The aim of this essay is to critically discuss the current crime control strategies in place to combat transnational crime. The essay begins by briefly explaining the extent of the problem of transnational crime in the boarders of Europe, and continues by discussing the need for police co-operation at macro, meso, and micro levels. These levels are analysed whilst addressing the problematic issues that occur as a result of this strategy. Whist the author agrees that it is essential for such authorities to work together at these levels to address the problem of transnational crime, there is evidence of concern discussed in this essay surrounding the efficiency of such policies. The essay then discuses with criticism the structures in place for the promotion of police co-operation in Europe and the effectiveness of the policies such structures implement to control crime. Interpol, Europol, The Schengen Group and The Trevi Group are discussed here. A large part of the criticism of crime control strategies argued in this essay is devised from an evaluation of a study by Dillip K Das and Peter C Kratcoski, this is largely supported by this essay because it is based on a actual research. The scope of the essay is very broad and the crime control strategies discussed are equally on a broad scale, for this reason the essay then explores certain crime control strategies used to fight the trafficking of drugs. This is done through the use of a study by Nicholas Dorn, and demonstrates strategies in eliminating drug wholesalers. The essay argues that to successfully reduce transnational crime a significant improvement of international police co-operation is required. This essay question is important because it addresses the significance of transnational crime in Europe with particular reference to drug trafficking, and highlights the current problems in which crime control strategies face whilst attempting to reduce such crime.
Europe’s multiplicity of frontiers, and freedom of movement within and across national borders, combined with the presence of skilled and sophisticated international criminals, make the whole region a particularly attractive target, not only for indigenous criminals, but also for international gangs (Wilkinson P 1985). Around 1990, the problem of organised crime had begun to attract regular attention in the media (Burnham B 2003). Benyon J et al (1993) states that in general terms the rates for most types of crime appear to be rising in the EU member states. With the emergence of ‘global economies’ and recent reflections on the capacity of modern industrialised societies to transform in the face of powerful political change, crime is receiving recognition as a significant commercial determinant (Findlay M 1999). According to the traditional UN claims, the global trade in illegal drugs exceeds that of iron and steel (Van Duyne P et al 2005). With such concern over the rising levels of transnational organised crime, it is apparent that crime control strategies are implemented and are effective in the reduction of this expanding problem. However, it is argued by Burnham B (2003) that until some sort of quantitative measure of transnational organised crime can be developed, it will not be possible to construct rational strategies and policies to counter it, and above all it would not be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of such strategies and policies.
Governments across Europe increasingly collaborate with each other in economic, financial, and social policies. In the area of crime policies, however each of the European countries is still very much doing its own thing without giving much attention to other developments (Dijk J 1993). The underlying problem which presently exists is how can countries who are bureaucratically bound, and coupled with their respective laws effectively reduce transnational crime. There are structures and arrangements, which exist for promoting police co-operation in Europe. It is suggested very well and is worthy of quotation by Martin P (1999) who believes that the foundation of a successful strategy against transnational crime is political will. A country can have many laws, enforcement units, intelligence agencies and technology, but unless its government is willing to campaign against transnational crime, the opposition will prevail. In the realm of organised crime there is much intelligence and counter intelligence and such an organisation will always capitalise on political weakness. Marenin O (1998) states that success in international initiatives requires a clear goal, the capacity to implement designed programmes, the political will to overcome the inevitable resistance to change by local elites and police forces and a clear awareness of the difficulties of changing one of the most complex jobs and resilient agencies anywhere. However, in order to achieve this, such strategies must be implemented with international co-operation. This is because of nature of transnational crimes such as drug trafficking, organised crime, and illegal immigration etc are crimes in which are committed across state boarders and are problems that require regional and multi-national co-operation.
Sanders D (1996) states that international police co-operation is a subject that has assumed great importance in the increasingly violent, crime infested and dangerous world of today. In a study by Das D et al (1999) it states that at the 4th International Police Executive Symposium in Vienna representatives of every country that participated noted that there was a definite need for bilateral, regional, and multinational police co-operation to combat transnational crime. The symposium participants in whom International agencies represented included Criminal Justice division of the United Nations, Interpol, and Europol agreed that the types of international police interaction needs to take place at three levels of police co-operation. These are the macro-level, meso-level, and micro-level (Das D et al 1999).
Benyon J (1997) states that the macro-level is that which entails constitutional and international agreement, and the harmonisation of national laws and regulations. An example of this would be extradition procedures, and legal discrepancies concerning police powers. At this level it is governments and senior officials, which determine the outcome. Benyon J et al (1993) is however critical of this, and suggests that such high-level agreements can be painfully slow and although there may be a reinforced sprit of goodwill these issues still require a constitutional and legislative framework. The meso-level is concerned with the operational structures, practices and procedures of the police and other law enforcement agencies (Benyon J 1997). It is at this stage that the communication between police forces benefits. This gives police from different countries and across boarders an advantage when co-operating with databases and criminal intelligence. This is an important crime control strategy that can have its advantages in combating transnational crime, but does also however have its criticisms. Das D et al (1999) believes that language barriers and lack of knowledge of other countries customs and cultures are major factors that inhibited the effectiveness of some of the treaties or agreements; this is based on actual research. Further to this Benyon J et al (1993) suggests that there are also problems of technical language and terminologies, which vary between countries. Moreover it is also suggested that compatibility between computer systems and software can cause concern. Benyon J (1997) defines the micro-level as the investigation of specific offences and the prevention and control of particular forms of crime. An example of this would be the investigation of public disorder that has varied between countries. Liaison officers who are seconded from one country to work with their counterparts in another country, especially in the fields of terrorism and drugs are good examples of micro-level co-operation (Benyon J et al 1993).
The promotion of police co-operation at these levels is assisted by three major structures in Europe. These are known as Interpol, the Schengen Group, and the Trevi Group. Interpol (International Criminal Police Organisation) are responsible for promoting mutual assistance between police organisations of separate countries. Interpol are accountable for many areas of crime but most frequently deal with drugs, and counterfeit currency (Benyon J et al 1993). However, Benyon J et al (1993) states that the general impression, conveyed by respondents from several different European countries, is that Interpol’s role in fostering police collaboration in European Union countries is constrained by the fact that it is the international police organisation of the world. Interpol does however; define Europe more widely than the European Union, and for this reason it is being briefly discussed in this essay. Further to the previous criticism Benyon J et al (1993) suggests that in the past criticisms have been made not least by police officers themselves whilst discussing the inefficiency of Interpol activities.
Das D et al (1999) states that the quality of the services provided by Interpol is highly dependant on the amount of co-operation, assistance, and financial support received from the member nations. Interpol requires service from its member countries police departments before any help can be offered. This is not always obtainable because not all countries can afford the full statutory contribution for the services of Interpol, if this is the case the service received may be deficient. However, more important is the quality of the relationship between the General Secretariat and the various law enforcement agencies that serve as the National Central Bureaux of Interpol. These officers and the stations in which they are housed are paid from the national budgets of the member nations, and the work they complete is essential to the mission of the organisation (Das D et al 1999). For this to be a success it is dependant on the General Secretariat’s knowledge on the each country, and the compatibility of each countries technology. To take an overview on the service offered by Interpol it is apparent that as a crime control strategy it is not an ideal solution for every country.
Despite Interpol’s substantial vested interest in Europe, it can never be the sole communication system used, and it is possibly for this reason that Europol (European Police Office) was created. Like Interpol, the underlying goal of Europol is to develop the efficacy of police co-operation for its member countries. Europol is committed to exchanging information with and supporting the police efforts of member states in the areas of establishing databases, investigations, analysis of crime data, training of officers, research, crime prevention strategies, and forensic matters (Das D et al 1999).
The Schengen Group was created in June 1985 and is believed by Edwards A et al (2003) like the Trevi Group to be the result of American attempts to control Interpol. The agreement acknowledged the need to abolish obstacles to the free movement of goods and persons, notably boarder controls. The Schengen Group authorised the detailed discussion of a number of issues concerned with police and criminal justice co-operation (Benyon J et al 1993). A key element of The Schengen Group is the establishment of a computerised data exchange system called the Schengen Information System (SIS). The purpose of this system is to develop a common computerised database containing information from each of its member countries. The system is intended to be used by all police and customs officers in the nine Schengen countries in order to access information on missing or wanted persons, people to be refused entry, and stolen property (Benyon J et al 1993). However, some members of the EU (European Union) have chose not to become members of the Schengen Group. Most notably is the UK (United Kingdom), Benyon J et al (1993) believes this to be because of the British tradition of freedom of movement, and the intrusive Schengen external borders are likely to be no more than a ‘leaky sieve’ in comparison to the efficient and effective existing frontier controls. The Trevi Group was established in 1976 by a number of European Nations as a means to combat the threat of international terrorism, radical extremism and violence. Its function was to implement policy established by the member states of the European Union (El Zein S 1997). According to Benyon J et al (1993) there are mixed feelings stated from police officers and academics about the effectiveness of Trevi. There is an agreement that the Trevi Group have made a positive impact with regard to anti-drugs and anti-terrorist measures, it is claimed by some that fine words have not necessarily been translated into practice. Further to this Benyon J et al (1993) states that The Trevi Group have been accused of being too secretive, having a lack of co-ordination within the structure, and providing insufficient input to the working groups of police.
The purpose of this essay is to be critical of such crime prevention strategies and it can be said with evidence to follow that international police co-operation has not been devoid of its problems. The major obstacle to crime prevention strategies implemented through police co-operation structures is national independence. Wilkinson P (1985) suggests that all European governments remain stubbornly attached to the principle of autonomous national decision making in the light of perceived national interests. If this is the case crime prevention strategies through police co-operation have failed before they have even commenced, this is noted by the author as a large criticism of structures such as Interpol, Europol, The Schengen Group and The Trevi Group because full co-operation of its member states is required to achieve effective results in the reduction of transnational crime. In a study by Das D et al (1997) it is concluded that problems entailed whilst implementing crime control strategies are created by geographic factors, cultural and linguistic complexities, dearth of professional standards, specific difficulties (internal disturbances that create the demise of the civil society), lack of laws relating to organised crime, extradition, passports and other matters, and perhaps most importantly a lack of trust.
To begin, when some countries enter agreements such as Interpol they often do not have the manpower or equipment to adequately provide the type of control required by these structures, this is possibly due to the large extensive boarders in which some countries have. If there is insufficient control of the borders it makes it easier for transnational crime such as the trafficking of drugs and humans to excel. As previously stated in this essay language barriers and issues of technological compatibility can also affect the efficiency of a crime control strategy. Police corruption and particularly the corruption of high-level government officials can be a major inhibitor of co-operative ventures. Das D et al (1997) states that at times agreements can be made at the diplomatic level, with knowledge on the part of both countries that there is little chance of the provisions of the agreement being operational. The reasons in which countries have poor relationships and the agreements have little substance are many. Specific difficulties for different countries also inhibit police success, this is namely in the form of a lack of personnel, equipment, and resources. There is a need for improvement of these three issues, and to the credit of Interpol and other organisations there have been significant contributions in terms of funds and other types of resources, in helping the poorer nations to develop their law enforcement organisations and upgrade their information systems (Das D et al 1997). However the only criticism of this is that the level of funding has not increased with the dramatic increase of crime problems in developing countries. A lack of trust between countries can often hinder problems when co-operation is required to fight transnational crime. The age old distrust between the English and the Irish or the Mexicans and the Americans has not vanished in the face of ever-menacing crimes like drug trafficking, money laundering, child prostitution, illegal immigration, and other dangerous criminal enterprises (Das D et al 1997).
As previously stated there is a large call for the improvement of the legal framework through which the police co-operative activities are carried out. The standardisation of extradition treaties, laws pertaining to organised crime, drug trafficking, counterfeiting, illegal immigration, and the standardisation of passports would lead to an overall improvement in the effectiveness of the agreements, and would help define what forms or types of arrangements that would be needed (Das D et al 1997). This looks to be an ambitious statement but does have good merit in the outcome that it would provide, however as this may never become a reality, it maybe required look forward to alternative strategies in transnational crime control.
In an attempt to focus further on the evaluation of crime control strategies for combating transnational crime the author believes that it is important to discuss a particular strategy used to fight a single crime, for the purpose of this essay trafficking in drugs will be evaluated. In a study by Dorn N et al (1992) it states that British drug enforcement is organised into three levels, each of which is intended to target corresponding level of the drug market (importer through to wholesalers and retailers). For the purposes of this essay the middle level response will be critically discussed. Drug wholesalers represent a vital link in drug networking. In eliminating wholesalers whom are renowned for being more vigilant criminals, it is possible to cause an upset in the drug market. Dorn N et al (1992) states that in Britain the middle level is the province of the specialist drug squads in each police force, an often problematic factor in practice is deciding which targets belong to which enforcement levels.
Undercover work, together with surveillance and financial investigations, are methods that may be used in various combinations against a variety of targets. Probably the most feared tactic by the career criminal is the ‘buy bust’ operation (Dorn N et al 1992). There are many variations to the ‘buy bust’ operation, for instance informants can be used to make initial purchases of drugs whilst under surveillance, this also leaves the possibility of introducing an undercover police officer at a later stage as another buyer, once enough evidence is gathered an arrest can be made. Another variation would be for the undercover police officer or informant to make series of purchases before arranging the purchase of a large amount of drugs and making the arrest. In a critique of this strategy Dorn N et al (1992) states that it is possible for the transient dealer to move on and the co-ordination of simultaneous raids is expensive. Further to this working from street dealers to retailers and wholesalers can be very dangerous. The risk rises for all parties, as there is more money and drugs involved, there is a further risk of police losing money and also the possibility of both parties carrying weapons into such operations. Dorn N et al (1992) states that ‘buy bust’ strategies have a curious and uncertain position in Britain. Although under cover buys do occur, there remain potential sensitivities because of the agent provocateur aspect.
This essay question is very broad in its context, and can be interpreted and argued in different ways, the essay has concentrated on a small number of crime control strategies currently in place in Europe in an attempt to grasp a good criticism and demonstrate the need for further attention concerning transnational crime. In conclusion, the essay has provided significant evidence that this is the case. The essay demonstrates that currently the problem of transational crime is of great consequence in Europe. This provided a foundation for the discussion of the essential crime control strategies employed. The three levels of police co-operation (macro, meso, micro) are vital to the ongoing fight to eliminate or reduce transnational crime, whilst acknowledging this fact the author has highlighted some areas in this process in which improvement is needed. This is namely discussed with reference to the difficult constitutional and legislative framework in place at the macro level and language and technology barriers at the meso-level. The various structures in Europe employed to promote police co-operation in Europe have received heavy criticism from this essay. Interpol’s service is dependant on a statutory contribution by each of its member countries, if the financial burden is too much the service received will be depleted. This underlying factor makes Interpol as a crime control strategy difficult to implement for many countries. Whatever the structure responsible for the co-operation of police in Europe there is much criticism for the efficiency of the crime control strategy, this essay has briefly highlighted that these problems are created by geographic factors, cultural and linguistic complexities, dearth of professional standards, specific difficulties (internal disturbances that create the demise of the civil society), lack of laws relating to organised crime, extradition, passports, and perhaps most importantly a lack of trust. In an attempt to gain a more focused evaluation and critique of crime control strategies this essay demonstrated some of the tactics used by police to combat the trafficking of drugs. The ‘buy bust’ operation was evaluated revealing that whilst this tactic can be very successful it also has very high risk factors relating to the safety of the police and the resources used.
