Introduction
Crime control and prevention have been around for many years because criminal activities occur on a daily basis. Different countries across the world have varying approaches to preventing society from the adverse effects of crimes. Some regions have passed stringent laws aimed at discouraging criminal activity by imposing severe consequences on offenders. For example, most nations have maximum prisons with harsh treatment of inmates to discourage serial offenses. The procedure in deterring crime follows an arrest of a crime suspect, trying them in court, and sentencing them as appropriate (Ashworth, 2011). Some parts of the world, such as the United States, have an effective criminal justice system that ensures the correct legal procedure is followed in handling offenders from arrest to the end of their prison sentence. Serial violent offenders are a select category whose motives to commit crime are instigated by several factors, and it is vital to use a practical approach in their prevention, treatment, and punishment.
Prevention
Crime prevention entails the measures and strategies aimed at reducing the risk of occurrence of crime and its adverse effects on individuals and society. It is important to note that the prevention of violent serial offenders is a multidisciplinary and multi-sectorial endeavor, which calls for concerted efforts to be successful. The age group of offenders dictates the type of prevention approach which can be used on them. From a scientific perspective, there is a limited level to which crime can be prevented by rehabilitating constant offenders and reforms (Bilchik, 1998). Thus, it is crucial to understand the criminal’s traits, personality, and background and relate them to the precedence of his intention to engage in criminal activity. For example, family therapy and parental training are good approaches to prevent crime among preadolescents who are at-risk and delinquent. On the other hand, extra police presence and patrols for high crime hotspots can also help prevent violent serial criminal activity, while incarceration and close monitoring by specialized police units can help prevent high-risk offenders (Crouch, 1993). Therefore, age, personality, and socio-economic background are essential aspects to consider for the right crime prevention approach.
On the other hand, social science argues that eliminating or reducing the sources of crime is an important step towards serial crime prevention. As scientists, sociologists believe that an offender’s habits, attitudes, and personality are predisposing factors to crime (Crouch, 1993). Apart from the various agencies and programs aimed at preventing delinquent behavior, the correctional process is also an important aspect, and it comprises probations, institutions, and parole. These methods are effective as they make offenders fear repeating an offense, which helps prevent crime.
Treatment
Prisons play a significant role in treating violent serial offenses by keeping criminals in a segregated environment, thereby protecting society from harm. However, the government is always interested in reducing the prison population, which means that the target offenders should be serial criminals. Prisons help prevent the community from specific offenders but do not stop crime in general since the middle and small offenders can evolve to become violent serial ones. This implies that they have a limited preventive effect unless the criminals are sentenced to life imprisonment (Duff, 2003a). However, correctional centers, including prisons, can be more effective if, apart from confining offenders, they can be used as research centers to examine the motives and individual behaviors that encourage and promote engaging in criminal activity. In this regard, some prisons in the United States have been staffed with expert personnel aimed at soliciting important information from the inmates with significant scientific value (Crewe, 2011). The data can help prevent crime at its initial stages before it becomes more serious. Therefore, prisons, if well organized and staffed, can help prevent crime through confinement and research.
Moreover, local services also play a significant role in supporting low-level criminals, who usually suffer from mental disorders and drug abuse and who might evolve into serial offenders if not prevented early enough. Indeed, locking up small criminals does not help prevent them from participating in criminal activities, and reoffending rates are likely to increase if serious strategies are not utilized in handling crime at its early stages (Cantor & Waite, 1944). For example, adolescent delinquents and other juvenile offenders can be placed in youth remands intending to prevent crime among school-age children and teenagers. This category can be devolved to local authorities by the government and given financial responsibility to ensure crime prevention among juveniles. Young offenders are kept out of custody through financial incentives since the local authorities will be charged for any night an adolescent spends in custody (Crouch, 1993). This approach can help empower local services in controlling and reducing crime in their areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, since most juvenile offenders are not severely problematic, putting them under youth remands can help prevent them from evolving into violent serial offenders.
