Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CRIME AND DEVIANCE (3) - CRIME PREVENTION AND SURVEILLANCE - Coggle Diagram
CRIME AND DEVIANCE (3) - CRIME PREVENTION AND SURVEILLANCE
SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION
right realists see crime as a rational choice and opportunistic
this is why their situation prevention strategies focus on removing opportunities for crime
clarke
proposes two ways in which to reduce opportunities and make crime less attractive
'
designing out crime
' - creating spaces where crime is difficult to commit, e.g. 'hostile architecture'
'
target hardening
' - reduces opportunities for crime in particular places by making targets more difficult and risky to reach
clarke suggests this would remove excuses and encourage behaviour modification
EVALUATION
katz
: there are emotional factors behind crime, like excitement or risk-taking, associated with subcultural theories
garland
says this theory ignores the the causes of crime, only dealing with its prevention, and also ignores things like inequality and relative deprivation
situational prevention is only limited to opportunistic crimes, and doesn't deal with domestic crimes, white-collar, state, corporate or green crime
crawford and evans
say scp can increase inequality; the poor cannot afford the same level of security the powerful, so they are more immune to crime while the poor are more likely to be victims
displacement theory
: scp doesn't prevent crime, only in certain locations, and displaces it to others, where risks are lower
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME PREVENTION
wilson and kelling - broken window theory
: visible neglect = more crime -> further neglect
crimes that are less serious eventually grow into bigger, more serious crimes
wilson
emphasises that environments should be kept in good condition, and that police should have a zero tolerance policy
right realists propose the following solutions
make parents more responsible
implement neighbourhood watch
zero tolerance policing
supervision for offenders
imprisonment/ harsher sentencing
EVALUATION
wasteful over-emphasis on minor offences, diverting police resources from serious offences
causing more harm to communities. long-term negative consequences for lives and careers
results in targeting/ victimisation, e.g. stereotyping, racism, causing resentment + self-fulfilling prophecy + more disorder, which
lewis et al
found to be the cause of london riots
ignores white-collar, corporate
don't address wider social causes, ignores root causes like poverty, racism
SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION
left realists focus more on the causes of crime, so emphasise tackling material and cultural deprivation
their three key ideas
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND RELATIONS
kinsey et al
suggests police need to spend more time investigating to deter and raise the public's confidence
military-style policing only leads to antagonism and is counter-productive, so a more democratic approach would be effective
police need to be responsive to community needs and priorities, show more tolerance, as a result building more public confidence, also encouraging reporting
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
investing into community can divert potential offenders from crime with more positive opportunities, providing a sense of belonging and involvement
INTERVENTION PROJECTS
for families/ people where there are already existing problems
intensive parenting support, early interventions (e.g. sure start children's centres)
preventing risks for crime from progressing when they are at their greatest
EVALUATION
downplays role offender, almost making them seem like the victim
deterministic - similar risk factors, but not everyone with them turns to crime
ignores white-collar and corporate and gender based violence
projects could be seen as the govt. having overbearing control, especially over the poor
SURVEILLANCE
DISCIPLINARY POWER
types of surveillance
physical
- cctv, security guards
liquid
- digital, e.g. cookies
self
- self-correcting due to thought of being watched
FOUCAULT
surveillance is for monitoring, controlling + changing behaviour of criminals
surveillance is disciplinary power; it makes people feel uncertainty so then encourages internalised surveillance/ self-surveillance
argues contemporary society is now a surveillance/ disciplinary society - 'age of panopticism'; we use internalised surveillance to behave in a socially desirable way
this is because we're so used to being watched
lyon
: both suspects and ordinary people see that their personal data is of interest to others, so everday life is less private and people are more susceptible to monitoring/ intrusion
lyon
suggests surveillance has become pervasive and inescapable in our lives
govt. agencies have accumulated huge amounts of data on everyone, even in the form of consumer tracking, through things like search engines, shops, social media, online shopping
foucault
: we live in a carceral/ prison-like culture; society is a panopticon, where the powerful are 'judges of normality', watching everyone to impose conformism through self-discipline
this is to prevent/ reduce threats to social order
EVALUATION
overestimates power of surveillance; doesn't always prevent crime.
norris
: cctv reduced crime in car parks, but had little impact on other crimes, and could cause displacement
gill and loveday
: few burglars, shoplifters, fraudsters are put off by cctv; cctv can falsely reassure the public, but makes little difference in preventing victimisation
SYNOPTIC SURVEILLANCE
mathiesen
acknowledges foucault's idea of the the few monitoring the many (the panopticon), but he also says that media enables the many to monitor the few
mathiesen
calls this the 'synopticon', where everybody watches everybody
thompson
: poiticians fear media's surveillance of them being capable of uncovering damagin information
the public can also monitor each other as well, with increasing use of cameras collecting evidence during events
increasing camera ownership means individuals can 'control the controllers' e.g. filming police wrongdoing