References:
Benyon J (1997) ‘The Developing system of Police Co-operation in the European Union’ in McDonald W (eds), Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global Village, Cincinnati, Anderson
Benyon J, Turnbull L, Willis A, Woodward R, Beck A (1993) Police Co-operation in Europe: An Investigation, Leicester, Centre for the Study of Public Order
Burnham B (2003) ‘Meashuring Transnational Organised Crime’ in Edwards A, Gill P (eds) Transnational Organised Crime Perspectives on Global Security, USA, Routledge
Das D, Kratcoski P (1999) ‘An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management’ International Police Co-operation: A World Perspective, Volume 22. No 2, pp 214 – 241
Dijk J (1993) ‘More than a Matter of Security, Trends in Crime Prevention in Europe’ in Heidensohn F, Farrell M (eds) Crime in Europe, London, Routledge
Dorn N, Murji K, South N (1992) Traffickers, Drug Markets and Law Enforcement, London, Routledge
Edwards A, Gill P (2003) Transnational Organised Crime Perspectives on Global Security, USA, Routledge
El Zein S (1997) ‘Role of the ICPO-Interpol in International Police co-operation’ paper prepared for the 4th International Police Executive Symposium, Vienna
Findlay M (1999) The Globalisation of Crime, Understanding Transnational Relationships in Context, UK, Cambridge University Press
Marenin O (1998) ‘Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management’ The Goal of Democracy in International Police Assistance Programs, Volume 21, No 1, pp 159 - 177
Martin P (1999) ‘Confronting Transnational Crime’ in Viano E (eds), Global Organized Crime and International Security, England, Ashgate Publishing Ltd
Sanders D (1996) ‘The Police Chief’ The Years Ahead, Volume 63, No 11, pp 7
Van Duyne P, Levi M (2005) Drugs and Money, Managing the Drug Trade and Crime-money in Europe, USA, Routledge
Wilkinson P (1985) ‘European Police Co-operation’ in Roach J, Thomaneck J (eds), Police and Public Order in Europe, Great Britain, Croom Helm Ltd
Tuesday 21 August 2007
Sex offender treatment programmes – Are these lowering recidivism rates or just a public placebo? By Christopher Rowe
The purpose of this essay is to explore and critically analyse the above statement giving detailed explanations of sex offender treatment programmes and to conclude if such programmes are successful in rehabilitation. The essay begins by providing a critical analysis of sex offender treatment programmes. The essay discuses three types of treatment programmes that are available to sex offenders which consists of behavioural, cognitive, and medical. Also briefly discussed here are the systems in place within the UK that deliver these treatment programmes to offenders whilst in prison, and in the community through the probation service. The essay then elapses the debate if sex offender treatment programmes lower recidivism rates, although not all research conducted around recidivism is covered both sides to the debate are analysed. The essay then discusses some of the problematic issues surrounding the act of measuring recidivism, the obstacles to treatment, and suggests what may occur in the future of treatment for sex offenders. This essay question is very significant because it examines the underlying principle of why sex offender treatment programmes are conducted, and highlights the imperfections that are apparent in the way punishment is carried out in modern society.
Resick P et al (1997) states that sexual assault is a problem of great significance; the lifetime prevalence of sexual assault has been estimated between 13.5% and 44% of women. Rape is probably the most studied single-incident crime, and has always been considered to be the most traumatic crime short of murder. It is suggested by Holmes S et al (2002) that there are many who operate outside what are now considered acceptable parameters of sex and who violate the law in process. Society has judged such individuals to be both abnormal and criminal. The underlying principle is suggested well by Lees S (1997) who states that in practice feminist researchers and activists across the world have directed a barrage of criticisms at the failure of the law to deliver justice to women who have been sexually assaulted. This promotes the question of what the criminal justice system should do with people who commit sex offences. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that most people would imply that the criminal justice system should punish them severely; some will even go as far as suggesting castration. Others say put them to death, and a minority of people claim that these people should be treated.
The actions taken against sex offenders will always be an openly debated concept; the underlying principle that everyone will agree on is that society must be protected from such offenders. The only possible way to achieve this is as suggested by Holmes S et al (2002) that either the sex criminal must be locked away for the rest of his or her life, or change must happen. This concludes that the sex criminal must be treated and rehabilitated.
Programmes for treating sex offenders developed during the 1980’s in the wake of new legislative and intervention initiatives (Brown J et al 1999). According to Holmes S et al (2002) in general there are three types of treatment programmes available to sex offenders under state supervision, these are behavioural, cognitive, and medical.
Holmes S et al (2002) states that behavioural therapies typically use rewards and punishments to influence client behaviour. In sexual counselling, the rewards and punishments are used to change sexual patterns and scripts of behaviour. Typical methods of behavioural therapy vary; a prime example of this approach would be to monitor an offender’s physical and psychological arousal whilst encouraging the offender to discuss a favourite sexual fantasy, this can be achieved using a penile plethysmograph (PPG), which is an unobstrusive device attached to the penis of the offender. Holmes S et al (2002) states that if the offender begins to become aroused a negative reinforcement in the form of a dose of ammonia may be administered through plastic tubing fastened under the nasal passage. In controversy it can be suggested that this form of therapy is not completely conclusive and results may vary with different offenders, also it is possible that when the offender is eventually introduced back into society there will be no dose of ammonia as a form of deterrence for the offender’s sexual arousal.
Cognitive therapy encourages a sex offender to change the way he perceives his own life and the world around him as it pertains to sex and his interactions with others (Holmes S et al 2002). In an attempt to teach them empathy, they will read books and see videos from the victim’s point of view, and perhaps even meet with the victims or write letters (Welch R 1988). This enables the offender to identify the process that lead to the crimes being committed. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that through cognitive therapy the offender may be able to be aware of his own personal danger signs. This could possibly result in the offender having the ability to divert away from situations that would have previously resulted in some type of sexual victimisation. Although this treatment maybe successful in some cases, like behavioural treatment it is not guaranteed to work for every offender.
Medical programs typically use drugs such as Depo-Provera, to lower sex criminal’s testosterone levels. It’s believed that the manifestation of sexual aggression is based on some type of hormonal imbalance (Holmes S et al 2002). The purpose of this drug is not to change the offender’s sexual preference but to decrease sexual urges and give further ability for the offender to control them. Callan J (1985) believes that the use of this drug is controversial because of the possible long-term effects that can include diabetes, gallstones, thrombosis, and even cancer. Despite this the treatment is often offered as an alternative for offenders to decrease their prison sentence. Holmes S et al (2002) states that in two states offenders are given the choice of undergoing chemical castration or the actual physical removal of the testes as a condition of release or in lieu of a prison term. In a critical analysis of this type of treatment it can be suggested that most drugs will only last as long as they are being consumed. This requires them complete motivation of the offender to be fully rehabilitated, and complete confidence for the offender to be responsible.
The most commonly used method of treatment is best described as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). CBT is developed from a combination of both cognitive and behavioural approaches to therapy, which have been individually discussed above. Beech A et al (2004) believes that CBT is the most effective method of treating offenders and has based this assumption on research evidence supported by Alexander M (1999).
Cavadino M et al (2000) states that for some advocates of rehabilitation, optimism about reforming offenders has included the sentence of imprisonment, with incarceration being seen not as a retributive or deterrent but as an opportunity to provide effective reformative training and treatment. The British prison service has over the last ten years been at the forefront of developing a largely group-based treatment programme for sex offenders in an attempt to reduce recidivism (Thornton D et al 1993). This has developed into a national Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). SOTP is currently running in 26 prisons in England and Wales, with around 1000 men completing treatment every year (Beech A et al 2004). The main criteria for this programme consists of treatment methods in which engage the offender’s active participation in targets, skills, behavioural treatment, criminogenic needs, and ongoing evaluation, which all relate to the prevention of future offending. SOTP aims to treat all types of sex offender, whether they have committed offences against adults or children (Beech A et al 2004).
Treatment provision within the community in the UK is relied upon by three programmes consisting of the West Midlands Programme, the Tames Valley programme (TV-SOGP) and the Northumbria Programme. To be critical of these programmes, it is suggested by Beech A et al (2004) that the probation programmes have to cater for a wide range of offenders (exhibitionists, rapists and child abusers) with only one programme, whereas as suggested above the prison service is able to provide a range of programmes to suit the needs of different offenders. The limited resources within the probation service only allow one programme to be run, this causes discrepancies regarding offenders attending a number of modules according to there needs. Beech A et al 2004 states that there is also a need for flexibility so that offenders can repeat modules as necessary.
The review of literature surrounding the success of sexual offender treatment programmes and recidivism is contradictory. Holmes S (2002) suggests that older studies found that sex offenders seldom were reported to have committed new sex crimes, and they were not considered a danger to themselves or to others. However, research has developed somewhat in recent years, providing new and improved methods of treating offenders direct needs. Further to this criticism it has been suggested by Furby L et al (1989) that sex offenders could not be treated. Holmes S (2002) criticises this study suggesting that the authors methods and reliability of data have been called into question whilst also stipulating that in the conclusion of this study it is stated that the evidence was inconclusive regarding whether psychological treatment was indeed effective in preventing recidivism for sexual offenders. Despite this the study by Furby L et al (1989) has been widely used by politicians and those working for mass media outlets to suggest that sex offender treatment programmes cannot be used successfully to treat or rehabilitate offenders. This has raised doubt in the minds of many and possibly contributes the debate of whether sexual treatment programs lowering recidivism rates is just a public placebo.
More recently there are lots of studies that have been conducted which are in favour of sex offender treatment programs, and provide evidence that these treatments lower recidivism. In a study by Alexander M (1999) it states that the majority of sex offender treatment programs report more positive than negative findings. This study was completed using an analytic technique where researchers study the results of a series of projects, and make generalisations as to the likelihood of an outcome. This is called a meta-analysis. Holmes S et al (2002) has criticised this technique stating that it does not allow us to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each program, however of the 356 studies analysed by Alexander M (1999) it does indicate to the author that the treatment examined in this study does have a positive impact. Further to this Hanson R et al (1998) conclude a meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism from 98 reports, which consisted of 28,805 sex offenders. The sexual recidivism rates were examined over a 4/5-year period. The results showed that the sexual offender treatment programmes made an outstanding positive effect. The study showed that sexual reconviction rates were 18% for rapists and 13% for child molesters compared with general recidivism rates of 47% for rapists and 37% for child molesters over the same period. This study is of high significance relating to the success of sex offender treatment programmes, but can however be criticised by the lack of information given relating to the extent of which the treatment effected offenders and there motivation to complete the programme.
Also it is important to suggest that re-conviction rates are not necessarily conclusive evidence that such sex offender treatment programmes work. If it were possible for researches to directly measure sex offenders that commit further sex related crimes it would of course be done. As suggested by Doren D (2002) the problem is that we do not have any direct way of knowing which offenders repeat such crimes even within a specified follow-up time period because not all of them are caught, and certainly, not all of them self-report. Measuring sexual recidivism rates through reconviction rates can be very problematic. In a study by Doren D (2002) it is stated that under a polygraph, sex offender reported crimes are far greater than their history of having been rearrested, no less convicted. Dobash et al R (1995) states that arrest remains an infrequent response to domestic violence in Britain; recent research indicates that despite new policies and practises only a small portion of call outs result in arrest and prosecution. This research suggests that sexual recidivism rates will be incorrect when based on reconviction rates because offences are being committed without conviction. The use of meta-analysis through reconviction rates to measure sexual recidivism relies heavily on the criminal justice system and its ability to investigate and re-arrest sex offenders, and the decision to reconvict being correct. Hanson et al (2002) states that when the specific goal is to prevent sexual offence recidivism, there is almost no empirical foundation for identifying treatment targets or determining whether interventions have been successful. Although this is clearly the case all those who conduct assessments for sexual offenders must identify the factors they believe are related to sexual offender recidivism.
Contrary to public perception, the heterogeneity of sex offenders has an impact regarding the response of offenders to treatment. Incest offenders, extrafamilial child molesters, rapists, and exhibitionists all respond to treatment in different ways. Not only could differences in individuals or treatment modalities precipitate the likelihood that a person will succeed in treatment but also the type of fantasies that these offenders entertain and carry out. For instance incest offenders are consistently found to have lower sexual recidivism rates than other listed types of offenders (Doren D 2002). This can be for many reasons not necessarily associated with treatment, such as the family members being unlikely to report further offending, or a loss of access to their most recent victims. Holmes S et al (2002) states that some studies have concluded that exhibitionists were arrested twice as many times as sexual assaulters with regard to sex related offences. Further to this it also states that sexual assaulters commit as many non-sex crimes as they do sex crimes. Treatment appears to cut the risk of recidivism in half for exhibitionists and child molesters, however there is little difference in a rapist’s likelihood of recidivism from those who had undergone treatment and those who had not (Holmes S et al 2002). This is a significant difference when compared with the success of the reconviction rate of rapists in the study by Alexander M (1999) and stipulates further the problematic issues in measuring recidivism.
It is also important to remember that some studies use different criteria for sexual recidivism, for example a study by Maletsky B (1998) includes being charged with a sexual offence, dropping out of treatment, failing a polygraph test or producing a sexually deviant penile plethysmograph result as means of treatment failure. This makes measuring the rate of recidivism as a result of sex offender treatment programmes a difficult task. This calls for a more long-term analysis of sexual recidivism.
There is also evidence to suggest that some treatments are more effective than others, for example the rates of recidivism can differ in large margins dependant on different hospitals that issue the treatment. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests three possible reasons for this. Firstly rates of recidivism can sometimes be measured in different ways, for example success may be determined if the offender commits a further offence whether it is a sexual crime or not. Another consideration would be the time frame in which recidivism is measured; some studies are done over a longer period of time, which can result in different results. Further to these points the calibre of the sex offender will also play a part, for example a program, which admits manly minor sex criminals, will have an increased chance of long-term success.