It is important to note that the above crime prevention strategy involving local authorities can be successful with extra funding from state and federal governments. To give them the stability to invest in crime prevention programs, local services need to be given the financial boost and cushion to deliver long-term benefits (Crewe, 2011). However, the funding formula matters much because of the complicated nature of transferring custody budgets from state and federal governments. The most practical way to help prevent budgetary confusion is to base the funding on the number of juvenile offenders in an area to avoid overspending and under-allocation of resources. A regular review is necessary to ensure cost-effectiveness in the crime prevention programs at local levels (Crewe, 2011). However, these programs can be effective if both sides share the vision of what they need to achieve.
Punishment
Punishing offenders is a crucial way of ensuring they do not engage in criminal activity again. Deering and Smith (2014) define punishment as imposing any type of sanction on an individual for having violated the law through engagement in crime either directly or indirectly. A proportionate sentence is one way of reinstating the victim’s status but committing criminals to communal justice can help build their social and economic capital. In previous times, retributive sentencing has been viewed as backward-looking, but building the socio-economic capital of criminals can help challenge this notion. An out-of-court sanction is equally effective in retribution as opposed to sentencing, which has always been equated to vengeance (Carlsmith, 2006). This is where the applicability of the principle of severity comes in. A retributivist perspective is that an offender must be punished as revenge against the advantage he gained over an innocent, law-abiding citizen (Ashworth, 2011). Thus, the punishment accorded to an offender needs to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed (Duff, 2003b). Therefore, there is consensus among the ways the public ranks punishments and offenses concerning the severity of the crime.
Punishment as Moral Communication
Punishment can be a form of moral communication aimed at discouraging a particular behavior. In the normative theory of communicative punishment, Duff (2001) argues that punishment is two-way communication. First, it serves as a particular depiction of the apology to the society and the people whose lives were affected by the committed crimes. Second, punishment becomes a reminder of a delinquent’s harmful actions deserving to be penalized. However, the apology message does not always imply that the criminal feels a certain degree of regret or responsibility for their actions, it rather helps create a reconciliatory environment between the affected individual and the lawbreaker. Nevertheless, Crewe (2011) argues otherwise; prisoners serving long-term sentences are unlikely to understand their imprisonment as a form of moral communication. Therefore, even though some people argue that hard treatment is a kind of ethical communication, the message it sends to long-term prisoners is the opposite.
Moreover, noncompliance and reoffending are likely to occur because of the way offenders perceive punishment. According to defiance theory, people react with rage or shame when they think of the sanction as stigmatizing or unfair (Bilchik, 1998). Secondary noncompliance occurs because individuals feel that the response to their earlier offensive behavior is prejudiced. A sentence that is perceived as fair and serving its initial purpose is likely to result in rehabilitative change. Moreover, Weaver (2009) claims that communicative punishment and that the offender support the resistance process is likely to be a part of the rehabilitation interventions, making it more meaningful at the individual level. Therefore, the way a criminal perceives the punishment is instrumental in the achievement of rehabilitative change.
Additionally, the path of punishment faces yet another obstacle of socio-structural nature. Once convicted of a crime and imprisoned, offenders wish to stop engaging in criminal activity on their release from jail but are always prone to many challenges hampering them from accomplishing their hope. In most cases, ex-convicts find it challenging to reintegrate into the community (Bilchik, 1998). One of the reasons for this adjustment problem is the difference between life outside and in prison. Thus, even when it is possible to provide them with immediate needs, it is challenging to balance between keeping the public safe and holding offenders accountable.
Community Service
Restorative community service is another good form of punishment for juvenile offenders. For example, they are assigned to repair and maintain projects and parks as a way of making amends with their society in a way that their community values (Bilchik, 1998). In doing so, the delinquents create meaningful relationships with community members, which are strengthened with time as they invest their time and effort in community projects, which help benefit the less fortunate. Therefore, this form of sanction helps create a positive view of juvenile offenders’ community and reintegrates them into society.
Surveillance-Based Programs
Surveillance-based programs are founded on the belief that offenders need close monitoring because they are dangerous. However, supervision based on the offenders’ needs is more appropriate since they can get proper treatment programs like addiction counseling and cognitive skills training (Crewe, 2011). This parole strategy is more effective than the other based on surveillance. When offenders are correctly matched with appropriate programs, recidivism rates are likely to reduce. Thus, placing ex-offenders on appropriate treatment programs helps reduce reoffending.
