Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Approaches to crime prevention
Approaches to crime prevention
Approaches to crime prevention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Scared Straight Program The recent media obsession with the scared straight program, juvenile boot camps and other scare tactics has lead to the question as to whether they actually are beneficial or not in treating adolescent criminal recidivism. On television programs like Maury (Pauvich) the answer to treating the troubled young girls who are brought to the show is boot camp. Those in charge take these girls to prisons, dangerous streets at night and often morgues to make a visual argument as to where they will end up as a result of the path they've taken. They also go through a rigorous run with drill sergeants to break down their egos. Of course it only last one day as opposed to any length of time a judge would sentence, but they get a small taste of it. Without surprise, at the end of every program of this nature, all the girls are rehabilitated and promise to go back to school, quit drugs, stealing, prostituting, and stop the abusive behavior. Adolescent criminal acts, which include but are not limited to murder, rape, armed robbery, violent assault, mugging, arson, vandalism and robbery are a large portion of the crimes represented in the media. Alternative options to throwing these kids in juvenile detention centers is a rehabilitative boot camp where they have no control over even their own bodies or programs similar to scared straight where they see possible consequences to their actions. The importance of the success or failure of these programs is important because right now it is the popular solution. If these programs are going nowhere, time should be invested in creating new ideas and methods to treat these children before they become adults in the prison system. This paper will address mainly... ... middle of paper ... ...ntin Squires Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1983; 10(2): 209-226. 6. Lipton D., Martinson R, Wilks J. The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment. New York, NY: Praeger, 1975. 7. Petrosino AJ. 'What Works?' Revisited Again: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Experiments in Rehabilitation, Deterrence and Delinquency Prevention. Ann Arbor (MI): Rutgers University, 1997. 8. Petrosino A, Boruch R., Rounding C., McDonald S., Chalmers I. Assembling a Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (SPECTR). Evaluation Research in Education 2000. forthcoming. 9. Sherman L., Gottfredson D., MacKenzie D., Eck J., Reuter P., Bushway S. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1997.
A, Braga & D, Weisburd. 'Police Innovation and Crime Prevention: Lessons Learned from Police Research over the Past 20 Years'. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Policing Research Workshop: Planning for the future, Washington, DC. 2006. p. 22.
Houser, K. (2014). Nature of Crime, Deterrence Theory. Lecture conducted from Temple University, Ambler, Pa.
All these types of prevention, whether they are viewed from the perspective of a doctor, or a criminologist, are helpful in how our society approaches crime in an age where as crime becomes deeper and more complicated, so must our methods of understanding be expanded.
Research Paper Scared Straight Programs Today, not only do we have adults committing crimes, but millions of adolescents are committing the same crimes as adults. “Statistics show more than 1.1 million youths being arrested on a daily basis, and more than 800,000 youths belonging to different gangs (Siegel &Welsh, 2014).” It is the state juvenile authorities to deal with these children and the cost is massive. So states came up with programs to put a stop to kids becoming delinquent. By doing so, they hope to save money and help kids.
Progar, J. (2012). Review of juveniles at risk: A plea for preventive justice. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence, 41(12), 1702-1704. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9841-0
Juvenile delinquency is a relatively new phenomenon. For this reason, society’s reactions and solutions to the problem of delinquency are also modern developments. The United States developed the first youth court in 1899 and is now home to many new and formerly untested methods of juvenile rehabilitation and correction. One of many unique programs within the Juvenile Justice system, boot camps are institutions designed to keep delinquent juveniles out of traditional incarceration facilities and still provide a structured method of punishment and rehabilitation. Boot camps developed in the early 1990s and quickly proliferated throughout the nation. Specifically, they are “…short-term residential programs modeled after military basic training facilities” (Meade & Steiner, 2010). Designed with the goal of reducing recidivism and preventing violent offenses, boot camps target non-violent individuals under the age of 18 and typically exclude already violent offenders. In theory, boot camps apprehend juveniles while they are committing minor delinquency and prevent more-serious crime by “giving the juvenile offender a more optimistic, community oriented outlook” (Ravenell, 2002). Fundamentally, boot camps have four central purposes; rehabilitation, punishment, deterrence, and cost control (Muscar, 2008).