This essay provides evidence if somewhat debatable that sexual offender treatment programmes can do more good than harm, however there are obstacles that exist which may prevent offenders from receiving such treatment. These obstacles can be as simple as lack of resources to provide the treatment for sex offenders. Many believe that it costs too much money to treat offenders and that such offenders are somewhat undeserving of such attention (Holmes S 2002). The financial burden of sex offender treatment programmes is a large problem; any type of individualised treatment is expensive, and in some cases this is also added to the cost of having the offender in custody. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that a low cost alternative to housing these offenders and providing them with treatment in secure facilities is to provide outpatient treatment. Many believe that because of the risk of victimisation in prison and the low likelihood of recidivism behaviour whilst they are under close scrutiny, intensive supervision probation programmes are a lower cost alternative (Holmes S et al 2002). A significant obstacle to this however, is that many people understandably do not wish to allow sexual offenders to live in residential areas.
The future is unclear for how the public perceive sex offenders, the more research that is conducted on sex offenders the more people believe that they are somewhat different from normal offenders, the author perceives this believe as to be a form of sickness. It is more than likely that behavioural, cognitive, and medical treatments will continue in the future because a greater understanding of the best practices and most successful programmes shall be obtained through further research. Holmes s et al 2002 believes that it is unlikely to foresee any treatment approach being better than another for all people, but research generally supports the notion that time under treatment is a key indicator of success. With this in mind it is quite possible that retribution and incapacitation will be reduced to make way for longer sentences involving treatment.
In the future the prevention and reduction of recidivism through the use of sex offender treatment programmes would be widely supported and achievable, however no matter what this essay has proved, the subject will always be politically discussed as to the view of the public. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that one proposal that garners political and public support is the notion of a law allowing the physical castration of all violent sex offenders. The best we can hope for is that researchers and clinicians will be able to identify the best treatment mechanisms and match them with the types of offenders with which they are most likely to succeed (Holmes S et al 2002). If this could be done in a way that is proven beyond doubt there would no longer be a debate surrounding successful sex offender treatment programmes being a public placebo.
The essay question is quite widespread and can be interpreted in different ways, this essay has argued and demonstrated that sex offender treatment programmes are successful to some extent in lowering recidivism rates and are not just a public placebo, although it is very difficult to provide hard evidence of this because of the problematic issues surrounding the difficulty of measuring sex offender recidivism. Three main types of sex offender treatment programmes have been critically discussed. Behavioural therapy involves using rewards and punishments to influence the behaviour of the offender, this method can be effective in some cases however is not conclusive. The essay suggests that this is also the case with cognitive therapy. Medical treatment has been discussed namely with reference to the drug Depo-Provera which is used not to alter the offenders sexual preference but to reduce his physical urges. The drug is controversial because it possibly causes long-term illness. The drug is criticised in this essay because the effects of the drug only last whilst it is being consumed and have no long-term effect on the sex offenders self control. However, when considering rates of recidivism this essay provides evidence suggesting that almost all sex offender treatment programmes have as their explicit or implicit aim the reduction of sex offending from what it would have been without treatment. Although this is arguably the case there are problems with how recidivism is measured, the essay has argued that using reconviction rates to access sexual recidivism is highly controversial because it is heavily reliant on the inconsistency of the criminal justice system, and there is no guarantee that every sex crime is concluded with a conviction. The use of meta-analysis techniques among success rates of hospitals often do not give programmes the opportunities to show their real strengths and weaknesses. This possibly fuels the argument that sex offender treatment programmes as a success are perceived as a public placebo. The future of treatment for sex offenders has been deemed as unclear. However, the author strongly believes that behavioural, cognitive, and medical treatments will continue and that incapacitation will be reduced in favour of a more long-term treatment programmes.
References:
Alexander M (1999) ‘Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment’ Sexual Offender Treatment Efficiency Revisited, Volume 11, No 2, pp 101 – 116
Beech A, Fisher D (2004) ‘Treatment of Sex Offenders in the UK in Prison and Probation Settings’ in Kemshall H, Mclvor G (eds), Managing Sex Offender Risk, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Brown J, Blount C (1999) ‘Journal of Managerial Psychology’ Occupational Stress Among Sex Offender Treatment Mangers, Volume 14, No 2, pp 108 – 120
Callan J (1985) ‘Corrections Compendium’ Depo-Provera for Sex Offenders, Volume 5, No 2, pp 6 - 8
Cavadino M, Dignan J (2000) The Penal System An Introduction, London, Sage Publications
Dobash R, Dobash E, Cavanagh K, Lewis R (1995) ‘Evaluating Criminal Justice Programmes for Violent Men’ in Dobash, R, Dobash E, Noaks L (eds) Gender and Crime, Cardiff, University of Wales Press
Doren D (2002) Evaluating Sex Offenders: A Manual for Civil Commitments and Beyond, London, Sage Publications
Furby L, Weinrott M, Blackshaw L (1989) ‘Psychological Bulletin’ Sex Offender Recidivism: A Review, Volume 105, No 3
Hanson R, Bussiere M (1998) ‘Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada’ Predictors of Sexual Offender Recidivism: A Meta-analysis
Hanson R, Harris A (2002) ‘Where should we Intervene? Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Offense Recidivism’ in Holmes R, Holmes S (eds) Current Perspectives on Sex Crimes, London, Sage Publications
Holmes S, Holmes R (2002) Sex Crimes Patterns and Behaviour Second Edition, USA, Sage Publications Inc
Lees S (1997) Ruling Passions, Sexual Violence, Reputation and the Law, USA, Open University Press
Maletzky B (1998) Treatment Outcome, Technique Efficacy, and Assessment of Risk: A Five to Twenty-five Year Follow-up of 7,500 Sexual Offenders. Paper presented at The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Conference
Resick P, Nishith P (1997) ‘Sexual Assault’ in Davis R, Lurigio A, Skogan W (eds), Victims of Crime Second Edition, USA, Sage Publications Inc
Thornton D, Hogue T (1993) ‘Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health’ The Provision of Programmes for Imprisoned Sex Offenders: Issues, Dilemmas and Progress, Volume 3, pp 371 - 380
Welch R (1988) ‘Corrections Compendium’ Treating Sex Offenders, Volume 13, No 5, pp 1 - 10
Resick P et al (1997) states that sexual assault is a problem of great significance; the lifetime prevalence of sexual assault has been estimated between 13.5% and 44% of women. Rape is probably the most studied single-incident crime, and has always been considered to be the most traumatic crime short of murder. It is suggested by Holmes S et al (2002) that there are many who operate outside what are now considered acceptable parameters of sex and who violate the law in process. Society has judged such individuals to be both abnormal and criminal. The underlying principle is suggested well by Lees S (1997) who states that in practice feminist researchers and activists across the world have directed a barrage of criticisms at the failure of the law to deliver justice to women who have been sexually assaulted. This promotes the question of what the criminal justice system should do with people who commit sex offences. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that most people would imply that the criminal justice system should punish them severely; some will even go as far as suggesting castration. Others say put them to death, and a minority of people claim that these people should be treated.
The actions taken against sex offenders will always be an openly debated concept; the underlying principle that everyone will agree on is that society must be protected from such offenders. The only possible way to achieve this is as suggested by Holmes S et al (2002) that either the sex criminal must be locked away for the rest of his or her life, or change must happen. This concludes that the sex criminal must be treated and rehabilitated.
Programmes for treating sex offenders developed during the 1980’s in the wake of new legislative and intervention initiatives (Brown J et al 1999). According to Holmes S et al (2002) in general there are three types of treatment programmes available to sex offenders under state supervision, these are behavioural, cognitive, and medical.
Holmes S et al (2002) states that behavioural therapies typically use rewards and punishments to influence client behaviour. In sexual counselling, the rewards and punishments are used to change sexual patterns and scripts of behaviour. Typical methods of behavioural therapy vary; a prime example of this approach would be to monitor an offender’s physical and psychological arousal whilst encouraging the offender to discuss a favourite sexual fantasy, this can be achieved using a penile plethysmograph (PPG), which is an unobstrusive device attached to the penis of the offender. Holmes S et al (2002) states that if the offender begins to become aroused a negative reinforcement in the form of a dose of ammonia may be administered through plastic tubing fastened under the nasal passage. In controversy it can be suggested that this form of therapy is not completely conclusive and results may vary with different offenders, also it is possible that when the offender is eventually introduced back into society there will be no dose of ammonia as a form of deterrence for the offender’s sexual arousal.
Cognitive therapy encourages a sex offender to change the way he perceives his own life and the world around him as it pertains to sex and his interactions with others (Holmes S et al 2002). In an attempt to teach them empathy, they will read books and see videos from the victim’s point of view, and perhaps even meet with the victims or write letters (Welch R 1988). This enables the offender to identify the process that lead to the crimes being committed. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that through cognitive therapy the offender may be able to be aware of his own personal danger signs. This could possibly result in the offender having the ability to divert away from situations that would have previously resulted in some type of sexual victimisation. Although this treatment maybe successful in some cases, like behavioural treatment it is not guaranteed to work for every offender.
Medical programs typically use drugs such as Depo-Provera, to lower sex criminal’s testosterone levels. It’s believed that the manifestation of sexual aggression is based on some type of hormonal imbalance (Holmes S et al 2002). The purpose of this drug is not to change the offender’s sexual preference but to decrease sexual urges and give further ability for the offender to control them. Callan J (1985) believes that the use of this drug is controversial because of the possible long-term effects that can include diabetes, gallstones, thrombosis, and even cancer. Despite this the treatment is often offered as an alternative for offenders to decrease their prison sentence. Holmes S et al (2002) states that in two states offenders are given the choice of undergoing chemical castration or the actual physical removal of the testes as a condition of release or in lieu of a prison term. In a critical analysis of this type of treatment it can be suggested that most drugs will only last as long as they are being consumed. This requires them complete motivation of the offender to be fully rehabilitated, and complete confidence for the offender to be responsible.
The most commonly used method of treatment is best described as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). CBT is developed from a combination of both cognitive and behavioural approaches to therapy, which have been individually discussed above. Beech A et al (2004) believes that CBT is the most effective method of treating offenders and has based this assumption on research evidence supported by Alexander M (1999).
Cavadino M et al (2000) states that for some advocates of rehabilitation, optimism about reforming offenders has included the sentence of imprisonment, with incarceration being seen not as a retributive or deterrent but as an opportunity to provide effective reformative training and treatment. The British prison service has over the last ten years been at the forefront of developing a largely group-based treatment programme for sex offenders in an attempt to reduce recidivism (Thornton D et al 1993). This has developed into a national Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). SOTP is currently running in 26 prisons in England and Wales, with around 1000 men completing treatment every year (Beech A et al 2004). The main criteria for this programme consists of treatment methods in which engage the offender’s active participation in targets, skills, behavioural treatment, criminogenic needs, and ongoing evaluation, which all relate to the prevention of future offending. SOTP aims to treat all types of sex offender, whether they have committed offences against adults or children (Beech A et al 2004).
Treatment provision within the community in the UK is relied upon by three programmes consisting of the West Midlands Programme, the Tames Valley programme (TV-SOGP) and the Northumbria Programme. To be critical of these programmes, it is suggested by Beech A et al (2004) that the probation programmes have to cater for a wide range of offenders (exhibitionists, rapists and child abusers) with only one programme, whereas as suggested above the prison service is able to provide a range of programmes to suit the needs of different offenders. The limited resources within the probation service only allow one programme to be run, this causes discrepancies regarding offenders attending a number of modules according to there needs. Beech A et al 2004 states that there is also a need for flexibility so that offenders can repeat modules as necessary.
The review of literature surrounding the success of sexual offender treatment programmes and recidivism is contradictory. Holmes S (2002) suggests that older studies found that sex offenders seldom were reported to have committed new sex crimes, and they were not considered a danger to themselves or to others. However, research has developed somewhat in recent years, providing new and improved methods of treating offenders direct needs. Further to this criticism it has been suggested by Furby L et al (1989) that sex offenders could not be treated. Holmes S (2002) criticises this study suggesting that the authors methods and reliability of data have been called into question whilst also stipulating that in the conclusion of this study it is stated that the evidence was inconclusive regarding whether psychological treatment was indeed effective in preventing recidivism for sexual offenders. Despite this the study by Furby L et al (1989) has been widely used by politicians and those working for mass media outlets to suggest that sex offender treatment programmes cannot be used successfully to treat or rehabilitate offenders. This has raised doubt in the minds of many and possibly contributes the debate of whether sexual treatment programs lowering recidivism rates is just a public placebo.
More recently there are lots of studies that have been conducted which are in favour of sex offender treatment programs, and provide evidence that these treatments lower recidivism. In a study by Alexander M (1999) it states that the majority of sex offender treatment programs report more positive than negative findings. This study was completed using an analytic technique where researchers study the results of a series of projects, and make generalisations as to the likelihood of an outcome. This is called a meta-analysis. Holmes S et al (2002) has criticised this technique stating that it does not allow us to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each program, however of the 356 studies analysed by Alexander M (1999) it does indicate to the author that the treatment examined in this study does have a positive impact. Further to this Hanson R et al (1998) conclude a meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism from 98 reports, which consisted of 28,805 sex offenders. The sexual recidivism rates were examined over a 4/5-year period. The results showed that the sexual offender treatment programmes made an outstanding positive effect. The study showed that sexual reconviction rates were 18% for rapists and 13% for child molesters compared with general recidivism rates of 47% for rapists and 37% for child molesters over the same period. This study is of high significance relating to the success of sex offender treatment programmes, but can however be criticised by the lack of information given relating to the extent of which the treatment effected offenders and there motivation to complete the programme.
Also it is important to suggest that re-conviction rates are not necessarily conclusive evidence that such sex offender treatment programmes work. If it were possible for researches to directly measure sex offenders that commit further sex related crimes it would of course be done. As suggested by Doren D (2002) the problem is that we do not have any direct way of knowing which offenders repeat such crimes even within a specified follow-up time period because not all of them are caught, and certainly, not all of them self-report. Measuring sexual recidivism rates through reconviction rates can be very problematic. In a study by Doren D (2002) it is stated that under a polygraph, sex offender reported crimes are far greater than their history of having been rearrested, no less convicted. Dobash et al R (1995) states that arrest remains an infrequent response to domestic violence in Britain; recent research indicates that despite new policies and practises only a small portion of call outs result in arrest and prosecution. This research suggests that sexual recidivism rates will be incorrect when based on reconviction rates because offences are being committed without conviction. The use of meta-analysis through reconviction rates to measure sexual recidivism relies heavily on the criminal justice system and its ability to investigate and re-arrest sex offenders, and the decision to reconvict being correct. Hanson et al (2002) states that when the specific goal is to prevent sexual offence recidivism, there is almost no empirical foundation for identifying treatment targets or determining whether interventions have been successful. Although this is clearly the case all those who conduct assessments for sexual offenders must identify the factors they believe are related to sexual offender recidivism.
