The Anti Social Behavior Orders

In this assignment I will be examining and investigating the effects of crime on individuals, communities and business and discussing the role of services that support victims of crime and witness. There are a lot of people and communities that are impacted negatively by crime. However in the public service, there are approaches used in order to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. This is done by using websites and wardens to keep track of recent crimes. Also I will be writing about how both public and third sector

The problem with achieving justice with this legal response is that the police of government officials can make the determination of criminalising clubs without court oversight thus may be used to target individuals or individual associations rather than being equally applied to all. What is deemed to be more of an issue is that this legal approach virtually affects a person’s fundamental freedom to associate with whomever one pleases. This is seen throw the introduction of “guilty by association” – under which a person may be found criminally liable simply for associating with another person who commits a crime, even though that person has committed no crime his or her self. An act, which illustrates this legal response, is the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA). The primary goal was to disrupt OMCG activities and protect the public from their violence.

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.

Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current

The concept of ‘crime’ is something that depends on time, place, and other influences. For this reason, researchers have been trying to get criminologists to rethink their definitions of ‘crime’ and consider the idea of ‘social harm’ which could help better explain the causes of human suffering and the definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’ and broaden the application of criminal justice. What this rethinking can do for criminologists broadly is give them a broader picture of human psychology as well as the range of harms that individuals, communities, or whole societies experience. In this context this can include crime in the sense of activities of individuals as well as government and institutions.

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

Criminology is focused on the attempt to understand the meanings involved in social interaction. Theorists have tried to explain sociological behaviour by looking at the patterns created by individuals that commit crime. The August 2011 riots are pivotal in explaining criminological behaviour since official statistics show that 865 individuals were put in prison by the 9th September 2011 for offences related to the disorder between 6th and 9th August 2011. This is not to say that others were not involved, but that they have simply not been identified to date and may never be identified, however the evidence we do have about the recent riots gives us plenty to talk about. This essay will

During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).

The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.

Crime is the product of the social structure; it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why crime exists within society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct; it is always in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.

The Culture of Control, Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, David Garland (2001) is certainly one worth the read. Garland, one of the leading criminologists, begins the book with a fantastic insight on ‘history of the present’ of penological developments in the US, compares it with Britain in late 1970’s. He picks out indicative theories by Foucault and several examples to support his arguments. He portrays an intricate argument about the rise of crime control and punitiveness. Garland continues throughout to link new developments in both countries to identify each countries crime control stratergy and the effect of their strategies. He ends it with further theories and opinions on crime control and social order. Garlands purpose of writing the book is to give a deep analysis and an absorbing read of crime control in USA and UK to his readers. The purpose of the following review is to give the readers a brief understanding of some issues by Garland on crime and social order in contemporary society.

Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.

Classical criminology is “usually seen as the first ‘real’ criminology” (Tierney,2009), due to its emergence in the eighteenth century, heralded by scholars Jeremey Bentham and Cesare de Beccaria. It is centred on the ‘act’ rather than the ‘offender’, as well as the use of punishment as a deterrence. Yet whilst classical criminology has evolved slightly over time, it’s narrow minded focus on the ‘offence’ rather than the ‘offender’ can result in the overlooking of crucial details that may have facilitated the offence. Such details can include low-socio economic upbringing, mental health issues or social inequality. Therefore, when dealing with youth crime in Melbourne, only a limited amount of crime is explainable as classical

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