Introduction
Crime refers to a prohibited action, for which a person can be reprimanded by the government (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2014). Crime also means oversight of an obligation that is instructed by the civic law, which makes the lawbreaker liable for the crime committed and, therefore, suffer a punishment (Lilly et al., 2014). Other scholars define crime as a deed or an instance of defiance that is considered hazardous to the morals of the community and the concerns of the nation and is legitimately forbidden by the law (Rocque, Welsh & Raine, 2012).
Crime Prevention Theories
Currently, dealing with the effects of effects costs both the local and the central government a lot of money. The government has to pay courts that handle criminal cases, as well as supply financial resources for the replacement of facilities and buildings destroyed by crimes like vandalism and arson. Some authors have come up with theories that explain how crimes can be prevented, such as the routine activities theory and crime prevention through environmental design. First, the situational crime prevention theory has been well defined as the use of methods focused on precise practices of crime. It encompasses management, manipulation, and design of the immediate surroundings in as methodical and lasting a manner as possible. The theory was posed by the department of criminological research of the British government in the 1970s. The rational choice theory makes the foundation for the situational crime prevention theory. It assumes that wrongdoers actively and freely opt to commit misconduct (Geason & Wilson, 1988). The rational choice theory, which was created by Jeremy Bentham and later on developed by Gary Becker, shows that decisions made to commit crimes are psychologically and socially determined, but the situation determines the ultimate decision. This theory portrays that conditions are not likely to motivate an individual to commit a crime but stimulate the decision of the person to commit a wrong. Consequently, the situational preventive methods are effective in reducing the crime in areas such as vandalism, anticrime and burglary.
Apart from the theory in question, a range of other assumptions concerning the methods of crime prevention has been spawned. While a range of these theories has a certain interesting point to convey, most of them fail to work on their own, requiring support. For instance, the theory commonly known as the crime pattern theory (Wortley & Mazerolle, 2013) needs to be mentioned as the prime example of a good idea that is often misinterpreted and, therefore, provides reasons for numerous misconceptions. Despite having an obvious grain of common sense, the theory of crime pattern seems somewhat flawed, as it creates the premises for confusing a cause and an effect. While it is reasonable to pay more attention to the areas, where crime rates are obviously higher, the crime pattern theory may trigger a misleading conclusion (Wortley & Mazerolle, 2013). To be more specific, one may assume that the frequency and density of crimes per area indicate that other neighborhoods are less prone to criminal activity. As a result, a possibility of crime prevention within a community with less threatening crime scores may be missed. The theory in question rubs shoulders with another theoretical framework that gives just as many reasons for misunderstanding its basic tenets; to be more specific, the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). According to the basic tenets of the framework, crimes occur in the laces that are not monitored and, therefore, allow a criminal to escape. While being rather basic, the theory under analysis brings up an essential detail, which makes it worthy of implementation – the CPTED approach involves the aspects such as suitability, risk, and a rational choice of the offender, therefore, allowing for a three-dimensional assessment of the issue (Clancey, Lee & Fisher, 2012). Nevertheless, the theory falls flat due to its obvious attempt at addressing the cause and not the symptom, i.e., the reason for people to commit crimes.
The theory of crime prevention through environmental design was invented by a criminologist called Jeffery C. Ray (Clancey et al., 2012). He claimed that sociologists explain that social negative factors are not linked to environmental and biological factors that induced crime, according to the researcher. He urged that prevention should be based on factors related to the biology of lawbreaking, such as the exposure of a malefactor to lead. The researcher assumed that lead damages the brain increases delinquency in young people. Despite the earlier criticism of this theory by some criminologists, it is currently more respectable than before since it has positively changed the state of criminal affairs, as it allowed realizing that a crime may be induced by biological factors. Thus, the acknowledgment of the concept of a crime committed in the heat of passion became possible owing to the study carried out by Ray. Moreover, mitigation of punishment became possible as the specified states were identified as the crimes committed in the altered state of consciousness. Of these two theories, the crime prevention theory has been shown to have more impact in preventing crime compared to the situational crime prevention theory. In situational prevention, the displacement critics do not offer any attempts to correct the situation, unlike efforts like the installation of CCTV cameras to monitor all situations, such as in England. This technology is in effect to prevent criminals from causing crimes in insecure places.
Law Enforcement Theories
Finding reasons why individuals commit crimes is very significant in the current ongoing discussions on how to prevent and handle crime. Over the centuries, many theories have been formulated to explain the origin of crimes. The theory of rational choice explains that people commonly do certain crimes due to their interests. People also make decisions to break the law after considering the probable threats including being caught and being punished (Rocque, Welsh & Raine, 2012). On the contrary, the social disorganization theory states that the social and physical environments typically define the behavioral patterns that an individual adopts. For instance, a locality with a poor social organization is likely to have higher rates of crime. The specified environment may invite the possibility of vandalism, low employment rates, poor education level, and a mixture of residential and commercial property. Remarkably, the strain theory shows that individuals have shared aspirations, but have different abilities and opportunities (Rocque, Welsh & Raine, 2012).