Contrary to public perception, the heterogeneity of sex offenders has an impact regarding the response of offenders to treatment. Incest offenders, extrafamilial child molesters, rapists, and exhibitionists all respond to treatment in different ways. Not only could differences in individuals or treatment modalities precipitate the likelihood that a person will succeed in treatment but also the type of fantasies that these offenders entertain and carry out. For instance incest offenders are consistently found to have lower sexual recidivism rates than other listed types of offenders (Doren D 2002). This can be for many reasons not necessarily associated with treatment, such as the family members being unlikely to report further offending, or a loss of access to their most recent victims. Holmes S et al (2002) states that some studies have concluded that exhibitionists were arrested twice as many times as sexual assaulters with regard to sex related offences. Further to this it also states that sexual assaulters commit as many non-sex crimes as they do sex crimes. Treatment appears to cut the risk of recidivism in half for exhibitionists and child molesters, however there is little difference in a rapist’s likelihood of recidivism from those who had undergone treatment and those who had not (Holmes S et al 2002). This is a significant difference when compared with the success of the reconviction rate of rapists in the study by Alexander M (1999) and stipulates further the problematic issues in measuring recidivism.
It is also important to remember that some studies use different criteria for sexual recidivism, for example a study by Maletsky B (1998) includes being charged with a sexual offence, dropping out of treatment, failing a polygraph test or producing a sexually deviant penile plethysmograph result as means of treatment failure. This makes measuring the rate of recidivism as a result of sex offender treatment programmes a difficult task. This calls for a more long-term analysis of sexual recidivism.
There is also evidence to suggest that some treatments are more effective than others, for example the rates of recidivism can differ in large margins dependant on different hospitals that issue the treatment. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests three possible reasons for this. Firstly rates of recidivism can sometimes be measured in different ways, for example success may be determined if the offender commits a further offence whether it is a sexual crime or not. Another consideration would be the time frame in which recidivism is measured; some studies are done over a longer period of time, which can result in different results. Further to these points the calibre of the sex offender will also play a part, for example a program, which admits manly minor sex criminals, will have an increased chance of long-term success.
This essay provides evidence if somewhat debatable that sexual offender treatment programmes can do more good than harm, however there are obstacles that exist which may prevent offenders from receiving such treatment. These obstacles can be as simple as lack of resources to provide the treatment for sex offenders. Many believe that it costs too much money to treat offenders and that such offenders are somewhat undeserving of such attention (Holmes S 2002). The financial burden of sex offender treatment programmes is a large problem; any type of individualised treatment is expensive, and in some cases this is also added to the cost of having the offender in custody. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that a low cost alternative to housing these offenders and providing them with treatment in secure facilities is to provide outpatient treatment. Many believe that because of the risk of victimisation in prison and the low likelihood of recidivism behaviour whilst they are under close scrutiny, intensive supervision probation programmes are a lower cost alternative (Holmes S et al 2002). A significant obstacle to this however, is that many people understandably do not wish to allow sexual offenders to live in residential areas.
The future is unclear for how the public perceive sex offenders, the more research that is conducted on sex offenders the more people believe that they are somewhat different from normal offenders, the author perceives this believe as to be a form of sickness. It is more than likely that behavioural, cognitive, and medical treatments will continue in the future because a greater understanding of the best practices and most successful programmes shall be obtained through further research. Holmes s et al 2002 believes that it is unlikely to foresee any treatment approach being better than another for all people, but research generally supports the notion that time under treatment is a key indicator of success. With this in mind it is quite possible that retribution and incapacitation will be reduced to make way for longer sentences involving treatment.
In the future the prevention and reduction of recidivism through the use of sex offender treatment programmes would be widely supported and achievable, however no matter what this essay has proved, the subject will always be politically discussed as to the view of the public. Holmes S et al (2002) suggests that one proposal that garners political and public support is the notion of a law allowing the physical castration of all violent sex offenders. The best we can hope for is that researchers and clinicians will be able to identify the best treatment mechanisms and match them with the types of offenders with which they are most likely to succeed (Holmes S et al 2002). If this could be done in a way that is proven beyond doubt there would no longer be a debate surrounding successful sex offender treatment programmes being a public placebo.
The essay question is quite widespread and can be interpreted in different ways, this essay has argued and demonstrated that sex offender treatment programmes are successful to some extent in lowering recidivism rates and are not just a public placebo, although it is very difficult to provide hard evidence of this because of the problematic issues surrounding the difficulty of measuring sex offender recidivism. Three main types of sex offender treatment programmes have been critically discussed. Behavioural therapy involves using rewards and punishments to influence the behaviour of the offender, this method can be effective in some cases however is not conclusive. The essay suggests that this is also the case with cognitive therapy. Medical treatment has been discussed namely with reference to the drug Depo-Provera which is used not to alter the offenders sexual preference but to reduce his physical urges. The drug is controversial because it possibly causes long-term illness. The drug is criticised in this essay because the effects of the drug only last whilst it is being consumed and have no long-term effect on the sex offenders self control. However, when considering rates of recidivism this essay provides evidence suggesting that almost all sex offender treatment programmes have as their explicit or implicit aim the reduction of sex offending from what it would have been without treatment. Although this is arguably the case there are problems with how recidivism is measured, the essay has argued that using reconviction rates to access sexual recidivism is highly controversial because it is heavily reliant on the inconsistency of the criminal justice system, and there is no guarantee that every sex crime is concluded with a conviction. The use of meta-analysis techniques among success rates of hospitals often do not give programmes the opportunities to show their real strengths and weaknesses. This possibly fuels the argument that sex offender treatment programmes as a success are perceived as a public placebo. The future of treatment for sex offenders has been deemed as unclear. However, the author strongly believes that behavioural, cognitive, and medical treatments will continue and that incapacitation will be reduced in favour of a more long-term treatment programmes.
References:
Alexander M (1999) ‘Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment’ Sexual Offender Treatment Efficiency Revisited, Volume 11, No 2, pp 101 – 116
Beech A, Fisher D (2004) ‘Treatment of Sex Offenders in the UK in Prison and Probation Settings’ in Kemshall H, Mclvor G (eds), Managing Sex Offender Risk, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Brown J, Blount C (1999) ‘Journal of Managerial Psychology’ Occupational Stress Among Sex Offender Treatment Mangers, Volume 14, No 2, pp 108 – 120
Callan J (1985) ‘Corrections Compendium’ Depo-Provera for Sex Offenders, Volume 5, No 2, pp 6 - 8
Cavadino M, Dignan J (2000) The Penal System An Introduction, London, Sage Publications
Dobash R, Dobash E, Cavanagh K, Lewis R (1995) ‘Evaluating Criminal Justice Programmes for Violent Men’ in Dobash, R, Dobash E, Noaks L (eds) Gender and Crime, Cardiff, University of Wales Press
Doren D (2002) Evaluating Sex Offenders: A Manual for Civil Commitments and Beyond, London, Sage Publications
Furby L, Weinrott M, Blackshaw L (1989) ‘Psychological Bulletin’ Sex Offender Recidivism: A Review, Volume 105, No 3
Hanson R, Bussiere M (1998) ‘Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada’ Predictors of Sexual Offender Recidivism: A Meta-analysis
Hanson R, Harris A (2002) ‘Where should we Intervene? Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Offense Recidivism’ in Holmes R, Holmes S (eds) Current Perspectives on Sex Crimes, London, Sage Publications
Holmes S, Holmes R (2002) Sex Crimes Patterns and Behaviour Second Edition, USA, Sage Publications Inc
Lees S (1997) Ruling Passions, Sexual Violence, Reputation and the Law, USA, Open University Press
Maletzky B (1998) Treatment Outcome, Technique Efficacy, and Assessment of Risk: A Five to Twenty-five Year Follow-up of 7,500 Sexual Offenders. Paper presented at The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Conference
Resick P, Nishith P (1997) ‘Sexual Assault’ in Davis R, Lurigio A, Skogan W (eds), Victims of Crime Second Edition, USA, Sage Publications Inc
Thornton D, Hogue T (1993) ‘Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health’ The Provision of Programmes for Imprisoned Sex Offenders: Issues, Dilemmas and Progress, Volume 3, pp 371 - 380
Welch R (1988) ‘Corrections Compendium’ Treating Sex Offenders, Volume 13, No 5, pp 1 - 10
To what extent does the control of crime lie solely with the criminal justice system? By Christopher Rowe
The purpose of this paper is to explore the different dimensions of crime control, and to demonstrate the responsibilities of the Criminal Justice System describing how society works with the government in the united prevention of crime. The question is addressed by the review and analysis of secondary literature collected around the different theories of crime control and management and conclusions are drawn upon by the author. The paper briefly defines the Criminal Justice System that is in operation in the United Kingdom. The essay will also explore the management of retail security and the loss prevention schemes in operation, with reference to how private organisations also have a part to play in the control of crime.
Economical, psychological and sociologic theories are briefly explained to determine if an economical perspective on society can help prevent crime. Theories of environmental design and environmental management are discussed in respect of the layout of residential areas and the management of crime privately or as a community, also examined is youth contribution to crime and suggestions of how crime can be controlled by the proper schooling of children. The conclusion of the essay does support that the Criminal Justice System plays a large part in the control of crime but strongly indicates that each and every person contributes to crime prevention. This essay question is very significant in the fight against crime, issues such as this must be scrutinised in order to maximise efforts in crime control.
Criminal Justice Systems can vary and for the purpose of this essay the United Kingdom (UK) Criminal Justice System will be drawn upon, other legal traditions include the civil system, which is the oldest, and defined from Roman law, the socialist legal tradition built upon by Russian law and the Islamic tradition. The three systems mentioned all have their own culture and beliefs within them, therefore according to Reichel (2005) the differences between these systems can only be compared whilst considering certain cultural, substantive, and procedural components
It can be suggested that the main components of the UK criminal justice system are Police, Courts and Correction Procedures, these systems are in place to control crime in the UK. The responsibility of the Police is to prevent and detect crime and to maintain safety and order in a community. The responsibility for, and control of, the Police is shared between local and central Government (Cole et al 1987). Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts are responsible for the next phase of criminal proceedings, however it is stated by Cole et al (1987) that the sentencing power of magistrates is very limited, they cannot impose more than a 6 month imprisonment or in general a fine of more than £2,000. As well as fines and community service etc higher levels of crime or repetitive offences usually result in prison sentences. According to Cole et al (1987) there are prisons especially designed for those on remand, for those with psychiatric problems, for those deemed suitable for certain industrial condition and others. There are also systems such as parole in place for suitable safety of the community and the rehabilitation of the offenders. With the UK criminal justice system in place it is difficult to suggest the control of crime can rely elsewhere, however in a study by Cole et al (1987) it is stated that there is a dark figure of unreported crime revealing it to be far greater than even well kept official statistics disclosed. If a crime is not reported it cannot be dealt with accordingly by the Criminal Justice System thus spiralling into greater or more frequent crime. The truth is, crime control is all around us and is being conducted by every person at all times whether it is for personal protection or for the protection of the public every time a person alarms their car or house or padlocks their bicycle they are in a sense controlling and preventing crime from occurring. In a study by Tonglet, M et al (1997) it is suggested that crime is a major source of loss for many retailers. A problem as significant as this requires a range of different policies to combat it and whilst the police support the retail industry by giving advice and responding to calls for assistance Tonglet, M et al (1997) states that retailers spent nearly four hundred and fifty million pounds on security and crime prevention in 1995/6. The difficulty in tackling retail crime is that shops are very inviting and the dangers of being caught shoplifting are small with low penalties and as a result it is very difficult to deter from staff and customer theft. Tonglet, M et al (1997) suggests some approaches used by retailers in the prevention of customer and employee theft, burglary, robbery, fraud, arson, criminal damage and terrorism. Firstly the increased use and investment of integrated technology such as CCTV and security tags have had a varying response but are in some cases seen as a necessity. Secondly security management is becoming more popular throughout the industry and have to be capable of working with integrated technology systems effectively to make a contribution to the prevention of crime.
Fadaei-Tehrani, R et al (2002) states that most theories of crime are psychological, sociological and economic approaches, and has conducted further studies from an economic perspective with the main findings being that crime is a chosen way for people to spend their time e.g. a person may consider the benefits and costs of working legally and working illegally. Psychological and sociological explanations of criminal behaviour precede an examination of the economist view of the possible relationship between crime, property, public expenditures for education, poverty rate, gross domestic product and the unemployment rate (Fadaei-Tehrani, R et al 2002). Other findings of this study suggest that from an economic view certain factors could contribute to a fall in crime, such as a reduction of unemployment and better benefits given to the honest labourer. Also a reduction in the growth of population would reduce the amount of available candidates for jobs etc. Education and the changing of laws to the needs of the time were also suggested. A public and private effort in the implementation of the above statements could possibly have an effect in the control of crime for the UK, however such suggestions require large changes, for instance the control of birth in the UK would be a very controversial issue.
It has been suggested in the past that concepts of environmental design and environmental management are considerable in the acts of crime. Environmental design requires operation at the planning stage and according to Newman, O (1973) residential areas should not be designed with opportunities for crime to occur with ease e.g. enclosed entrances where offenders can operate unseen etc he also suggests that appropriately designed environments, such as buildings that provide natural surveillance opportunities, and areas that give the impression that they are privately owned with a community safe image can contribute to a safer crime free location. The theory that informs the notion of environmental management proposes that the evidence that crime has been committed, if allowed to remain in place will lead to further offences being committed (Burke, R 2005). This relates to crimes such as graffiti, public drunkenness and environmental management is believed to help by using consistent solutions such as the restoration of areas subject to abuse. These theories can be contested simply by suggesting that community safe image schemes are largely unreported acts or that immediately restoring vandalism would encourage the crime to be repeated, nevertheless this does provide examples of crime control that is not necessarily carried out by the Criminal Justice System.
It has been stated by Muncie (2002) that people in their youth which for the purposes of this essay will be defined as below the age of eighteen are at the most criminogenic age, with under eighteen year olds committing around seven million offences per year. There are many contrasting criminologist theories that compare reasoning behind young people committing crime, but for the purpose of this argument assumptions will be made that youth crime is the result of circumstances in which the offender has no control e.g. young people of a lower class structure are more likely to engage in crime and young people with high educational and occupational aspirations are less likely to offend. This assumption shall be made because it is an area in which local authorities, parents, teachers, friends etc can help to prevent young people engaging in anti-social behaviour. Muncie (2002) declares that definitions and explanations of crime are inseparable from the various policies and practises that have been constructed for the ostensible reason of its control. This is in reference to the contribution of local safety councils in the prevention of youth offending. It is suggested by Muncie (2002) that social policy can be constructed around three competing discourses which consists of youth that causes trouble, youth in need of protection and youth in need of supervision and training. In further conclusion to the study by Muncie (2002) it is stated that anxieties concerning the youth are realised in a growing multitude of welfare, educational, crime prevention and policing programmes which serve to control and shape young peoples lives by lengthening the period of family dependency and moulding petty details of the domestic lives of their parents, in this way discipline is dispersed. As crimes committed by youth affect the community it is the shared responsibility of the community and the police to effectively maximise attempts to reduce youth crime, this properly engaged can, and has, helped prevent youth from choosing a life of crime and spiralling into more and more trouble.
