistently more punitive than sentencers. -Hough and Roberts, 1999: 22 In his study, Matthews (2005) argued that the concept of punitiveness is rather speculative than being objective. He further explained, defended, and even regarded the current policies as merely protective mechanisms to shield the public from possible harms due to criminal acts, thereby deterring the would-be offenders from committing various crimes. In so doing, the sentencing strategies, which may be harsh in the eyes of the public and other commentators, are truly aimed at administering punishment and sentencing that are just and are duly mandated by the existing laws. On the other hand, Hough and Roberts (1999), as regarded in the above quotation, stipulated that it would be wrong to tag the British public as 'highly punitive' beings. Rather, they only viewed the current sentencing policies as lenient and that policy makers must implement stricter penal policies in order to increase public security and lessen or even eliminate criminal behaviors. Moreover, in the survey that was cited in their study, the said authors relate that not all of the respondents or members of the public gave punitive remarks or harsher opinions on sentencing. In fact, other people even responded with more lenient views and perspectives than the current sentencing practice (Hough and Roberts, 1999: 22). Hence, the point that is consisently raised by the authors of 'Sentencing trends in Britain Public knowledge and public opinion' is that the public lacks some vital information, leading to their unfavorable attitudes towards sentencing policies, which would mean that the public must be fairly educated and informed about this area of concern in the society. Summary and Conclusion True to its purpose, this paper was able to elaborate and explicate the following: The concepts of crime and punishment. Criminal behaviors are awful acts, which deserve to have punishments as mandated by the law. The role of the policy makers and public opinion in tailoring penal policies. Policy makers do consider the 'say' of the public, or the so-called public opinion, in making and implementing penal interventions. While one author says that the public is pushing the policy makers to implement punitive punishments on criminals, other authors contradict and fairly regarded the public as poorly explored and heard when it comes to this particular issue. The concept of punitiveness. The term punitiveness is associated with anything beyond what is due to a person or a criminal, as well something that connotes an exaggerated punishment. The claimed evidences to this era's punitiveness. (1) Harsher sentencing and increased use of imprisonment, 'three strikes' and mandatory minimum sentencing laws; (2) 'truth in sentencing' and parole release restrictions; (3) 'no frills' prison laws and 'austere prisons'; (4) retribution in juveniles court and the imprisonment of children; (5) the revival of chain gangs and corporal punishment; (6) boot camps and supermax prisons; (7) the multiplication of capital offenses and executions; (8) community notification laws and pedophile registers; (9) zero tolerance policies and Anti-Social Behavior Orders. This long list of punitive actions was listed by David Garland (2001, as cited in Matthews, 2005). On the contrary, Matthews (2005) regarded the claimed evidences of punitive turn as "unconvincing", "assumes", "exaggerated", and "mythical". In a similar way, Hough and Roberts (1999) strongly argue that the public does not merely have a punitive sense. Rather, they are inadequately informed about penal policies and thereby needs information to change their attitudes and to improve their knowledge about the current trends in sentencing and penal policies. As a result, this paper has successfully presented the claimed evidences pertaining to the notion that public and policy makers are becoming more punitive. Nevertheless, valuable contradictions were also discussed, which evidently strengthened the discussion and analysis herein, thus enlightening us with the topic of concern. Therefore, we can conclude that although there were alleged evidences of the punitive becoming of the contemporary society, much is still needed to prove that assumption, at the same time, it is indeed crucial to explore the public's knowledge and perspectives about this concern, thereby paving the way towards a more objective and a more rational standpoint on the issue regarding 'punitiveness'. Marking Criteria Checklist Your essays will be marked based on the following five criteria: 1. Knowledge of the topic - ideas, concepts and institutions 2. Analysis of the issues and an awareness of different viewpoints 3. Evaluation of competing explanations or theories applied to a problem 4. Ability to identify relevant sources of evidence, both empirical and theoretical, and to use these to produce an informative referencing system. 5. Skill in presentation of an answer with accuracy, clarity and coherence. *** Harvard Referencing Style *** Readings: Roberts, J. and Hough, M. (2002) Changing Attitudes to Punishment; Willan. Hancock, L. (2004) 'Criminal Justice, Public Opinion, Fear and Popular Politics' in J. Muncie and D.Wilson (eds) The Cavendish Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology; London: Cavendish. Durham, A. (1993) 'Public Opinion Regarding Sentences for Crime: Does it Exist' Journal of Criminal Justice 21: 1-11. Osbourne, T. and Rose, N. (1999) 'Does the Social Sciences Create Phenomena The Example of Public Opinion Research' British Journal of Sociology Vol 50, No. 3: 376-396. Matthews, R. (2005) 'The Myth of Punitiveness' Theoretical Criminology (summer). O'Donnell and O'Sullivan, E. (2003) 'The Politics of Intolerance - Irish Style' British Journal of Criminology 43: 41-62. Walker, N. and Hough, M. (1988) Public Attitudes to Sentencing; Gower, Aldershot.] References Exhibit Here are the images of some references that were used in this paper. Bibliography Bail.com (2009) a jail hands [Online Image]. Available at: http://www.bail.com/Texas/a-jail-hands.jpg (Accessed: 13 May 2009). Hough, M. and Roberts, J. (1999) 'Sentencing trends in Britain Public knowledge and public opinion'. SAGE Publications, Vol 1(1): 11-26. Matthews, R. (2005) 'The myth of punitiveness'. SAGE Publications, Vol. 9(2): 175-201; 1362-4806. Muncie, J. and Wilson, D. (eds) (2004) The Cavendish Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited. Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (1999) 'Do the social sciences create phenomena: the case of public opinion research'. British Journal of Sociology, Vol 50 (3): 367-396. Photobucket Inc. (2009) Hungry Prisoners by bbakerone [Online Image]. Available at: http://media.photobucket.com/image/prisoners/bbakerone/Chinadega/DSCF5083.jpgo=187 (Accessed: 13 May 2009). Roberts, J. and Hough, M. (2002) Changing Attitudes to Punishment. Devon: Willan Publishing. Read More