When it comes to defining the approach that will allow for maximum law enforcement within a certain community, one must give credit to the concept of problem-oriented policing (POP). Traditionally defined as the approach that presupposes a focus on the analysis of the factors that contribute to an increase in rime within a specific area, as well as the isolation and, if possible, elimination of the factors in question (Maguire, Uchida & Hassell, 2010). To be more specific, the key strength of the POP approach is that it allows “moving away from simply reacting to citizen calls-for-service and moving toward identifying and solving the problems that generate excessive calls” (Maguire et al., 2010, p. 3). Therefore, the approach under analysis will help deal with the actual problem
Also claimed to be one of the theories that will promote law enforcement, the strategy in question falls flat, as it blames increasing crime rates on the anti-social behavior within a certain neighborhood (Alford, 2012). Although there is an obvious link between the rise in crime and the values that are accepted within a particular society, addressing crimes by enhancing ethics would be naïve at the very least. As much as moral principles affect people’s behavior, the factors that cause crime are much more diverse, including mental issues, dire circumstances, etc. (Polinsky & Shavell, 2006) Therefore, the theory of broken windows may be used as a supportive framework, yet cannot be deployed as the basic one.
Theories that Impact Correction of Crime
The deterrence theory, which was suggested by Hobbes and continued by Beccari (Bosworth, 2005, p. 233), in its turn, cannot be viewed as the means of crime correction, as it defies the very principles of the current penal system. Seeing that the latter is aimed at rehabilitating criminals and promoting conscious behavioral correction in them, appealing to their fear of punishment will only lead to them searching for ways to avoid being caught. Therefore, deterrence theory, as any power that is based on fear, is doomed to failure unless supported by a stronger theory that will provide a more solid basis for setting the proper behavioral pattern among the citizens. While one must admit that it works rather well in the rational choice theory framework, the theory that would allow for a more conscious choice of acting within the existing legal boundaries is preferable. Therefore, the theoretical framework in question can be considered a viable strategy for correction measures, yet it needs to be supported by the enhancement of ethical values and moral principles within the society so that the theory in question could be used as the tool for crime correction.
The other theory is the containment theory that was proposed in the 1950s by Walker Reckless. It is a branch of the social control theory. The theory explains that every human is bound to make mistakes, but most of them resist committing crimes through the outer and inner containment (Reckless, 2007). It states that people abstain from committing crimes by containing their instincts. Containment theory shows that there are two ways of controlling crimes in society. Outer repression, which triggers the socialization of an individual and further acceptance of social norms, is a graphic example of the theory put into practice. The other method is the inner restraint that involves controlling oneself by enhancing tolerance and by following the appropriate standards. However, the acceptance and research of this theory have declined and are not applied in the current world. Little research has been found to prove the effectiveness of this theory (Lilly et al., 2014).
Conclusion
The above discussion shows that analyzing the reasons for people to commit crimes as well as discovering new means of reducing crime rates is possible. The government plays a major part in controlling crime rates. Theories such as the rational choice theory and problem-oriented policing among others explain why people engage in illegal actions even knowing that they do the wrong thing. In addition, the situational crime prevention theory and the crime pattern theory explain how crime can be prevented. The theories that describe how the law is enforced include the public and problem-oriented policing theories. Additionally, the situational crime prevention theory and the private enforcement theories allow explaining how law can be enforced. Finally, the rehabilitation and the containment theory are some of the theories that explain how crimes can be corrected, the latter being the key to altering the criminals’ behavior. Once the specified tools are incorporated into a single theory of addressing the increasing crime rates within a certain community, one will be capable of attaining an impressive reduction in the number of crimes committed. Moreover, one may claim that the measures listed above will alter society on a much deeper level by changing the manner, in which people perceive the concept of crime and punishment. In other words, the theories suggested above may provide the basis for developing social responsibility in every single citizen of the state, therefore, nearly eliminating the phenomenon of crime. Naturally, there will be singular instances of law-breaking no matter what measures are taken, yet the specified set of tools will allow for making crime an exception rather than an integral part of reality.
Reference List
Alford, R. P. (2012). A broken windows theory of international corruption. Scholarly Works. Paper 572, 1252–1282.
Bosworth, M. (2005). Encyclopedia of prison and correctional facilities. (Vols. 1-2). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
Clancey, G., Lee, M. & Fisher, D. (2012). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and the New South Wales crime risk assessment guidelines: A critical review. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 14(1), 1–15.
Geason, S. & Wilson, P. (1988). Crime prevention theory and practices. Canberra, AU: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T. & Ball, R. A. (2014). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maguire, E. R., Uchida, C. D. & Hassell, K. D. (2010). Problem-oriented policing in Colorado Springs: a content analysis of 753 cases. Crime & Delinquency, 20(1), 1-25.
Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (2006). Public enforcement of law. Stamford, CT: Stamford University.
Reckless, W. (2007). Containment theory: Control theory. Turnpike, FL: Homestead.
Rocque, M., Welsh, B. C., & Raine, A. (2012). Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 306-312.
Wortley, R. & Mazerolle, L. (2013). Environmental criminology and crime analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.