The Criminal Justice System is responsible for the control of crime at a public scale and consists of police, courts and corrections, but crime prevention is all around and it is in the protection of individuals and personal property that this becomes clear, other scales of crime control can be seen privately within the protection of businesses, as discussed the retail industry has handsomely invested in crime prevention to protect their investment, customers and staff from the effect of criminal behaviour. Economical theories suggest that both private organisations and the government are responsible for crime control but also suggest theories that are difficult to conduct such as birth control and the constantly changing levels of unemployment. There is strong evidence that environmental design and environmental management have an effect on crime but this is circumstantial as some communities will work well together to prevent crime and others will not, the author firmly believes that the layout of residential areas can be a decisive impact in the amount of crime committed. The essay provides evidence that youth crime is highly influential, and simple steps such as welfare, educational, crime prevention and policing programmes utilised at an early stage can help prevent youth crime and future offences being committed.
References:
Burke, R (2005) An Introduction to Criminological Theory Second Edition, Willan Publishing, USA
Cole, G, Frankowski, S, Gertz, M (1987) Major Criminal Justice Systems Second Edition, Sage Publications, USA
Muncie, J (2002) Youth and Crime A Critical Introduction, Sage Publications, London
Newman, O (1973) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City, London, Architectural Press
Reichel, P (2005) Comparative Criminal Justice Systems 4th edition, Pearson, New Jersey
Fadaei-Tehrani, R, Green, M (2002) ‘International Journal of Social Economics’ Crime and Society, Vol 29, No, 10 pp 781-795
Tonglet M, Bamfield, J (1997) ‘International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management’ Controling Shop Crime in Britain: Costs and Trends, Vol 25, No 9, pp 293 - 300
Economical, psychological and sociologic theories are briefly explained to determine if an economical perspective on society can help prevent crime. Theories of environmental design and environmental management are discussed in respect of the layout of residential areas and the management of crime privately or as a community, also examined is youth contribution to crime and suggestions of how crime can be controlled by the proper schooling of children. The conclusion of the essay does support that the Criminal Justice System plays a large part in the control of crime but strongly indicates that each and every person contributes to crime prevention. This essay question is very significant in the fight against crime, issues such as this must be scrutinised in order to maximise efforts in crime control.
Criminal Justice Systems can vary and for the purpose of this essay the United Kingdom (UK) Criminal Justice System will be drawn upon, other legal traditions include the civil system, which is the oldest, and defined from Roman law, the socialist legal tradition built upon by Russian law and the Islamic tradition. The three systems mentioned all have their own culture and beliefs within them, therefore according to Reichel (2005) the differences between these systems can only be compared whilst considering certain cultural, substantive, and procedural components
It can be suggested that the main components of the UK criminal justice system are Police, Courts and Correction Procedures, these systems are in place to control crime in the UK. The responsibility of the Police is to prevent and detect crime and to maintain safety and order in a community. The responsibility for, and control of, the Police is shared between local and central Government (Cole et al 1987). Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts are responsible for the next phase of criminal proceedings, however it is stated by Cole et al (1987) that the sentencing power of magistrates is very limited, they cannot impose more than a 6 month imprisonment or in general a fine of more than £2,000. As well as fines and community service etc higher levels of crime or repetitive offences usually result in prison sentences. According to Cole et al (1987) there are prisons especially designed for those on remand, for those with psychiatric problems, for those deemed suitable for certain industrial condition and others. There are also systems such as parole in place for suitable safety of the community and the rehabilitation of the offenders. With the UK criminal justice system in place it is difficult to suggest the control of crime can rely elsewhere, however in a study by Cole et al (1987) it is stated that there is a dark figure of unreported crime revealing it to be far greater than even well kept official statistics disclosed. If a crime is not reported it cannot be dealt with accordingly by the Criminal Justice System thus spiralling into greater or more frequent crime. The truth is, crime control is all around us and is being conducted by every person at all times whether it is for personal protection or for the protection of the public every time a person alarms their car or house or padlocks their bicycle they are in a sense controlling and preventing crime from occurring. In a study by Tonglet, M et al (1997) it is suggested that crime is a major source of loss for many retailers. A problem as significant as this requires a range of different policies to combat it and whilst the police support the retail industry by giving advice and responding to calls for assistance Tonglet, M et al (1997) states that retailers spent nearly four hundred and fifty million pounds on security and crime prevention in 1995/6. The difficulty in tackling retail crime is that shops are very inviting and the dangers of being caught shoplifting are small with low penalties and as a result it is very difficult to deter from staff and customer theft. Tonglet, M et al (1997) suggests some approaches used by retailers in the prevention of customer and employee theft, burglary, robbery, fraud, arson, criminal damage and terrorism. Firstly the increased use and investment of integrated technology such as CCTV and security tags have had a varying response but are in some cases seen as a necessity. Secondly security management is becoming more popular throughout the industry and have to be capable of working with integrated technology systems effectively to make a contribution to the prevention of crime.
Fadaei-Tehrani, R et al (2002) states that most theories of crime are psychological, sociological and economic approaches, and has conducted further studies from an economic perspective with the main findings being that crime is a chosen way for people to spend their time e.g. a person may consider the benefits and costs of working legally and working illegally. Psychological and sociological explanations of criminal behaviour precede an examination of the economist view of the possible relationship between crime, property, public expenditures for education, poverty rate, gross domestic product and the unemployment rate (Fadaei-Tehrani, R et al 2002). Other findings of this study suggest that from an economic view certain factors could contribute to a fall in crime, such as a reduction of unemployment and better benefits given to the honest labourer. Also a reduction in the growth of population would reduce the amount of available candidates for jobs etc. Education and the changing of laws to the needs of the time were also suggested. A public and private effort in the implementation of the above statements could possibly have an effect in the control of crime for the UK, however such suggestions require large changes, for instance the control of birth in the UK would be a very controversial issue.
It has been suggested in the past that concepts of environmental design and environmental management are considerable in the acts of crime. Environmental design requires operation at the planning stage and according to Newman, O (1973) residential areas should not be designed with opportunities for crime to occur with ease e.g. enclosed entrances where offenders can operate unseen etc he also suggests that appropriately designed environments, such as buildings that provide natural surveillance opportunities, and areas that give the impression that they are privately owned with a community safe image can contribute to a safer crime free location. The theory that informs the notion of environmental management proposes that the evidence that crime has been committed, if allowed to remain in place will lead to further offences being committed (Burke, R 2005). This relates to crimes such as graffiti, public drunkenness and environmental management is believed to help by using consistent solutions such as the restoration of areas subject to abuse. These theories can be contested simply by suggesting that community safe image schemes are largely unreported acts or that immediately restoring vandalism would encourage the crime to be repeated, nevertheless this does provide examples of crime control that is not necessarily carried out by the Criminal Justice System.
It has been stated by Muncie (2002) that people in their youth which for the purposes of this essay will be defined as below the age of eighteen are at the most criminogenic age, with under eighteen year olds committing around seven million offences per year. There are many contrasting criminologist theories that compare reasoning behind young people committing crime, but for the purpose of this argument assumptions will be made that youth crime is the result of circumstances in which the offender has no control e.g. young people of a lower class structure are more likely to engage in crime and young people with high educational and occupational aspirations are less likely to offend. This assumption shall be made because it is an area in which local authorities, parents, teachers, friends etc can help to prevent young people engaging in anti-social behaviour. Muncie (2002) declares that definitions and explanations of crime are inseparable from the various policies and practises that have been constructed for the ostensible reason of its control. This is in reference to the contribution of local safety councils in the prevention of youth offending. It is suggested by Muncie (2002) that social policy can be constructed around three competing discourses which consists of youth that causes trouble, youth in need of protection and youth in need of supervision and training. In further conclusion to the study by Muncie (2002) it is stated that anxieties concerning the youth are realised in a growing multitude of welfare, educational, crime prevention and policing programmes which serve to control and shape young peoples lives by lengthening the period of family dependency and moulding petty details of the domestic lives of their parents, in this way discipline is dispersed. As crimes committed by youth affect the community it is the shared responsibility of the community and the police to effectively maximise attempts to reduce youth crime, this properly engaged can, and has, helped prevent youth from choosing a life of crime and spiralling into more and more trouble.
The Criminal Justice System is responsible for the control of crime at a public scale and consists of police, courts and corrections, but crime prevention is all around and it is in the protection of individuals and personal property that this becomes clear, other scales of crime control can be seen privately within the protection of businesses, as discussed the retail industry has handsomely invested in crime prevention to protect their investment, customers and staff from the effect of criminal behaviour. Economical theories suggest that both private organisations and the government are responsible for crime control but also suggest theories that are difficult to conduct such as birth control and the constantly changing levels of unemployment. There is strong evidence that environmental design and environmental management have an effect on crime but this is circumstantial as some communities will work well together to prevent crime and others will not, the author firmly believes that the layout of residential areas can be a decisive impact in the amount of crime committed. The essay provides evidence that youth crime is highly influential, and simple steps such as welfare, educational, crime prevention and policing programmes utilised at an early stage can help prevent youth crime and future offences being committed.
References:
Burke, R (2005) An Introduction to Criminological Theory Second Edition, Willan Publishing, USA
Cole, G, Frankowski, S, Gertz, M (1987) Major Criminal Justice Systems Second Edition, Sage Publications, USA
Muncie, J (2002) Youth and Crime A Critical Introduction, Sage Publications, London
Newman, O (1973) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City, London, Architectural Press
Reichel, P (2005) Comparative Criminal Justice Systems 4th edition, Pearson, New Jersey
Fadaei-Tehrani, R, Green, M (2002) ‘International Journal of Social Economics’ Crime and Society, Vol 29, No, 10 pp 781-795
Tonglet M, Bamfield, J (1997) ‘International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management’ Controling Shop Crime in Britain: Costs and Trends, Vol 25, No 9, pp 293 - 300
Penology By Christopher Rowe
According to Garland (1990)* “Punishment today is a deeply problematic and barely understood aspect of social life, the rationale for which is by no means clear”.
The purpose of this essay is to explore and analyse the above statement, and give detailed explanations which define if Garland’s believes have good justification or are based on propaganda. The essay begins by briefly defining punishment in a penology context, and supports Garland’s theory by describing the problematic issues involved in modern punishment. The overcrowded prison saga is argued here discussing the problematic issues involved but also offering mild solutions, the essay does however, fully agree with the statement of Garland as it defines the negative effects caused through imprisonment. To further this argument the problematic issues of the probation service are also briefly discussed. The ‘barely understood aspect of social life’ suggestion by Garland prompts the essay to discuss work of Emile Durkheim. The controversial work of Durkheim equally supports Garland’s statement because of its widespread critique. The rationale for punishment is described in terms of positivist and classicist’s views of criminology. This is done to demonstrate contrasting views of punishment. Deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation are among the punishment issues raised, which provide support for Garland’s believe that punishment has an unclear rationale. In an attempt to provide more evidence a brief criticism of positivism and classicism is also demonstrated. The essay argues in favour of Garland’s statement and provides evidence to support this argument. This essay question is very significant because it examines the underlying principle of why punishment is conducted, and highlights the imperfections that are apparent in the way punishment is carried out in modern society.
There are many different uses for the word punishment, for the purpose of this essay punishment in a penology context will be scrutinised, as the author believes that it is in these terms in which Garland’s statement is referring. Hudson B (2003) Defines punishment in the penology context as penalties authorised by the state, and inflicted by state officials, in response to crime. Garland use of the word ‘today’ will be discussed in terms of the time of the industrial revolution and onwards. In a study by Hudson B (2003) further analysis of different authors work in an attempt to define punishment is analysed, and another definition is suggested. The punishment with which penology is concerned, is punishment for crime, pronounced by the judiciary and administered by penal institutions such as prisons and the probation service. Other types of punishment for example, of pupils by teachers, or of criminals by vigilantes and lynch mobs are excluded (Hudson B 2003). This is the basis of which the statement has been perceived by the author and will be the foundation for the argument of this essay.
Reid S (1991) states that the use of institutions for confining people against their will is ancient, jails and other short-term detention facilities were used for many reasons such as awaiting trials, execution, deportation etc. The use of prisons as a form of punishment for offenders is however a relatively modern development. The overcrowdedness of many jails and prisons either creates or at least aggravates most of the problems that characterise penal institutions today (Reid S 1991). It is this form of punishment that will partly be used to analyse Garland’s ‘punishment today is deeply problematic’ statement, and by doing this will demonstrate that the author fully agrees with Garland’s statement. Hudson B (2002) states that despite doubts about decarceration, in the mid-1970s due to the introduction of enhanced probation, intermediate treatment, and above all community service would in turn result in a decline in the number of offenders punished by imprisonment. Only the most serious crimes were expected to be associated with imprisonment. This however is not the case; Walmsley R (2003) states that the UK had the highest rate of imprisonment in the EU. The general effect of prison overcrowding is problematic in itself, Reid S (1991) states that it magnifies negative aspects of prison life such as more violence, deaths and homosexual assaults. The prisons educational, recreational, and vocational programmes also have long waiting lists. Overcrowded prisons can cause stress for inmates and staff, boredom, and easily spread disease.
Suggested solutions to overcrowded prisons have gone as far as releasing inmates to provide space for the newly convicted, but such a statement seems absolutely ludicrous. Politicians would argue that the situation is under control and that solutions are in place to combat this situation. Sim J (2004) states that globally the prison system is a growth industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of workers. Further to this Sim J (2004) suggests that it also generates a whole sub-strata of work for private companies who are increasingly involved in the building and managing institutions, as well as providing high-tech security equipment and contracted-out services such as catering and education. This does however not evade the fact that overcrowding in prisons still exists, and issues surrounding the process and effects of imprisonment are still somewhat problematic. Prison is still subject to much critique, which elapses a debate as to whether the system should change. There are several points argued in a study by Sim J (2004) that are worthy of quotation. It is pointed out that prison does not diminish the crime rate. This suggests to the author that modern day deterrence is not apparent through the use of punishment regarding prison sentences. It is also stated by Sim J (2004) that prison encourages the organisation of delinquents who are loyal to each other, meaning that it is possible for prison to educate crime. This shows that methods of reform are not apparent in every case for offenders. The study states that when offenders are freed they experience conditions of unemployment, stigmatisation and surveillance, which may condemn them to recidivism. Through this evidence it can be argued that prison, as a form of crime prevention is not entirely adequate. In this case Garland’s perception of punishment being deeply problematic has strong merit, and this essay is in complete agreement.
