AN ASSESSMENT ON CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION IN THE SOCIETY

ABSTRACT

The history of crime prevention and control efforts in the United States has demonstrated little progressive improvement in our ability to deter crime. The major obstacles to implementing effective interventions and policies have been a weak scientific knowledge base about how to prevent crime, the research community’s inability to effectively disseminate what is known about the causes of crime and to translate this knowledge into operational programs and policies, and a resistance on the part of practitioners and policy makers to evaluate programs and policies and to use this information in the development of new programs and policies. In the last decade, there have been major advances in our understanding about the causes of crime and we have now demonstrated the effectiveness of selected prevention programs. But there is little evidence that this scientific knowledge is informing current practice or policy. Problems in the dissemination of this information and the resistance to utilizing it remain. These problems are discussed and suggestions are made for addressing them. Our knowledge base remains modest, but it is now sufficient to inform policy and practice. The research community must work to do a better job of disseminating this information and overcoming the resistance to utilizing it before we will be successful in implementing effective crime prevention programs and policies.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Crime control and prevention have become more and more an important topic in Western criminology and crime control policy in the last decades. Crime and especially fear of crime got an important political subject. Since the second half of the 1960s empirical social science methodology has got an increasing influence on criminological research, the first dark number/ victim surveys are carried out (Ennis, 1967) and began to “measure” not only victimizations or the dark number but also attitudes to punishment and the role of the criminal justice agencies, as well as fear of crime and fear of victimization. Fear of crime has been an important topic, not just for people but also for politicians. Politicians have learnt that crime and especially fear of crime is also helpful to follow their own interests: to be elected again. Results of the surveys showed people’s perception of crime and their ideas how to curb crime. Their prevailing answer has been: …more severe punishment. It seemed that the “solution” was an easy one and the logic hidden in their beliefs was: “More severe punishment leads to less crime.” Give people what they want to have – more punishment, harsher laws and more severe crime control (Lee, 2001) and problems will be “solved”… It is easy and cheap to make the laws harsher but consequences of such policies lead to the “unintended consequences”: a higher incarceration rate, and three strikes and you are out mentality. This consequence can be seen very clear in the country of the beginning of this development: USA. Here the incarceration rate increased dramatically since the beginning of the 1970s until today, without any substantial effect on the crime rate (Kury, Brandenstein & Yoshida, 2009a).

1.2  REFLECTIONS ON CRIME CONTROL POLICY AND PREVENTION GORAZD MEŠKO DISCUSSES

“Crime control policies transfer” and the role of criminology and criminologists in crime control policy. According to him there are different cultures of crime control and he discusses the question On Crime Policy, Crime Control and Crime Prevention – Slovenian Perspectives 11 if a unification of control policies on EU-level is the best way. What can criminologists do to influence the crime policy – a crucial question. Are criminologists too reluctant in having influence on a more rational crime policy? (see also: Indermaur, 2008; 2009). The United States is the biggest exporter of crime prevention and politics, but their influence is shrinking, it is more and more obvious which problems their crime policy has. These days California has no more enough money to pay for the costs of the state, also the huge number of prisoners so thousands of them are planned to be released. “Americanization of Social Control” is obviously not the best way to deal with problems of crime and security. Incarceration does not really help. Crime very often is presented as “the” problem of society, but only one part of crime, so called “street crime”, is discussed, regularly not political crime or economic crime. Alenka Šelih presents “General trends of crime policy in Europe and Slovenia”. Crime policy changed in the last decades strongly, especially in Slovenia and other former Soviet countries. More and more also the victims of crime are seen – and have influence on crime policy also. Crime policy has also strong economic aspects on the background of “privatisation of security” people spend a lot of money for their crime prevention measures. Crime is more and more a political topic, it was in all times a threat for a society. Countries present new measures to fight crime, sometimes by questioning the human rights, for example also in USA. If we look on inner security as the most important point Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd USPresident and author of the Declaration of Independence, is right when he finds out: “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”. Zoran Kanduč discusses “Various aspects of prevention in the post-modern society”. The author proofs what is really new in prevention. Prevention is mostly seen positive and always good. Crime is a construct and which part of this construct we want to prevent, a very important question. What is seen as crime in crime prevention. “What is the difference between organized crime and other, legal forms of organized capital?” Is it correct if in these times the government helps “bad banks” to solve their financial problems by public money and the same time the bank directors get a huge “Salary” although they might be responsible for the collapse of their banks. Crime prevention meanwhile is not only a “political” but also an economic Business. “Fearful” people are willing to spend 12 Crime Policy, Crime Control and Crime Prevention – Slovenian Perspectives money or to vote for sharp politicians for their safety. “A society of risks is … (also) a society of prevention or a conglomeration of “preventive individuals”…” The preventive function of penal law is discussed critically. Can sanctions really solve the problem? “In the post-modern society, prison is in again. Prison works!” Is there a development from “Nothing works to prison works”? Soering (2004) points out in his book that imprisonment is “an expensive way to make bad people worse”. The author emphasizes correctly: “… there is no convincing evidence available that a decrease in criminality unambiguously, consistently, or automatically follows a stricter punishment policy…” Shouldn’t we more prevent the prevention? Nina Peršak deals with the important question of “myths and conceptual contradictions” of contemporary crime prevention. Does prevention distinguish from the “cure” that is the punishment, is prevention less intrusive than punishment. In USA and Great Britain more and more the question rises if the Human Rights are violated by crime preventive measures. There are also developments in Slovenia which might be seen critically, for example the so called Anti Alcohol Act or the Minor Offence Act. These examples show a repressive tendency. The author discusses the development in USA and Great Britain in accordance with expectations that everybody wants to be as “safe” as possible and we never “safe” enough. The author also discusses critically a “shifting responsibility” for crime prevention and the “community myth”. Communities get more and more responsible for inner security, the state withdraws the same time (see Garland, 2001). The expectation that communities can prevent crime very often are a myth, often they are not the solution but the problem itself (Dölling et al., 2003). The public have the “knowledge” that harsh laws prevent crime, especially weak states refer to harsh punishment. Crime prevention has to do with factors like reducing of poverty or more education for everybody.

