Discouraging Crime by Cracking down on Criminal Behavior: Result is Safer Communities

Defining the crime problem is a vital step in controlling crime. Crime is undoubtedly a significant and pricey societal problem but we cannot target the problem without first defining it. There is no one identical solution to crime, instead it is based on a piece by piece basis. Strategies to target crimes need to target larger geographical areas, sometimes entire states. In addition, for a strategy to be successful in controlling a crime it cannot be too vague or extremely specific to an index crime. An example of a crime a law should target is: drug sales in a problem neighborhood or rapes at a city park. –Chapter 1 Page

Today, many police officers are out performing patrols on foot and on bike, interacting with the public through meet and greets, and participating in community service projects to help make the city a great place to live (Roufta, n.d.). Furthermore, this method of policing also allows the community to get involved with their local law enforcement. Through initiatives such as block watches, police officers can now answer calls from the neighborhood. Overall, today’s policing has created a method of policing known as Community Oriented Policing. Community Oriented Policing is a style of policing that involves police officers partnering with their communities to help solve problems and to attack the core problems that lead to crime in the first place (“Law Enforcement and Community Relations,” (n.d.), para. 24).

The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment was a landmark experiment carried out between 1972 and 1973 by the Kansas City Police Department of Kansas City, Missouri. It was designed to test the assumption that the presence (or potential presence) of police officers in marked cars reduced the likelihood of a crime being committed. It was the first study to demonstrate that research into the effectiveness of different policing styles could be carried out responsibly and safely. The Kansas City Police Department drew the conclusion that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere. A significant factor realized was that crime prevention was more highly dependent on the willingness of citizens to report suspicious and/or criminal behavior to Police than the levels or types of patrol.

Situational and social approaches to crime prevention are both proactive where they anticipate and prevent crime but are different in the way on how crime is prevented, each having their own strength and weaknesses. In this essay, I will briefly talk about what is crime prevention and how situational and social approaches are derived, followed by providing a critical comparison of situational and social approaches by first explaining what is situational and social approaches to crime prevention, the differences between the two approaches, their strength and weaknesses and lastly, to show understanding that besides situational and social approach, there are other approaches to crime prevention.

To begin with, criminal justice is a system that is designed to maintain social control, which means it is a necessary aspect of every society since “Laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men united to form a society” (Beccaria, 1764: 16). In order words, crime control deals with the methods that are taken by a society to reduce its crime. As a matter of fact, there are various crime control strategies from community policing to risk assessments. In addition to the different tactics for controlling crime, there are several theories that not only attempt to explain the causes of crime, but also outline different ways to handle offenders; for example, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even retribution.

Since the 70’s police departments like Spokane Washington, I believe have proved that police visibility or presence in the community along with transparency working hand in hand with the community, have had a positive effect on preventing crime and providing communities with a sense of security (The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. (n.d.).

Ron Clark describes situational crime prevention as ‘a pre-emptive approach that relies, not on improving society or its institutions, but simple on reducing opportunities for crime’. He identifies three features of measures aimed at situational crime prevention, firstly that they

Although many may find community policing and problem-oriented policing to fall in the same category, there is (surprisingly) a difference between the two. For one, community policing has many definitions. For some, it means instituting foot and bicycle patrols and doing acts pertaining to the ideal bond between police officers and their community. While for others it means maintaining order and cleaning up neighborhoods in desperate need of repair (Dunham & Alpert, 2005). However, an idyllic definition of community policing is altering the traditional definition of crime control to community problem-solving and promising to transform the way police do their job. Within the past two decades, there has been much research on community

Using this research as a premise, the authors explore what it means to be “safer” without a decrease in the crime rate. The authors claim that police did elevate the level of order maintenance within those neighborhoods with increased foot patrol. One example of an area where order maintenance is particularly important is at a busy transportation center surrounded by run-down buildings. Those people found in the area include

Society has high expectations for criminal justice. Controlling the behavior of people is a difficult task, and there are several differing opinions on how this should happen. Many believe this can best accomplished by prevention through deterrence. Deterrence can be achieved from increased police patrols, good relationships with the community, and through tough penalties for convicted criminals. When deterrence fails, criminals need to be identified and held accountable for their actions. Law enforcement enforces many different crimes; some of the most serious crimes are violent crimes.

Individuals in poverty stricken communities are more likely to embark on a criminal path than those in wealthier communities due to the lack of opportunities presented to them. Poor communities are usually composed of single parent households with low levels of education. The need for money and closing doors presented to them when applying for jobs lead many to turn to a life of crime. A life of crime where money is obtained by selling drugs, theft, and fraud. As more of those homes emerge, communities are left divided. While some rise up to the challenge to combat crime, others ignore the situation. Many law enforcement agencies benefit from the social control created by crime. Some police officers are given arrest quotas to meet. Social control provides a justification for the large number of arrests. Justifications vary from keeping the streets crime free to holding the individual accountable for their crime. As crime rates increase, law enforcement is seen by society as a necessity thus keeping them

Kansas City prevention was a patrol experiment; (preventative patrolling). The results of police patrolling in high crime areas did not lessen criminal activity, however the reduction of police patrolling did not result in increased criminal activity. This research shined a new light on policing and helped pave the way for future community policing.

According to the journal article, the concept of deterrence is simple; it is the omission of a criminal act because of the fear of sanctions or punishments. Deterrence is an important foundation of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement is there to apprehend those that break the law, and to convince the public that there is a risk of apprehension and punishment if they commit a crime. Laws provide a host of different sanctions for the commission of offenses such as: fines, probation, imprisonment, mandatory minimum sentences, the “three strikes” law, and others are all enacted with the expatiation that sanction threats can deter crime is at the heart of the criminal Justice system. According to the journal article, there is an abundance of research about specific police, judicial, and correctional policies, as well as a more general theoretical work about deterrence mechanism, with the evidence to date, it is still flimsy.

Situational crime prevention constitutes primary crime prevention measure. This is to say that it is aimed at deterring crime before it occurs. Situational prevention, like other similar primary prevention measures, focuses on subduing crime opportunities instead of the attributes of criminals or even potential criminals. It seeks to curtail opportunities for certain groups of crime by increasing the risks and difficulties associated with them and significantly reducing the rewards. Situational prevention is made up of three key elements: a sound theoretical framework, an authoritative methodology for dealing with specific crimes, and a collection of opportunity-reducing approaches (Felson & Clarke, 1997).

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