In order to further discuss the problematic punishment system today the probation service will be briefly discussed. Newburn T (1995) states that although the legal basis for alternatives to imprisonment increased during the nineteenth century, it was not until the first decade of the twentieth century that probation was put on stationary footing. Nash M (2004) beleives that the probation service reflected the modern approach to crime, and probation officers became the ‘experts’ trusted to deal with the problem in the community. However, as previously stated the crime rates have not diminished which possibly represents a failure for this service. The probation service has however survived; Nash M (2004) suggests that this is down to a complete transformation of the service and the fact that the government needs cheap alternatives to custody. Despite whatever successes the probation service may have had recently through their new policies, some critics still have doubts Nash M (2004) states that success with offenders is far from guaranteed and, in a world obsessed by results, this may yet prove fatal. If any form of punishment is to be used as an example, the probation service can be named as problematic.
Cavadino M et al (2000) states that a social institution is ‘legitimate’ if it is perceived as morally justified, the problem with the penal system is that this perception is lacking, and many people inside and outside the system believe that it is morally indefensible, or at least defective. The work of Emile Durkheim has long been acknowledged since his death in 1917. It is possible that Garland’s ‘barely understood aspect of social life’ statement has been characterised from the work of Emile Durkheim. Smith P et al (2005) states that at the core of Durkheim’s thinking is functionalism. This argues that we have to understand society as a system and that it is held together primarily by shared sentiments known as collective conscience. Durkheim believes that feelings of morality and belonging are core features in society, and this is apparent in his personal view of crime. Smith P et al (2005) suggests that crime according to Durkheim is an activity that confronts and transgresses the collective conscience and generates intense emotions such as outrage. But it is not his definition of crime that raises arguments, it is the functionalist view that crime shapes social cohesion. Durkheim argues that crime is sometimes good for society, this is apparent from his view that punishment has beneficial social consequences. Smith et al (2005) states that Durkheim believes crime can help innovation and change to take place by pushing moral boundaries and enabling new understandings to be established. Without such crime we would have a static and inflexible society. Not surprisingly the views of Durkheim and of functionalist criminology have received much critique, notably the work of Rock P (2002). In this study it is suggested that functionalism is discarded by many criminologists because it defied rigorous empirical investigation and, for some liberal and radical criminologists, it represented a form of Panglossian conservatism that championed the status quo. Which can be suggested is a similar argument of most criminologists when discussing dated theories. Further to this argument it is also pointed out by Smith et al (2005) that themes of power and inequality are missing from Durkheim’s work. With these points in mind it is possible to suggest the punishment is a barely understood aspect of social life.
Cavadino M et al (2000) states that punishing people certainly needs justification, since it is almost always something that is harmful, painful or unpleasant to the recipient. In order to demonstrate rationale for aspects of punishment it is necessary to discuss certain understanding crime theories. This will be established through classical and positivist approaches. These two contrasting theories have different believes about how criminals should be treated, this may be one element of Garlands argument that the rationale of punishment is by no means clear. The Classical school of criminology is associated with Ceesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, their theories of crime were devised in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (Reid S T, 1991). It is obvious that social conditions have somewhat changed since the nineteenth century and it is important to understand that this will play a part in the theories produced by Beccaria and Bentham. The Classical Schools underlying philosophy was free will. It was maintained that behaviour is purposive and is based on hedonism, the principle of this is that human beings choose those actions that will give pleasure and avoid those that will bring pain (Reid, S T 1991) thus it was believed that each crime should be assessed and the punishment should be of greater pain than the pleasure endured during the act, and as stated by Muncie J (2004) as a result classicism looks to the prevention of future crime. Deterrence is based on the premises of affording rational, self-interested individuals good reasons not to commit crimes (Muncie J 2004). This means that the punishment must be one that can be calculated, thus, this theory is based on equal treatment for all.
Hudson B (2003) defines deterrence as a penal strategy usually taken to mean discouraging reoffending, or offending by hitherto law-abiding citizens, through fear of potential punishment. Hudson B (2003) distinguishes two types of deterrence, individual and general deterrence, that is, between deterring someone who has offended from offending again, and deterring potential offenders from offending at all. Individual deterrence is based around reform and rehabilitation and will be discussed further at a later stage of the essay from a positivist view of punishment. Deterrence has an immediate problem of knowing how severe the punishment has to be to stop people from committing crime, Hudson B (2003) states that the best way to do this is through the ‘reciprocity of perspectives’ this means that we can to some extent presume that people who think as much as we do will be put off by the prospects of punishments that would deter ourselves. This is however a heavily criticised method of thinking because it is believed that this will always be a working hypothesis and that a certain punishment would deter one individual, and would not deter another. Hudson B (2003) states that more problematic still for a penal strategy of deterrence are impulsive offences, where acts do not arise out of rational premeditation, but out of particular circumstances and relationships between particular individuals. Most murders and many assaults are of this nature. It is also apparent to the author that general deterrent theories would also only be plausible if the offender new of the severity of the punishment.
This brings us on to another form of rationale for punishment from a classicist perspective known as retribution. Many people view retribution as natural and an appropriate way to punish, It is believed by Hucklesby A (2004) that retribution concentrates solely on the offence and in essence can be seen as the antithesis to rehabilitation. The theory is based around not only preventing crime, but also punishing criminals because they deserve it. Hudson B (2003) states that Retributive penal systems have existed throughout history. The system seeks equivalence between the punishment and the crime, such that the offender should forfeit that which the victim has lost. In most Western societies corporate or capital punishment does not exist, despite many peoples believes of retributivism. However, Hudson B (2003) does state that the introduction of new legislation similar to the ‘three strikes’ does show a response to what the Western society seeks from their criminal justice system. Despite this statement not all beliefs rely on retribution and it is that of the positivist belief among others that differ.
The positive school like the classical school had its origins in Italy, and was founded by Cesare Lombroso (Reid, S T 1991). The positive school differed from the classical because they focused on the constitutional rather than the legal approaches to crime. Reid S T (1991) suggests that the positivists rejected the harsh legalism of the classical school and substituted the doctrine of principle determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. The key features of positivism are suggested by Muncie J (2004) as the assumption that criminality is different to normality, the abandonment of rationality as a casual factor, and that criminals are abnormal, their actions are in breach of a held harmony in society. Other features of positivism include a scientific approach to predicting crime, as Muncie J (2004) states establishing a ‘cause and effect’ when particular criminogenic factors can be identified, also the belief that crime is not chosen by the offender therefore attempting to limit the rationale to commit crime in a bid to eliminate anti-social behaviour. In a study by Muncie J (2004) it is suggested with regard to the believes of positivists that human beings, including criminals, do not act of there own free will but are compelled to act by powerful internal or external forces and by circumstances beyond their control, thus if behaviour is the result of antecedent causes then the individual cannot be held responsible for their actions. This shows that positivism is in favour of rehabilitation rather than the retribution or deterrent theories of classicism.
Hudson B (2003) states that the objective of reform or rehabilitation is to reintegrate the offender into society after a period of punishment, and to design the content of the punishment so as to achieve this. Rehabilitation is believed to have been introduced because of the industrial revolution. This provided the need for extra labour and the opportunity to introduce offenders back into the community. Another factor in the introduction of rehabilitation is described by Hudson B (2003) as the growth of human sciences, which admitted the idea of criminal behaviour as caused by psychological or environmental factors susceptible to change. Reform/rehabilitation is therefore associated with ‘modernism’ and ‘positivism’, which most simply, means belief in the possibility of a change and improvement through the application of science to human behaviour, as well as to enterprises such as public health and engineering (Hudson B 2003). There has however been wide spread critique of rehabilitation, in a study by Muncie J (2004) whist referring predominantly to the work of Martinson, it is suggested that critique of rehabilitation came from evaluations which suggest that different types of treatment made little or no difference to the subsequent reconviction rates of offenders. This critique is based on actual research. Hudson B (2003) supports this by suggesting what that success cannot be guaranteed, and that there is no programme that has proved successful with all kinds of offenders. Further to this it is suggested by Hucklesby A (2004) that crime rates have continued to rapidly increase despite the money being spent on the rehabilitation of offenders. It is not just the lack of efficiency of rehabilitation that is the subject of arguments, but the positivist concept of crime being undesirable that is largely discussed. These contrasting views, and the large support for the incompetence of rehabilitation make it an unclear rationale for punishment.
It is suggested by Hudson B (2003) that deterrence and rehabilitation both carry a necessary possibility of being unsuccessful, because whether or not potential offenders offend, or actual offenders reoffend, is up to them. Freedom of choice remains, and therefore the possibility of offending remains. If deterrence and rehabilitation are deemed unachievable, then another option is physical incapacitation, which would either render the offender harmless or removing them from society. Methods of doing so consist of the death penalty or life imprisonment. However Hudson B (2003) suggests that like deterrence and rehabilitation, incapacitation also provokes the familiar objections of effectiveness and moral principle.
Garland D (2002) whilst acknowledging the classical and positivist schools of criminology as playing a small but significant role in shaping the horizons and reference points of contemporary criminology states that it makes little sense to claim that these eighteenth century thinkers possessed a ‘criminology’, given that they made no general distinction between the characteristics of criminals and non-criminals, and had no conception of research on crime and criminals as a distinctive form of inquiry. Garland D (2002) gives the positivist school a little more credit by suggesting that they at least they have the merit of having been the self-description of a school of criminologists. Garland’s study would suggest to the author that these supposed universal theories of crime are somewhat irrelevant, however Buckland et al (2004) believes that Garland’s definition of criminology, as an empirically grounded scientific understanding is too restrictive. Garland’s critique is of classicism and positivism are of when they were at their foundation stage and these theories have developed somewhat as we have moved into the era of modern criminology.
Garland’s statement is very broad in its context, and can be interpreted and argued in different ways, this essay has demonstrated that there is good merit for Garland’s argument and has agreed fully with his statement. The first part to the statement was shown and understood through the use of modern prisons. The essay demonstrates the problematic issues in punishment through prison overcrowding debating the problems it can cause through lack of rehabilitation and increase violence with inmates. Brief solutions were discussed such as the privatisation of institutions, however the argument continues further with the age long critique of how prisons are not fully effective methods of crime prevention. To further discuss the problematic issues surrounding punishment today the probation service has briefly been discussed noting mainly that that it is inconsistent with its results. Garland’s ‘barely understood aspect of social life’ statement is demonstrated through the work of functionalist criminology mainly referring to the work of Emile Durkheim. The underlying principle of the argument outlined here was the belief that crime shapes social cohesion. The argument has been debated many times by criminologists with the result namely being in favour of Garland’s statement, and this is how it has been interpreted for this essay. The rationale for punishment in this essay is demonstrated largely through the relationship between modern views of punishment and the view of the thinkers of positivism and classicism theories of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. These methods are all contrasting in some way or have been given criticism to some extent. Deterrence has many implications; it has been classed as a working hypothesis, and also has issues, which concern impulsive offences that make deterrence obsolete. Rehabilitation has widespread critique largely concerned with its ineffective results. Rehabilitation is the antithesis to retribution meaning that the Criminal Justice System must find a simultaneous solution to crime control. The essay has also demonstrated a brief critique by Garland D (2002) outlining flaws to the theories of positivism and classicism. They have both been criticised for the era of which they are developed and mainly being based around assumptions rather than that of any real research. The analysis and critique presented here is evidence enough for the author to fully agree with Garlands ‘by no means clear’ statement.
References:
Buckland G, Wincup E (2004) ‘Researching Crime and Criminal Justice’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Cavadino M, Dignan J (2000) The Penal System An Introduction, London, Sage Publications
Garland D (2002) ‘Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology I Britan’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Third Edition, Oxford University Press
Hucklesby A (2004) ‘Sentencing and Court Processes’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Hudson B (2002) ‘Punishment and Control’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Third Edition, Oxford University Press
Hudson B (2003) Understanding Justice, Great Britain, Open University Press
Muncie J (2004) ‘Contemporary Criminology, Crime and Stratergies of Crime Control’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Nash M (2004) ‘Probation and Community Penalties’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Newburn T (1995) Crime and Criminal Justice Policy, USA, Longman Publishing
Reid, S T (1991) Crime and Criminology Sixth Edition, USA, Saunders College Publishing
Rock P (2002) ‘Sociological Theories of Crime’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Third Edition, Oxford University Press
Sim J (2004) ‘Thinking about imprisonment’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Smith P, Natalier K (2005) Understanding Criminal Justice Sociological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications Ltd
Walmsley R (2003) ‘World Prison Population List’ Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Findings 188, London: Home Office
Is a universal explanation of crime possible or desirable? By Christopher Rowe
The purpose of this essay is to explore the prospect of a united explanation of crime and to demonstrate whether or not this is a possibility as an outcome. The question is addressed by the review and analysis of secondary literature collected concerning different criminology theories, these theories are then criticised, and the author draws conclusions. The essay begins by giving a brief explanation of the history of criminological theory. Classicism and positivism are among the theories described and criticised during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This provides the essay with a foundation to begin making an argument. The development of Neo-Conservatism is briefly scrutinised and also the development of positivism throughout the twentieth century is explained describing the elements of the theory, such as determinism and rehabilitation, the theory is dismissed using critique from different authors and paves the way for a new way of thinking, and this is explained in the form of left and right realism. These subjects are explained in detail and are given a full critique, which leads to the work being concluded. The essay will argue in favour of a universal explanation of crime being desirable and the conclusion supports this, whilst acknowledging that each theory does bear significance at certain stages of their policies. This essay question is very significant because in creating an appropriate understanding of why people commit criminal offences, several contingency theories can equally be created in order to combat, control or reduce crime as a whole.
Criminology, as a field of academic study, is held together by a substantive concern: crime (Walklate, 1998). It can be suggested that a prescribed development of criminology is very recent, however there are significant historical theories that do have some similarity. This is important when trying to understand modern criminological theories. In order to scrutinise theories that are suggested to be a universal explanation of crime it is important to discover their origins. Maguire M (1997) states that many criminologists were people with backgrounds in medicine or psychiatry, for whom the central goal was to understand and explain, and hence point the way to ‘treatment’ for the ‘criminality’ of individual offenders, this possibly suggests that they were not creating a science of criminal behaviour. However Reid, S T (1991) does state that their contributions to criminology are immense, and for this reason will be used as a foundation for the argument of this essay.
The Classical school of criminology is associated with Ceesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, their theories of crime were devised in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (Reid S T (1991). It is obvious that social conditions have somewhat changed since the nineteenth century and it is important to understand that this will play a part in the theories produced by Beccaria and Bentham. The Classical Schools underlying philosophy was free will. It was maintained that behaviour is purposive and is based on hedonism, the principle of this is that human beings choose those actions that will give pleasure and avoid those that will bring pain (Reid, S T 1991) thus it was believed that each crime should be assessed and the punishment should be of greater pain than the pleasure endured during the act, and as stated by Muncie J (2004) as a result classicism looks to the prevention of future crime. Deterrence is based on the premises of affording rational, self-interested individuals good reasons not to commit crimes (Muncie J 2004). This means that the punishment must be one that can be calculated, thus, this theory is based on equal treatment for all.