1.3  SPECIFIC PREVENTION PROGRAMMES AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES IN CRIME PREVENTION DARJA ZORC-MAVER DISCUSSES A VERY ACTUAL PROBLEM:

 “Youth unemployment as a form of social prevention”. Unemployment of juveniles has to with formation of identity of people. To have no job creates a risky situation, is On Crime Policy, Crime Control and Crime Prevention – Slovenian Perspectives 13 a stress. The problem is if we should see employment in a new way. The process of inclusion in a society is a difficult process, especially today. Mitja Krajnčan gives an overview of important aspects of “Prevention in elementary school”. Social pedagogic conceptualisations of prevention in elementary school and different models of prevention are presented. An important point is a good cooperation with the parents. The different concepts presented are discussed on a practical level. Dragan Petrovec and Mojca Plesničar present information about a topic neglected in criminology: “Perception of female criminality through sentencing”. They are right if they point out that sentencing is the “illegitimate child of the criminal law” (see Kury et al., 2009a). The education of penal lawyers in sentencing is in most countries, also in Germany for example, very weak. They learn sentencing mostly not at universities but in practice more or less. The authors present very interesting results about sentencing of female offenders who committed homicide in Slovenia. The role of sentencing guidelines, as the American system of corrections has utilized them, are discussed in this paper. How specific is sentencing in cases of female offenders. Nearly all criminological studies show clear differences in sentencing between cases of male and female offenders. Women are mostly punished more leniently than men. If female offenders differ from typical “female behaviour” they risk to be punished more severely. The authors demonstrate differences on the level of single cases. Katja Filipčič discusses “community service” as a “new method of correction of juvenile offenders in Slovenia”. 1995 Community Service was introduced in cases of juvenile offenders in Slovenia. 10 years later it is according the own research not yet a common practice in courts. The author presents research results about the practice of Community Service. Danijela Frangež and Anton Dvoršek present a literature review of an actual problem in Western societies: “Situational prevention of the sexual abuse of children”. The authors present a concept of situational crime prevention in cases of sexual abuse of children. According to them especially sexual misuse can be prevented effectively by situational measures. Opportunity structures in families play an important role in cases of sexual 14 Crime Policy, Crime Control and Crime Prevention – Slovenian Perspectives misuse of children. In public spaces more control can help to prevent child misuse. Bojan Dobovšek discusses a crucial problem of contemporary societiescorruption. Corruption is an old phenomenon, for example also the Romans had experience with it (Badian, 1997). Beside terrorism and organized crime corruption is the biggest problem of a society. The chance to find specific corrupt acts is low so offenders are more or less safe. Repression here has nearly no effect. The author especially presents prevention measures on the basis of integrity plans. Because repression is not effective, prevention is more important. In cases of corruption the old rule is valid: “It is better to prevent than it is to cure”. According to the author “civil society and the media are by far the best controllers of a government. Corruption has little chance to succeed in a corruption sensitive society…” Let us conclude this introduction with thoughts of Ljubo Bavcon (2004), a Slovenian criminologist and lawyer, who in Introductory chapter of the Crime Prevention – Theory, Practice and Dilemmas (Meško, 2004) emphasised that bright and holy ends do not justify all means and some basic principles should be applied in crime prevention: the rule of law, respect of one’s dignity and human rights. The authors of the texts in this volume have had these principles in their minds when reflected upon crime prevention and crime control issues.

