Pros And Cons Of Situational Crime Prevention

Routine activity theory states that for a crime to be committed, three important factors need to be present including: a motivated offender, an accessible target, and the absence of a capable guardian against a violation. Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen introduced the routine activity theory in 1979, where they believed that an individual who has these three characteristics gives them a greater possibility of committing a crime. Moreover, situational crime prevention is known as strategies of ways for preventing or reducing the opportunities for criminals to commit crimes that derive from the routines of an individual’s everyday life. Ronald V. Clarke introduced situational crime prevention theory in 1983, where he believed that removing the situation instead of removing the criminal could prevent crime. In this paper, I will be discussing what routine activity/situational crime prevention theory is, and apply two peer-reviewed articles from Google Scholar that test the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory by discussing what the authors are trying to figure out and discuss their findings, and lastly, tie the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory articles to our textbook in hopes to fully understand in depth what the theory encompasses.

The criminal justice system is a used to protect our society from those who try to harm it. Departments such as courts, and police officers study the behavior of criminals; they want our communities to be safe. When a crime is committed these departments work together to protect the rights of our society and our own. As stated in the textbook, a crime is the “Conduct in violation of the criminal laws of a state, the federal government, or a local jurisdiction for which there is no legally acceptable justification or excuse” (Schmalleger). Our system is a balanced system, there are times where have to think about our own rights as one person, but there are also times where we have to include other people. We must think of our society and

The criminal justice system has been proven to play a very important role in society. The criminal justice system is used to keep the citizens in check and to make sure that the laws that are made are being followed. It also is there to penalize anyone who disobeys the laws. In the criminal justice system, there are 3 main parts, law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement is self-explainable. It consists of the law enforcers such as police officers and sheriffs. Adjudication is made up of people in the court house such as judges and lawyers. Corrections is made up of jailhouse matters such as prison officials. In these many components of the criminal justice system, there are all put in place to help correct people to do the right thing. There are punitive efforts and rehabilitative efforts. At time, the system may lean towards one category or more, which can be dangerous in terms of disciplinary action. The criminal justice system is more punitive than rehabilitative which makes the system ineffective.

Who are the ones who enforce laws across the U.S? Law Enforcement are ones who enforce laws for that reason taxes fund law enforcement. They are the one who assure the safety of Americans. The FBI, Justice Department, Homeland security and U.S marshals are a few of them. They may not lack resources but with an increase in funding they would be able to have even more resources so they'll do a better job at ensuring the safety of Americans.

Criminal justice is defined as the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of Committing a crime. Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between GOD and humans. Criminal justice is a process, involving a series of steps beginning with a person committing an alleged crime, a criminal investigation and ending with the release of a convicted offender from correctional supervision. Rules and decision making are at the center of the process.

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

In this case, the advantages of the crime control model would be that they would catch more guilty people. Which is a good thing because they may be getting the dangerous or hateful criminals off of the streets, increasing the safety of the public. Along with that they would actually be getting punished because in many cases criminals are let go. While the advantages of the due process model would be that the ones found innocent would be let go if there was no evidence. Sadly, many incarcerated are not guilty and in this case all of the strip searches and questioning would give them the ability to prove their innocence.

So as to realize this high function, the crime control model calls for the idea that primary consideration be accorded to the effectiveness with which the criminal procedure functions to screen wrong doers, establish culpability and secure suitable outlook or character of individuals found guilty of criminal offences. For the crime control model, permissible measures must not precede, sustenance for the police, nor

This paper defines and analyzes Beccaria's concept of deterrence and the three key elements of punishment. The concept of deterrence is a classical school and rational choice model that emphasis punishment in order to deter crime. The three key elements of punishment used in order to deter crime include: the swiftness of punishment, the certainty of punishment, and the severity of punishment. It discusses which of these elements Beccaria thought was the most and least important, as well as my personal opinions. Also included in this paper are real-life examples of deterrence and the elements of punishment that they use.

There has long been a debate over which, if any, are the most effective methods of crime control. Governments from bottom to top in our nation have poured over the issue with mixed results for as long as there has been a nation. Until very recently deterrence was completely based on fear of punishment. However, recent years have provided us with a more complete understanding of crime and its roots among the more desirable parts of our society, specifically the mind of a criminal. Through the study of psychology, specifically free will, determinism and social identity, we may find that situational crime prevention is a better means to deter crime in our nation.

The most important thing that a law enforcement officer can do is the right thing. We as officers of the law are suppose to be role models. I have been in law enforcement of almost two years and I have never accepted free stuff from any restaurant or local business. I my self-have always taken my top shirt of or just changed my clothes completely. I do not think that I should get any special treatment from anyone just because I am an officer and what I was sworn to do. So I would like to talk about the pros and cons of officers accepting free meals and coffee, not accepting free meals, higher standards, officers getting sued or the department getting sued, and civil liability.

During this essay, I will be discussing recorded crime statistics and victimisation surveys as they are our primary techniques of measuring levels and trends of crime. After briefly explaining what is meant by these terms, I will seek to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses in order to question the extent to which they are reliable resources that provide us with accurate information.

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.

Situational wrongdoing aversion is grounded in the reasonable choice perspective in that it controls no less than one segment to change the open entryways for wrongdoing and in this manner change the essential authority of potential blameworthy gatherings. To the extent standard activities theory, situational wrongdoing abhorrence can be viewed as the parts by which controllers (i.e., guards, put chiefs, and handlers) dishearten wrongdoing. Over the span of late decades, pros and criminal value specialists alike have used the strategies for situational wrongdoing evasion to fathom wrongdoing issues, make interventions, and survey the reasonability of those mediations. Situational wrongdoing foresight was proposed to address uncommonly specific sorts of wrongdoing by efficiently controlling or managing the incite condition in as enduring a way as could be normal considering the present situation, with the explanation behind decreasing open entryways for wrongdoing as observed by a broad assortment of blameworthy gatherings. Situational wrongdoing avoidance strategies focus on sufficiently changing open door structures of a particular wrongdoing by growing the undertakings, extending the threats, diminishing the prizes, reducing inductions, and removing pardons. All finished, situational wrongdoing counteractive action techniques change the event decision by modifying the liable party's impression of a specific criminal open entryway. Regardless, it should be seen that a