The neoclassical school is a form of revisionism of the classical school of thought. Reid, S T (1991) suggests that neoclassical criminologists flourished during the nineteenth century and although it was not a scientific school of criminology it did explore issues of causation. The neoclassical school considered the types of criminal behaviour best explained by the classical school and what types of criminal behaviour the model is inadequate to give explanation. Reid, S T (1991) also states that the classical and neoclassical schools were based on philosophy and armchair thinking, not on actual research, but they have however influenced the thoughts and policies of Europeans as well as Americans.
The positive school like the classical school had its origins in Italy, and was founded by Cesare Lombroso (Reid, S T 1991). The positive school differed from the classical because they focused on the constitutional rather than the legal approaches to crime. Reid S T (1991) suggests that the positivists rejected the harsh legalism of the classical school and substituted the doctrine of determinism for that of free will. Schafer S (1969) states that the emergence of the positive and classical schools symbolised clearly that the era of faith was over and the scientific age had begun.
As previously stated Reid S T 1991 suggests that historical contributions to criminology are immense. This is a belief that is not shared by every criminologist, Garland D (2002) whilst acknowledging the classical and positivist schools of criminology as playing a small but significant role in shaping the horizons and reference points of contemporary criminology states that it makes little sense to claim that these eighteenth century thinkers possessed a ‘criminology’, given that they made no general distinction between the characteristics of criminals and non-criminals, and had no conception of research on crime and criminals as a distinctive form of inquiry. Garland D (2002) gives the positivist school a little more credit by suggesting that they at least they have the merit of having been the self-description of a school of criminologists. Garland’s study would suggest to the author that these supposed universal theories of crime are somewhat irrelevant, however Buckland et al (2004) believes that Garland’s definition of criminology, as an empirically grounded scientific understanding is too restrictive. But still garlands critique is of classicism and positivism are of when they were at their foundation stage and it is important to demonstrate how theories of understanding crime have developed, even if this is only a mild development it is essential to scrutinize, and also to demonstrate other theories with appropriate critique.
In a study by Gottfredson M et al (1990) the classical approach was re-visited and a modern version of the classical conception of crime was produced, this study discussed Bentham’s original classical formation of the four general sources of pleasure and pain, physical, political, moral, and religious, referred to here as sanction systems. Despite the extensive review of the classical approach Gottfredson M et al (1990) argue that the classical view presupposes the ready availability of draconian penalties inconsistent with the values of liberal democratic societies and misapprehends the nature of people with high crime potential. As a result, the penalties available to the state are largely redundant, acting mainly on potential offenders already deterred by previous learning social sanctions.
Neo-Conservatism is a similar theory to classicism regarding free will and deterrence, but as stated by Muncie J (2004) it is informed by notions of moral culture, moral decline, and parental permissiveness. Murray C (1990) believes that crime is a symptom of declining moral standards epitomised by 1960’s permissiveness, welfare dependence, liberal methods of child-rearing, family breakdown, illegitimacy, single parenting and the lack of effective means of discipline. Collectively, these factors have been instrumental in the development of a dependant, demoralised and dangerous underclass. This can be seen as a contemporary conservative view and this is supported by the Neo-conservatism believe that crime can never be eradicated only reduced, by concentrating on high crime areas. Muncie J (2004) states that Neo-conservatism stresses the need for strong government and social authoritarianism in order to create a disciplined and hierarchical society in which individual needs are subordinate to those of the nation.
The classical conception of human behaviour, with its emphasis on choice in the service of self-interest, eventually gave way to a positivist conception of human behaviour (Gottfredson M et al 1990). As previously stated positivism uses the scientific principle of determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. The key features of positivism are suggested by Muncie J (2004) as the assumption that criminality is different to normality, the abandonment of rationality as a casual factor, and that criminals are abnormal, their actions are in breach of a held harmony in society. Other features of positivism include a scientific approach to predicting crime, as Muncie J (2004) states establishing a ‘cause and effect’ when particular criminogenic factors can be identified, also the belief that crime is not chosen by the offender therefore attempting to limit the rationale to commit crime in a bid to eliminate anti-social behaviour. In a study by Muncie J (2004) it is suggested with regard to the believes of positivists that human beings, including criminals, do not act of there own free will but are compelled to act by powerful internal or external forces and by circumstances beyond their control, thus if behaviour is the result of antecedent causes then the individual cannot be held responsible for their actions. This shows that positivism is in favour of rehabilitation rather than the retribution or deterrent theories of neo-conservatism and classicism.
Biological positivism accepts the states definition of crime and uses science as a view of causation. Gottfredson M et al (1990) state that the ultimate contribution of biological positivism so far has been to illustrate some mere correlation between biological variables and crime rates. It has also produced little in the way of meaningful or interpretable research. In this case this must represent a failure for the goals of biological positivism. In a study by Gottfredson M et al (1990) three types of positivism are discussed, psychological, economic, and social. Some aspects of the study reject that choice can cause human behaviour, Gottfredson M et al (1990) states that all that is missing from the methods of positivism is the misguided notion that science favours particular substantive theories of human behaviour and the equally misguided notion that specific causes belong to specific disciplines. Positivism relies on the theory that treatment rather than punishment of an offender should be the responsibility of the criminal justice system, and this applied correctly can prevent criminals from reoffending. There has however been wide spread critique of rehabilitation, in a study by Muncie J (2004) whist referring predominantly to the work of Martinson, it is suggested that critique of rehabilitation came from evaluations which suggest that different types of treatment made little or no difference to the subsequent reconviction rates of offenders. This critique is based on actual research.
In a study by Maguire M (1997) it is stated that throughout the twentieth century British criminology has been dominated by what has since been widely, and often disparagingly, referred to as the positivist tradition, but recently the task of understanding and explaining crime has been interpreted in a variety of new ways such as interactionism, radical criminology, and socio-legal studies.
According to Walklate S (2003) post to the 1950’s a continuing rising crime rate combined with worldwide recession paved the way for a different manner of thinking in relation to crime. This different manner of thinking was characterised primarily by the re-emergence of a focus on the causes of crime as lying within individual processes rather than social ones, and this as suggested by Walklate S (2003) is arguably where a range of criminological ideas which might be loosely labelled right realism first emerged, such ideas include Socio-biological explanations, rational choice theory, and the routine activity approach.
Socio-biological explanations suggest that factors such as age, sex, intelligence, personality and body type can construct a reason behind criminal behaviour. Also as stated by Walklate S (2003) psychological behaviourism also plays a part. According to this theory individuals learn to respond to situations in accordance with how their behaviour has been rewarded and punished on previous occasions. This suggests that social origins can coincide with these factors. Rational choice theory as stated by Beed et al (1999) became inherently probabilistic, dependant on peoples beliefs about what they thought would happen in making choices, and the probability that these results would occur. Rational choice theory is dismissed by the author as being an explanation of crime, and is believed to be more involved in crime management or crime prevention, this is based on issues of security and risk management and criminals having less choice to commit crime etc. This is supported by Gibbons (1994) who believed that rational choice theory constitutes neither a new nor general explanation of crime since elements of attributing the ability to make choices and decisions to criminals and criminal behaviour are present in a range of criminological perspectives. The routine activity approach suggests that criminals are much like normal people. Walklate S (2003) states that offenders are ordinary people who commit ordinary crimes who respond to the supply of criminogenic situations in which they find themselves. They are not abnormal nor do they possess any special sense of motivation. It can be stated that these are a variety of different forms of right realism, but they do share the same goals, such as understanding that crime is a real problem, hence ‘realism’ and the fact that they are focused on the role of the individual attempting to use individual variations to prevent crime. It can also be suggested that right realism primarily focuses on the preservation of social order. In a critique of right realism Walklate S (2003) states that the politically conservative implications of this work are clear. Given these common concerns, it is also clear that the conservative policy implications of these theories have been pursued with greater vigour in a time of more right wing politics and economics than the more liberal implications which might follow from the work discussed here. The recognition of this intertwining of the political and academic highlights a source of criticism for this kind of criminology. As do some other theories of criminology right realism is highly associated with policy making, because of this crime is seen as a social problem which clarifies support for dealing with that problem. Further to the previous criticism Walklate S (2003) states that because of this, post-modernists would argue that the presumption of such unity is highly problematic given the increasing importance attached to difference and diversity in the modern world. Recognition of difference and diversity, therefore, renders the traditional relationship between criminology and the policy-making process a highly problematic, if not a dubious, one. From this statement it suggests to the author that right realism is of little sagacity at all.
The new left position had its origins in the 1960’s and was said to be very similar to the right. Young J states that this is because it also downplayed the level of crime, portrayed the offender as a victim of the system, and stressed a multi-culturalism of diversity and struggle where radicalism entailed the defence of the community against the incursions of the state, particularly the police and the criminal justice system. Left realism emerged during the particular political space in the mid 1980’s. Young J (1997) states that left realist criminology, as its name implies, is radical in its criminology and realistic in its appraisal of crime and its causes. The realistic approach discussed here is what distinguishes left realism from left idealism. Walklate S (2003) states that in left idealism neglects the problem of the cause of crime. Left realism suggests that crime occurs through certain core elements of society such as class and gender, and also through values such as competitive individualism and aggressive masculinity (Young J 1997). Left realism involves several tasks such as realistically appraising the problem of crime, deconstructing crime into its fundamental components, critically examining the nature of causality, being realistic about the possibilities of intervention, and, above all, fully understanding the changing social terrain in which we now live (Young J 1997). Walklate S (2003) offers three sources of criticism which reflect a major underlying tension deeply embedded in the left realist project, a question of methodology, a question of policy, and a question of feminism. Methodology has been a source of criticism for positivism because of its knowledge gathering process. This can also be said for left realism, because as Walklate S (2003) states this theory starts from the position that we should take seriously those issues which people define as being serious and develop an understanding of social problems as people experience them, but such experiences can be unobserved and unobservable, yet are real in their consequences. This suggests that in order to investigate the social world it is necessary to go beyond the appearance of social reality. The methods used to gather such information is mainly reliant on surveys, this puts pressure on the policy making process because it is this information that might be used to formulate crime prevention policies. Walklate S (2003) states that this raises questions concerning how such a process might be implemented and more general questions concerning the kinds of policies, which might be put in place. The question of feminism is also a criticism of the research strategy used by left realists, Walklate S (2003) states that much of the actual impact of crime on women is trivialized and hence concealed. This concealment is then compounded by the levels of sexual harassment which women experience every day, which, given the relative powerlessness of women, makes them more unequal victims and therefore vulnerable. All of these processes are framed by the way in which crime is ultimately constructed within a particular set of social relationships: patriarchy. Left realists will argue that the surveys used have the relevant questions to which can uncover such information, however it is the opinion of this author that whilst a good level of information on incidents can be obtained, such results are not guaranteed through the use of surveys. Walklate S (2003) states that tension has been articulated by a number of different writers in terms of the assumptions, which underpin the left realist use of the concept of crime and the role of a discipline called criminology. It is a tension which is constituted primarily in the binary relationship which is presumed to exist between modernism and postmodernism, a relationship which it is argued fundamentally challenges the possibility of there being something called criminology at all.
Criminologists often complain that they do not control their own dependant variable, that the definition of crime is decided by political-legal acts rather than by scientific procedures. The state, not the scientist, determines the nature or definition of crime (Gottfredson M et al 1990).
There are many theories of crime that will attempt to explain why a person chooses to become a criminal, this essay has explored a select few, every time a theory is created it is inevitable that it will have flaws and will be criticised post to its publication. This essay has demonstrated this through exploring and giving full explanations of understanding crime theory and more importantly an extensive critique of such work. All different theories explored in this essay provide a good argument according to the beliefs of the authors, it is however going to be impossible for all such theorists to agree on one particular approach, they can and have, however at some stages agreed on some common grounds. Classicism represents free will and hedonism, but was created at a time where the social conditions were completely different from that of todays. Also a strong criticism of classicism is that it is based around assumptions and not of any real research. Positivism uses the scientific principle of determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. This theory has similar arguments to classicism against its policies but has developed somewhat from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The theories main flaw is its support for rehabilitation, which has received heavy critique for being unreliable. Right realism is based around three ideas, Socio-biological explanations, rational choice theory, and the routine activity approach which are all centred around realistic approaches to crime and the individual using individual variations to prevent crime. The theory is flawed by its political implications and the problematic relationship between ‘difference and diversity’ and the policy making process. Left realism is the most recent of the theories discussed in this essay and in the opinion of the author the most interesting. The theory involves several tasks such as realistically appraising the problem of crime and possible intervention, examining the nature of causality, and the understanding of changing social issues. The ultimate problem with left realism is the methodology of their work, in order to gain experience of incidences the left realism method is to use survey which has been highly criticised from a variety of angles that have been expressed in this essay. This conclusion of so-called understanding crime theories suggests to the author that a universal theory of crime is by all means desirable but by no means possible.
References:
Beed C, Beed C (1999) ‘International Journal of Social Economics’ A Christian Perspective on Neoclassical Rational Choice Theory, Volume 26, No. 4, pp 501 - 520
Buckland G, Wincup E (2004) ‘Researching Crime and Criminal Justice’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Garland D (2002) ‘Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology I Britan’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Third Edition, Oxford University Press
Gibbons D.C (1994) Talking about Crime and Criminals, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall
Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A General Theory of Crime, Stanford California, Stanford University Press
Maguire M (1997) ‘Crime Statistics, Patterns, and Trends: Changing perceptions and their Implications’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Second Edition, Oxford University Press
Muncie J (2004) ‘Contemporary Criminology, Crime and Stratergies of Crime Control’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Murray C (1990) The Emerging Underclass, London, Institute of Economic Affairs
Reid, S T (1991) Crime and Criminology Sixth Edition, USA, Saunders College Publishing
Schafer S (1969) Theories in Criminology: Past and Present Philosophies of the Crime Problem, New York, Random House
Walklate, S (1998) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates, Buckingham, Open University Press
Walklate, S (2003) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates Second Edition, Buckingham, Open University Press
Young J (1997) ‘Left Realist Criminology: Radical in its analysis, Realist in its policy’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Second Edition, Oxford University Press
Criminology, as a field of academic study, is held together by a substantive concern: crime (Walklate, 1998). It can be suggested that a prescribed development of criminology is very recent, however there are significant historical theories that do have some similarity. This is important when trying to understand modern criminological theories. In order to scrutinise theories that are suggested to be a universal explanation of crime it is important to discover their origins. Maguire M (1997) states that many criminologists were people with backgrounds in medicine or psychiatry, for whom the central goal was to understand and explain, and hence point the way to ‘treatment’ for the ‘criminality’ of individual offenders, this possibly suggests that they were not creating a science of criminal behaviour. However Reid, S T (1991) does state that their contributions to criminology are immense, and for this reason will be used as a foundation for the argument of this essay.