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2002). Reflections on the crime decline: Lessons for the future. Proceedings from the Urban Institute Crime Decline Forum (pp. 1-38). Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.
Not only has there been debates about what approach should be used when punishing juvenile offenders, but there has also been debates about the need for two separate justice systems. Some individuals believe that juveniles need to be punished for their delinquency by being sentenced to jail just as an adult offender would be. According to Urban, Cyr, and Decker (2003), The Violent Crime Control Act of 1995 allows juveniles who are 13 years old and up to be sentenced as an adult if they have committed a violent crime with a fire arm on federal property. Advocates of such acts believe the juvenile justice system has failed at “rehabilitating” offenders by placing more focus on rehabilitation and treatment practices. Because of this these advocates
Youths who have entered the justice system have often been diagnosed with mental disorders or diseases. “A majority of adolescents formally involved in juvenile court have at least one, if not more than one, significant emotional or learning impairment, or maltreatment experience” (Mallet, 2013). The existence of these diseases often effect the juvenile’s stability and ability to make rational decisions. Which may result in them engaging in criminal activities The prevalence of disruptive behavior disorders among youths in juvenile justice systems is reported to be between 30 percent and 50 percent (The mental health needs of juvenile offenders). The difficulties of these disorders are often
In a study on juvenile offenders, researchers discovered that over 83% of juveniles showed signs and symptoms of disorders that may antedated their offenses. (Arline, May 2005). Problems with behavior may have been misunderstood for a lack of discipline instead of a disorder, and many juveniles with disorders came from a home with abuse present. In cases of juvenile offenders the courts are not doing enough evaluations on juvenile families, and eon the few that they do have on file their families are stated to be stable (Arline, May 2005). However, many juvenile offenders went through unthinkable circumstances with the members of the community they live in, parents, and agencies who played a role in their life prior to being in adult criminal system (Darden, 2014). A lot of juveniles who are in the criminal system have common elements in their non-profit profiles like regretful choices, mistrusting adults, robbed childhood, and being disappointed (Darden, 2014). For instance, a juvenile offender name Jennifer Pruitt, went through physical abuse, being exposed to drunken behavior, father sexually abusing her, and domestic abuse (Darden, 2014). She ran away fro home and confided in her neighbor as someone she could trust, but her neighbor convinced her to rob another neighbor (Darden, 2014). During the attempt to the rob the neighbor Pruitt ending up witnessing a murder, and was convicted of a felony murder that landed her more than twenty years in prison (Darden,
Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising in Brief, Report to the United States Congress. National Institute of Justice.
Ronald V Clarke originally developed the idea of situational crime prevention in the 1980’s (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). This particular crime prevention theory addresses techniques that increase the effort required to commit the crime, increase the risks involved with committing the crime, reducing the reward gained by the offender after committing the crime, reducing the provocation between the offender and others and remove excuses (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Majority of crime is believed to be committed because there are no high risks of being caught and the rewards outweigh the risks (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Increasing the effort by controlling access to locations and target hardening can deflect many offenders, as more effort is needed to commit the crime (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Another main technique would be to increase the risks; this may be achieved by extending guardianship, creating natural surveillance or artificial surveillance such as CCTV (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005).
Approaches to crime prevention have emerged over time and are demonstrated in different solutions, practices, and policies executed by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community. Some of the dominant approaches to crime prevention currently used by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community are: situational crime prevention, crime prevention through social development, crime prevention through environmental design, community crime prevention, reduction of recidivism, and policing. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the dominant approaches used for crime prevention and analyze which approaches are most effective. I will identify and apply at least four approaches used in law enforcement, legislation, courts, corrections, family, and community within the crime prevention programs.
Loeber R., and D.P. Farrington. “Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions.” Thousand Oaks. 1998. First Search. Feb 2007