Employment and Job Market Reentry Assistance
Most businesses desist from employing ex-offenders, even when they have outright employment needs. Offering this group of people job opportunities is a sure way of ensuring they are busy, thereby reducing their likelihood of reoffending (Cantor & Waite, 1944). The ex-convicts who cannot manage to apply their skills and knowledge in well-paid jobs are more likely to recidivate than those who are formally employed with higher wages and better professional opportunities. The social control theory helps explain this relationship based on the claim that occupying ex-offenders with work is a form of social control. Therefore, the best way to treat violent offenders from reoffending is to provide them with employment opportunities.
Understanding Violent Offenders
Many psychiatric disorders are associated with aggressive behavior symptoms, which manifest throughout a person’s life, including domestic violence in adulthood and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents and children. It is essential to understand the nature and predisposing factors of aggressive behavior across the developmental spectrum as opposed to only in childhood and teenage (Aarsland et al., 1996). Violent behavior is categorized depending on the situation or surroundings and motivations for the act. Therefore, when deciding the treatment and punishment of offenders, it is necessary to investigate the root cause of their violent behavior.
Controlling Violent Offenders
An accurate assessment is a key to working with and managing the risk which violent offenders pose, and this evaluation should be able to envisage the likelihood of reoffending in the future. This prediction is vital as it helps policymakers to decide and allocate resources to manage these risks by providing a blueprint for the work needed to be done for individual offenders (Bales & Piquero, 2012). This is an important way of preventing violent serial offenders from future noncompliance and re-offense. The severity of the punishment is a critical factor for determining whether an offender will turn to crime after serving a prison sentence. Offender behavior programs have massively expanded across the world in recent years from the recommendations of various research. The success of these programs is significant as the recidivism rates have reduced among those offenders subjected to these programs (Crewe, 2011). Therefore, controlling violent offenders needs to be based on research to ensure the option of working measures.
To sum up, there is a long history surrounding the prevention, treatment, and punishment of violent serial offenders, and these measures need to be done carefully to prevent them from the possibility of re-offense. The main reason for controlling crime is to keep the public safe and to ensure harmonious co-existence in society. The social science argument surrounding delinquency prevention and punishment is based on reducing or eliminating crime sources. For example, it is crucial to understand the offenders’ habits, attitudes, and personalities as possible predisposing factors to engaging in criminal activity. Prisons play a significant role in the correctional process by separating offenders from the public for a certain period or forever. However, this separation is not enough since it only resolves one crime but does not offer a generalizable solution. Regardless, with proper staffing with expert personnel, prisons can serve as research centers to investigate the reasons individuals commit criminal activity and implement appropriate measures to address these leading predisposing factors. Nevertheless, punishing offenders is a good way of discouraging them from engaging in crime, but the success of various punishments is varied.
References
Aarsland, D., Cummings, J. L., Yenner, G., & Miller, B. (1996). Relationship of aggressive behavior to other neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The American journal of psychiatry, 153(2), 243–247.
Ashworth, A. (2011). Re-evaluating the justification for aggravation and mitigation at sentencing. In Roberts, J.V. (ed.), Mitigation and aggravation at sentencing. Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-39.
Bales, W.D. & Piquero, A.R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 71-101.
Bilchik, S. (1998). Guide for implementing the balanced and restorative justice model: Report. Diane Publishing Company.
Cantor, N., & Waite, J. B. (1944). The prevention of repeated crime. American Sociological Review, 9(6), 701.
Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 437-451.
Crewe, B. (2011). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455-468.
Crouch, B. M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 67-88.
Deering, J., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Revising Wolff’s support for retribution in theories of punishment: Desistance, rehabilitation, and accommodating individual and social accounts of responsibility. Ethics and Social Welfare, 10(4), 289-303.
Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R. A. (2003a). Penance, punishment and the limits of community. Punishment & Society, 5(3), 295-312.
Duff, R. A. (2003b). Punishment, communication, and community. In Matravers, D. and Pike, J. (eds.), Debates in Contemporary political philosophy, Routledge, pp. 387-407.