The Classical school of criminology is associated with Ceesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, their theories of crime were devised in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (Reid S T (1991). It is obvious that social conditions have somewhat changed since the nineteenth century and it is important to understand that this will play a part in the theories produced by Beccaria and Bentham. The Classical Schools underlying philosophy was free will. It was maintained that behaviour is purposive and is based on hedonism, the principle of this is that human beings choose those actions that will give pleasure and avoid those that will bring pain (Reid, S T 1991) thus it was believed that each crime should be assessed and the punishment should be of greater pain than the pleasure endured during the act, and as stated by Muncie J (2004) as a result classicism looks to the prevention of future crime. Deterrence is based on the premises of affording rational, self-interested individuals good reasons not to commit crimes (Muncie J 2004). This means that the punishment must be one that can be calculated, thus, this theory is based on equal treatment for all.
The neoclassical school is a form of revisionism of the classical school of thought. Reid, S T (1991) suggests that neoclassical criminologists flourished during the nineteenth century and although it was not a scientific school of criminology it did explore issues of causation. The neoclassical school considered the types of criminal behaviour best explained by the classical school and what types of criminal behaviour the model is inadequate to give explanation. Reid, S T (1991) also states that the classical and neoclassical schools were based on philosophy and armchair thinking, not on actual research, but they have however influenced the thoughts and policies of Europeans as well as Americans.
The positive school like the classical school had its origins in Italy, and was founded by Cesare Lombroso (Reid, S T 1991). The positive school differed from the classical because they focused on the constitutional rather than the legal approaches to crime. Reid S T (1991) suggests that the positivists rejected the harsh legalism of the classical school and substituted the doctrine of determinism for that of free will. Schafer S (1969) states that the emergence of the positive and classical schools symbolised clearly that the era of faith was over and the scientific age had begun.
As previously stated Reid S T 1991 suggests that historical contributions to criminology are immense. This is a belief that is not shared by every criminologist, Garland D (2002) whilst acknowledging the classical and positivist schools of criminology as playing a small but significant role in shaping the horizons and reference points of contemporary criminology states that it makes little sense to claim that these eighteenth century thinkers possessed a ‘criminology’, given that they made no general distinction between the characteristics of criminals and non-criminals, and had no conception of research on crime and criminals as a distinctive form of inquiry. Garland D (2002) gives the positivist school a little more credit by suggesting that they at least they have the merit of having been the self-description of a school of criminologists. Garland’s study would suggest to the author that these supposed universal theories of crime are somewhat irrelevant, however Buckland et al (2004) believes that Garland’s definition of criminology, as an empirically grounded scientific understanding is too restrictive. But still garlands critique is of classicism and positivism are of when they were at their foundation stage and it is important to demonstrate how theories of understanding crime have developed, even if this is only a mild development it is essential to scrutinize, and also to demonstrate other theories with appropriate critique.
In a study by Gottfredson M et al (1990) the classical approach was re-visited and a modern version of the classical conception of crime was produced, this study discussed Bentham’s original classical formation of the four general sources of pleasure and pain, physical, political, moral, and religious, referred to here as sanction systems. Despite the extensive review of the classical approach Gottfredson M et al (1990) argue that the classical view presupposes the ready availability of draconian penalties inconsistent with the values of liberal democratic societies and misapprehends the nature of people with high crime potential. As a result, the penalties available to the state are largely redundant, acting mainly on potential offenders already deterred by previous learning social sanctions.
Neo-Conservatism is a similar theory to classicism regarding free will and deterrence, but as stated by Muncie J (2004) it is informed by notions of moral culture, moral decline, and parental permissiveness. Murray C (1990) believes that crime is a symptom of declining moral standards epitomised by 1960’s permissiveness, welfare dependence, liberal methods of child-rearing, family breakdown, illegitimacy, single parenting and the lack of effective means of discipline. Collectively, these factors have been instrumental in the development of a dependant, demoralised and dangerous underclass. This can be seen as a contemporary conservative view and this is supported by the Neo-conservatism believe that crime can never be eradicated only reduced, by concentrating on high crime areas. Muncie J (2004) states that Neo-conservatism stresses the need for strong government and social authoritarianism in order to create a disciplined and hierarchical society in which individual needs are subordinate to those of the nation.
The classical conception of human behaviour, with its emphasis on choice in the service of self-interest, eventually gave way to a positivist conception of human behaviour (Gottfredson M et al 1990). As previously stated positivism uses the scientific principle of determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. The key features of positivism are suggested by Muncie J (2004) as the assumption that criminality is different to normality, the abandonment of rationality as a casual factor, and that criminals are abnormal, their actions are in breach of a held harmony in society. Other features of positivism include a scientific approach to predicting crime, as Muncie J (2004) states establishing a ‘cause and effect’ when particular criminogenic factors can be identified, also the belief that crime is not chosen by the offender therefore attempting to limit the rationale to commit crime in a bid to eliminate anti-social behaviour. In a study by Muncie J (2004) it is suggested with regard to the believes of positivists that human beings, including criminals, do not act of there own free will but are compelled to act by powerful internal or external forces and by circumstances beyond their control, thus if behaviour is the result of antecedent causes then the individual cannot be held responsible for their actions. This shows that positivism is in favour of rehabilitation rather than the retribution or deterrent theories of neo-conservatism and classicism.
Biological positivism accepts the states definition of crime and uses science as a view of causation. Gottfredson M et al (1990) state that the ultimate contribution of biological positivism so far has been to illustrate some mere correlation between biological variables and crime rates. It has also produced little in the way of meaningful or interpretable research. In this case this must represent a failure for the goals of biological positivism. In a study by Gottfredson M et al (1990) three types of positivism are discussed, psychological, economic, and social. Some aspects of the study reject that choice can cause human behaviour, Gottfredson M et al (1990) states that all that is missing from the methods of positivism is the misguided notion that science favours particular substantive theories of human behaviour and the equally misguided notion that specific causes belong to specific disciplines. Positivism relies on the theory that treatment rather than punishment of an offender should be the responsibility of the criminal justice system, and this applied correctly can prevent criminals from reoffending. There has however been wide spread critique of rehabilitation, in a study by Muncie J (2004) whist referring predominantly to the work of Martinson, it is suggested that critique of rehabilitation came from evaluations which suggest that different types of treatment made little or no difference to the subsequent reconviction rates of offenders. This critique is based on actual research.
In a study by Maguire M (1997) it is stated that throughout the twentieth century British criminology has been dominated by what has since been widely, and often disparagingly, referred to as the positivist tradition, but recently the task of understanding and explaining crime has been interpreted in a variety of new ways such as interactionism, radical criminology, and socio-legal studies.
According to Walklate S (2003) post to the 1950’s a continuing rising crime rate combined with worldwide recession paved the way for a different manner of thinking in relation to crime. This different manner of thinking was characterised primarily by the re-emergence of a focus on the causes of crime as lying within individual processes rather than social ones, and this as suggested by Walklate S (2003) is arguably where a range of criminological ideas which might be loosely labelled right realism first emerged, such ideas include Socio-biological explanations, rational choice theory, and the routine activity approach.
Socio-biological explanations suggest that factors such as age, sex, intelligence, personality and body type can construct a reason behind criminal behaviour. Also as stated by Walklate S (2003) psychological behaviourism also plays a part. According to this theory individuals learn to respond to situations in accordance with how their behaviour has been rewarded and punished on previous occasions. This suggests that social origins can coincide with these factors. Rational choice theory as stated by Beed et al (1999) became inherently probabilistic, dependant on peoples beliefs about what they thought would happen in making choices, and the probability that these results would occur. Rational choice theory is dismissed by the author as being an explanation of crime, and is believed to be more involved in crime management or crime prevention, this is based on issues of security and risk management and criminals having less choice to commit crime etc. This is supported by Gibbons (1994) who believed that rational choice theory constitutes neither a new nor general explanation of crime since elements of attributing the ability to make choices and decisions to criminals and criminal behaviour are present in a range of criminological perspectives. The routine activity approach suggests that criminals are much like normal people. Walklate S (2003) states that offenders are ordinary people who commit ordinary crimes who respond to the supply of criminogenic situations in which they find themselves. They are not abnormal nor do they possess any special sense of motivation. It can be stated that these are a variety of different forms of right realism, but they do share the same goals, such as understanding that crime is a real problem, hence ‘realism’ and the fact that they are focused on the role of the individual attempting to use individual variations to prevent crime. It can also be suggested that right realism primarily focuses on the preservation of social order. In a critique of right realism Walklate S (2003) states that the politically conservative implications of this work are clear. Given these common concerns, it is also clear that the conservative policy implications of these theories have been pursued with greater vigour in a time of more right wing politics and economics than the more liberal implications which might follow from the work discussed here. The recognition of this intertwining of the political and academic highlights a source of criticism for this kind of criminology. As do some other theories of criminology right realism is highly associated with policy making, because of this crime is seen as a social problem which clarifies support for dealing with that problem. Further to the previous criticism Walklate S (2003) states that because of this, post-modernists would argue that the presumption of such unity is highly problematic given the increasing importance attached to difference and diversity in the modern world. Recognition of difference and diversity, therefore, renders the traditional relationship between criminology and the policy-making process a highly problematic, if not a dubious, one. From this statement it suggests to the author that right realism is of little sagacity at all.
The new left position had its origins in the 1960’s and was said to be very similar to the right. Young J states that this is because it also downplayed the level of crime, portrayed the offender as a victim of the system, and stressed a multi-culturalism of diversity and struggle where radicalism entailed the defence of the community against the incursions of the state, particularly the police and the criminal justice system. Left realism emerged during the particular political space in the mid 1980’s. Young J (1997) states that left realist criminology, as its name implies, is radical in its criminology and realistic in its appraisal of crime and its causes. The realistic approach discussed here is what distinguishes left realism from left idealism. Walklate S (2003) states that in left idealism neglects the problem of the cause of crime. Left realism suggests that crime occurs through certain core elements of society such as class and gender, and also through values such as competitive individualism and aggressive masculinity (Young J 1997). Left realism involves several tasks such as realistically appraising the problem of crime, deconstructing crime into its fundamental components, critically examining the nature of causality, being realistic about the possibilities of intervention, and, above all, fully understanding the changing social terrain in which we now live (Young J 1997). Walklate S (2003) offers three sources of criticism which reflect a major underlying tension deeply embedded in the left realist project, a question of methodology, a question of policy, and a question of feminism. Methodology has been a source of criticism for positivism because of its knowledge gathering process. This can also be said for left realism, because as Walklate S (2003) states this theory starts from the position that we should take seriously those issues which people define as being serious and develop an understanding of social problems as people experience them, but such experiences can be unobserved and unobservable, yet are real in their consequences. This suggests that in order to investigate the social world it is necessary to go beyond the appearance of social reality. The methods used to gather such information is mainly reliant on surveys, this puts pressure on the policy making process because it is this information that might be used to formulate crime prevention policies. Walklate S (2003) states that this raises questions concerning how such a process might be implemented and more general questions concerning the kinds of policies, which might be put in place. The question of feminism is also a criticism of the research strategy used by left realists, Walklate S (2003) states that much of the actual impact of crime on women is trivialized and hence concealed. This concealment is then compounded by the levels of sexual harassment which women experience every day, which, given the relative powerlessness of women, makes them more unequal victims and therefore vulnerable. All of these processes are framed by the way in which crime is ultimately constructed within a particular set of social relationships: patriarchy. Left realists will argue that the surveys used have the relevant questions to which can uncover such information, however it is the opinion of this author that whilst a good level of information on incidents can be obtained, such results are not guaranteed through the use of surveys. Walklate S (2003) states that tension has been articulated by a number of different writers in terms of the assumptions, which underpin the left realist use of the concept of crime and the role of a discipline called criminology. It is a tension which is constituted primarily in the binary relationship which is presumed to exist between modernism and postmodernism, a relationship which it is argued fundamentally challenges the possibility of there being something called criminology at all.
Criminologists often complain that they do not control their own dependant variable, that the definition of crime is decided by political-legal acts rather than by scientific procedures. The state, not the scientist, determines the nature or definition of crime (Gottfredson M et al 1990).
There are many theories of crime that will attempt to explain why a person chooses to become a criminal, this essay has explored a select few, every time a theory is created it is inevitable that it will have flaws and will be criticised post to its publication. This essay has demonstrated this through exploring and giving full explanations of understanding crime theory and more importantly an extensive critique of such work. All different theories explored in this essay provide a good argument according to the beliefs of the authors, it is however going to be impossible for all such theorists to agree on one particular approach, they can and have, however at some stages agreed on some common grounds. Classicism represents free will and hedonism, but was created at a time where the social conditions were completely different from that of todays. Also a strong criticism of classicism is that it is based around assumptions and not of any real research. Positivism uses the scientific principle of determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. This theory has similar arguments to classicism against its policies but has developed somewhat from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The theories main flaw is its support for rehabilitation, which has received heavy critique for being unreliable. Right realism is based around three ideas, Socio-biological explanations, rational choice theory, and the routine activity approach which are all centred around realistic approaches to crime and the individual using individual variations to prevent crime. The theory is flawed by its political implications and the problematic relationship between ‘difference and diversity’ and the policy making process. Left realism is the most recent of the theories discussed in this essay and in the opinion of the author the most interesting. The theory involves several tasks such as realistically appraising the problem of crime and possible intervention, examining the nature of causality, and the understanding of changing social issues. The ultimate problem with left realism is the methodology of their work, in order to gain experience of incidences the left realism method is to use survey which has been highly criticised from a variety of angles that have been expressed in this essay. This conclusion of so-called understanding crime theories suggests to the author that a universal theory of crime is by all means desirable but by no means possible.
References:
Beed C, Beed C (1999) ‘International Journal of Social Economics’ A Christian Perspective on Neoclassical Rational Choice Theory, Volume 26, No. 4, pp 501 - 520
Buckland G, Wincup E (2004) ‘Researching Crime and Criminal Justice’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Garland D (2002) ‘Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology I Britan’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Third Edition, Oxford University Press
Gibbons D.C (1994) Talking about Crime and Criminals, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall
Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A General Theory of Crime, Stanford California, Stanford University Press
Maguire M (1997) ‘Crime Statistics, Patterns, and Trends: Changing perceptions and their Implications’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Second Edition, Oxford University Press
Muncie J (2004) ‘Contemporary Criminology, Crime and Stratergies of Crime Control’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited
Murray C (1990) The Emerging Underclass, London, Institute of Economic Affairs
Reid, S T (1991) Crime and Criminology Sixth Edition, USA, Saunders College Publishing
Schafer S (1969) Theories in Criminology: Past and Present Philosophies of the Crime Problem, New York, Random House
Walklate, S (1998) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates, Buckingham, Open University Press
Walklate, S (2003) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates Second Edition, Buckingham, Open University Press
Young J (1997) ‘Left Realist Criminology: Radical in its analysis, Realist in its policy’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Second Edition, Oxford University Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)