Crime, Prevention And Reduction

Chicago is a major city with a huge amount of crime and this paper will address crime reduction and prevention in this particular city. It will also address other issues such as; assisting victims, preventing crime, and achieving effective justice. This paper will address the effect that criminological theories and research have had on contemporary and historical crime control policies in Chicago. It will include theoretical rationale for the recommendations that are suggested. Chicago needs more help in these areas because of the amount of crime they are seeing.

The effectiveness of crime prevention strategies has increased in recent years and many sociologists believe that this is the result of society instilling tougher punishments upon its’ members. Despite this, there are many other approaches that attempt to reduce crime. However, they also have their limitations.

Hot spots policing revolves around the idea that crime is focused in small problem locales, and that crime can be more efficiently reduced if police concentrate their efforts on those smaller areas (Papachristos & Hureau, 2012). By stopping crime in smaller areas, it is easy to prevent it from growing in larger parts. Activities like patrolling high crime areas and presence of law enforcement officers in the area are performed will reduced crime (Hot spots policing, 2017, What is the focus of the intervention?). “When authors calculated the overall

Summary: This chapter discusses the seven secondary defenses applied to crime after detection. These seven defenses can be split into two categories: discourage and oppose. The four ways which potential victims discourage their attackers: movement away from adversary, communicate ability to escape, distraction, feigns, and startles, and symbiotic protection. The three methods for quick opposition upon attack are chemical and weapon defense, sudden weaponry, and emergency social defense.

Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

Situational crime prevention is the prevention theory and implementation that focuses mainly on specific types of crime, and relies heavily on preparation. People who focus on situational crime prevention follow more with the idea that people commit crimes as an opportunity and not because of biological or psychological discriminants. A simple way to look at situational crime prevention is to use the speed bump, while some may limit the value of its effectiveness, a speed bump removes the opportunity to speed and therefore performs its duty. Similarly situational crime prevention intends to do they same thing to other crimes, put a metaphorical speed bump in the way, and at least make it harder to commit those specific crimes. This type of prevention requires a belief that offenders make their own choices and that a less attractive option will prohibit an offense.

The theory that changed the way I look at things is the Crime Control Theory. Crime control model, with higher reliance on the investigatory and prosecutorial officers in the society, argues the importance of repression of crime. It thinks that a free and safe society should be based on the maximum reduction of crime perpetration. As such, crime control theory argues that criminal justice should concentrate on the protection of victim's rights rather than the defendant's rights and police powers should be reasonably extended so that the law enforcement could protect the law-abiding members of the citizens to its fullest extent, and the punishment should be swift and certain to discourage the future offenses and will-be offenders. In contrast to the due process model, crime control model assumes a suspect to be guilty until the fact-finding process suggests him or her to be innocent and the objective of discovering the truth rather than protecting the innocence or liberty of citizens are highly valued.

As noted in Sherman and Weisburd’s article, the majority of neighborhoods in cities have few serious crimes annually (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). Preliminary research suggests that the use of hot spot policing of crime can prevent crime without displacing disorder and/or the criminal element to other parts of the community (Braga, 2001). Although there is a call for more research in reference to policy implications and community reaction, research has found that proactive police activity that is focused on police interventions, strategic arrests, and interventions has had a drastic impact on crime prevention (Sherman, 1997). The success of this style of patrol is highlighted in the quasi-experimental evaluations by Anthony Braga, in which he demonstrates a significant decline in crime in seven out of nine studies (Braga, 2001). Organizationally, neighborhoods would be (as in both random and directed patrol) split up in beats/sectors so as to maintain accountability and organization. These beats would then be assigned to patrol units where a set amount of units would respond to calls for service, while others would conduct hot spot patrols while occasionally conducting random patrol to maintain citizen ideals of public safety and law enforcement accountability.

The people that argue this theory claim that if there are more police officers, then the people who are committing the crimes are much more likely to be caught and then get sent to jail or prison. In the end that would cause them to all be locked up, slowing down the crime rates and reducing the criminals on the street. However, an increase in police does not show a direct relationship with the decreasing crime rates (Fisher). There is no evidence to support that an increase in police officers does anything at all to lower the crime rates. Therefore, it can mostly be concluded that an increase in police officers has little to nothing at all to do with the decrease in crime

With Hot Spot policing, officers would monitor the high crime areas more often. This means that at least every couple of hours, police officers should basically scope the hot spot areas by driving around them. In addition to the police officers who drive around every couple of hours, there should be a police officer in the areas during the times the crimes usually occur as a way of deterring. If people know there are police officers constantly around, they would not commit the crimes.

The crime control model makes the statement that if the police have respected a person's rights from the search of a crime through the arrest procedure, and then there is a really good chance that the person is guilty of the crime. We than can find that an agreement is often quickly reached in criminal cases, known as a plea bargain, the defendant agrees to the committed crime in exchange for staying away from a trial, which then means the case and the defendant will receive a sentence of punishment.

The logical place to start when discussing hot-spot policing is simply what hot-spot policing really is and how it is used. Hot-spot policing encompasses a couple types of direct patrol practices that narrow in on places of high crime so that law enforcement can concentrate on places that have increasingly elevated criminal activity reports (Telep, Mitchell, & Weisburd 2012, pg. 906). While the term hot-spot policing, as well as, the systematic approach to crime-concentrated areas is relatively new, officers often know their patrol routes well enough that they already knew where the high crime areas were (Braga 2008, pg.6). The systematic approach is, supposedly, what really helps the officers get results in eradicating crime in areas (Braga 2008, pg.6). These practices, supposedly, allow officers to vigorously reduce crime in order to create better, safer neighborhoods and communities (Telep, Mitchell, & Weisburd 2012, pg.906). Generally speaking, there are three major types of hot-spot policing practices: foot patrol, problem-oriented policing, and offender-focused policing (Groff et al. 2014, pg.23). Other hot-spot policing methods could be upping the amount of arrests for certain crimes or being aggressive in maintaining order in rough neighborhoods (Kochel 2011, pg.351). All of these

According to the Australian Government of Criminology (2017), Crime prevention is ‘an effective approach to reducing crime. It is internationally recognised as an important component of a national approach to building viable communities.’ This essay will examine the case of the kings Cross shooting that occurred in 2012, involving the Indigenous community, Sydney police and Society. it will cover the importance of Crime prevention and the strategies in which are ideal to maintain the safety and security of the community and the offender partaking in the crime. This essay will focus broadly on the perspective of Social Crime Prevention, and the importance it obtains to prevent crime from occurring.

The effects of crime on victim can have a mixed feeling about making a victim impact statement. They may want to tell the judge or parole hearing officer how the crime affected their life and yet they may be anxious because you don't know how to prepare an impact statement or you don't want to bring back bad memories by describing how the crime has hurt you. The victim impact statements may include descriptions of:

The focus of this paper will be based upon different crime prevention strategies implemented by members of the communities, local and government authorities.