REFERENCES

Badian, E. (1997). Zöllner und Sünder. Unternehmer im Dienst der Römischen Republik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Bavcon, L. (1968) Kriminalna politika v sodobni družbi. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, XIX (4), 178-193. Bavcon, L. (2004). “Svetli in plemeniti” cilji ne upravičujejo vseh sredstev. In: Meško, G. (Ed.). Preprečevanje kriminalitete: teorija, praksa in dileme (pp. 15-18). Ljubljana: Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti. Bavcon, L., Brinc, F., Jager, M., Kanduč, Z., Pavlović, Z., Maver, D., Repe, B. (1995). Izhodišča kriminalne politike v Republiki Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti. Dölling, D., Feltes, T., Heinz, W., Kury, H. (Eds.) (2003). Kommunale Kriminalprävention – Analysen und Perspektiven – Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung zu den Pilotprojekten in Baden-Württemberg. Holzkirchen/Obb.: Felix Verlag. Ennis, P.H. (1967). Criminal Victimization in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., Gilchrist, E. (1997). Questioning the Measurement of the‚ Fear of Crime’. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 658-679. Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control. Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: University of Oxford Press. Indermaur, D. (2008). Reducing Punitiveness: Strategies for Engendering a more Informed Crime Policy. In: Kury, H., Ferdinand, T. (Eds.). International Perspectives on Punitivity (209-226). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Indermaur, D. (2009). What Can We do to Engender a More Rational and Less Punitive Crime Policy? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15 (1-2), 181-200. Jager, M. (1999). O sedanjem načinu snovanja kriminalitetne politike v Republiki Sloveniji. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 50 (4), 318-323. Kury, H., Brandenstein, M., Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2009b). Dimensions of Punitiveness in Germany. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15 (1-2), 63-81. Kury, H., Brandenstein, M., Yoshida, T. (2009a). Kriminalpräventive Wirksamkeit härterer Sanktionen – Zur neuen Punitivität im Ausland (USA, Finnland und Japan). Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121, 190-238. Kury, H., Ferdinand, T. (2008) (Eds.). International Perspectives on Punitivity. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Kury, H., Kania, H., Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2004b). Worüber sprechen wir, wenn wir über Punitivität sprechen? Versuch einer konzeptionellen und empirischen Begriffsbestimmung. Kriminologisches Journal, 8 (36), 51-88. Kury, H., Lichtblau, A., Neumaier, A., Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2004a). Zur Validität der Erfassung von Kriminalitätsfurcht. Soziale Probleme, 15, 141-165. Kury, H., Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2008a). Measuring the Fear of Crime. How Valid are the Results? In: Kury, H. (Ed.). Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 53-84). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. 16 Crime Policy, Crime Control and Crime Prevention – Slovenian Perspectives Kury, H., Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2008b). Methodological Problems in Measuring Attitudes to Punishment (Punitivity). In: Kury, H. (Ed.). Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 277-303). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Lee, M. (2001). The Genesis of “Fear of Crime”. Theoretical Criminology, 5, 467-485. Maklecov, A. (1947). Uvod v kriminologijo: s posebnim ozirom na kriminalno politiko. Del 1, Obči del. Ljubljana, Pravna fakulteta. Mathews, R. (2005). The Myth of Punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology, 9, 175-201. Meško, G. (1996). Nekatere strategije kriminalne prevencije (Some Strategies of Crime Prevention). Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 47 (3), 241-254. Meško, G. (1998). Strategije preprečevanja kriminalitete v zahodnem svetu (Crime Prevention in the Western World). Socialna pedagogika, 2 (4), 37-55. Meško, G. (2000). Pogledi na preprečevanje kriminalitete v pozno modernih družbah (Aspects of Crime Prevention in Post-modern Societies). Teorija in praksa, 37 (4), 716-727. Meško, G. (2002). Osnove preprečevanja kriminalitete (Basics of Crime Prevention). Ljubljana: Visoka policijsko-varnostna šola. Meško, G. (2004). Preprečevanje kriminalitete: teorija, praksa in dileme (Crime Prevention – Theory, Practice and Dilemmas). Ljubljana: Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti. Meško, G., Frangež, D., Dvoršek, A. (2008). Status Report Slovenia – Current endeavours in crime prevention training in Slovenia. In: Coester, M., Marks, E., Meyer, A. (Eds.). Qualification in Crime Prevention: Status Reports from Various European Countries (pp. 17-39). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg. Meško, G., Nalla, M.K., Sotlar, A. (2005). Cooperation on Police and Private Security Officers in Crime Prevention in Slovenia. In: Marks, E., Meyer, A., Linssen, R. (Eds.). Quality in Crime Prevention (pp. 133-143). Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Sessar, K. (2006). Warum Man Abends Nicht das Haus Verlässt. Kriminologische Ergebnisse aus einem Europäischen Forschungsprojekt zu Unsicherheiten in Großstädten. In: Obergfell-Fuchs, J., Brandenstein, M. (Eds.), Nationale und Internationale Entwicklungen in der Kriminologie. Festschrift für Helmut Kury zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 265-293). Frankfurt/M.: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft. Soering, J. (2004). An Expensive Way to make Bad People Worse. New York: Lantern Books. Šelih, A. (2005). Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani in njegovih petdeset let. In: Kanduč, Z. (Ed.). Kriminaliteta, družbeno nadzorstvo in postmodernizacijski procesi (pp. 11-24). Ljubljana: Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti.