In order to prevent crimes from occurring, there must be penalties in society to those that commit. Crime prevention is a form of social control to prevent members of society from committing and victims from experiencing criminal acts. The ways and methods people are punished for breaking laws are through these 4 main factors:
· Deterrence- This is an attempt to put others off from committing the crime because the criminal is made an example of sometimes publicly.
· Rehabilitation- The criminal is seen has not in the right social state of mind so they need to be sent to institutions or need help so they can get re-socialised and be able to return to society.
· Incapacitation- The criminal’s freedom is taken away or they lose access to privileges in society.
· Retribution- This is when a form of harm or some sort of loss is inflicted for the purpose of justice so that the victim is avenged.
Below, there are 3 commonly looked at theoretical explanations that focus on punishment and crime prevention:
Functionalist View
Functionalists like Durkheim argue that the function of punishment is used to maintain social solidarity and reinforce value consensus through degradation ceremonies such as going to court. These degradation ceremonies are for the form of justice and reminding society the inappropriate way to behave within it so people conform. (DURKHIEM)
Marxist View
Marxists however argue that the function of punishment is however based on economic code which is pretty much for ruling class interests. These punishments include:
· Fines, which w/c will have to pay back to ruling class.
· Prisons, where there is often a denial of wage labour.
· Community Service, these punishments include labour work that has to be done for free until their punishment has been lifted.
Poststructuralist View (FOUCAULT)
This view distinguishes between two forms of punishment. These are sovereign power and disciplinary power: (FOUCAULT)
· Sovereign Power- This was the previous way nobles and the monarchy established their ideological power by inflicting physical punishment on the body such as chopping of limbs.
· Disciplinary Power- This is when the state seeks to govern the mind or soul rather than just the body. This is done through surveillance so criminals are constantly monitored taking away their mental freedom as a way of punishment. For example, Foucault uses the example of the panopticon; this is a prison structure with a control tower that watches over all the prison cells. Thus criminals behave because they know the might be monitored.
CRIME PREVENTION
These are the ways crime can be prevented by society through strategies influenced by sociological studies.
Felson (Situational Crime Prevention) - Ron Clarke describes situational crime prevention as an approach that reduces the opportunity for crimes. In Felson’s studies of a Bus Terminal in New York, it found it was poorly designed in a manner that made it prone to crime. For example, the homeless bathed in the large sinks there. However, when the Terminal was remade it was re-shaped in a way the physical environment would drive crime out. For example, the sinks were now small hand basins preventing the homeless from entering.
Wilson and Kelling (Environmental Crime Prevention) – Found that to prevent crime in neighbourhoods that have deteriorated environmentally, the police need to crack down on any disorder even minor. This is zero tolerance policing and it will function as a way to keep the environment stable from litter, broken windows and constantly monitored for even minor crimes in order to stop areas from ever becoming or being prone to it.
Perry Pre School Project (SCCP) – This intellectual enrichment program showed striking differences with a control group that had not undergone the programme. By the age of 40 the experimental group had fewer arrests for criminal offences whilst more had graduated from high school and were in employment. It was found that every $1 spent on the program, $7 was saved on welfare, prison and other criminal problems.
VICTIM STUDIES
Wolfgang (Positive Victimology) – This approach aims to identify the pattern in victims to crime largely focusing on interpersonal crimes of violence. It also aims to identify victims that have likely contributed to their own victimisation.
In Wolfgang’s study of 588 homicides in Philadelphia, he found that 26% were involved victim precipitation meaning the victim triggered the events leading to the (crime) homicide, for example by being the first to use violence. This was often the case when the victim was male and the perpetrator was female.
However, to criticize this method, it ignores the situations where victims are unaware of their victimisation. (E.g. Environmental Crime)
Tombs and Whyte (Critical Criminology) – This approach views the victim as a social construction where the state have the power to deny the victim the label of victim status. This is common in the case of a man assaulting his wife.
In Tombs and Whyte’s study they found the ideological function of failure to label victims is actually to hide the crimes of the powerful and deny powerless victims any redress. For example when employers violate health and safety regulations they often explain it as the fault of accident prone workers. The same occurs for many rape cases when the victim is denied victim status and blamed for the fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment