This document summarizes different approaches to crime control, prevention, and punishment. It discusses right and left realist perspectives on reducing crime through increasing costs and focusing on individuals versus addressing societal inequalities. It also examines situational crime prevention techniques like surveillance and environmental crime prevention approaches like fixing signs of disorder. Left realists argue for addressing root causes of crime like poverty. The document evaluates different rationales for punishment and whether prisons are effective in deterring crime or act as "universities of crime" that fail to rehabilitate and reduce recidivism.

1. Crime control,prevention and
punishment

2. Control and prevention of crime
•
Right realists
•
Emphasize the
individual
•
Benefitsoutweigh
the cost of crime
•
Society needs to
increase cost of
crime
•
Left realists
•
Focus on
organisation of
society esp
inequality
,disadvantage and
poverty that results
from this and and
the enviroment of
crime is created

3. Situational crime prevention (SCP)
Right Realist measure
reducing oppurtunities for crime•
Victims should make themselves ‘harder
targets’ by investing in more secruity and
surveillance
•
Increase risk of criminal being caught and/or
detrring criminality by reducing oppurtunity
for crime
•
Car manufacturers invest in satellite
technologies,disabling devices and
computerised locking systems has reduced car
therft in the UK .

4. Evaluation of SCP
•
Felson and Clarke SCP
displace rather then
reduce crime . Criminal
move to softer targets .
E.g Chaiken et al
crackdown on subway
robberies in New York
displaced them to the
streets above
•
Use of surveillance may
•
Marxists SCP creates
new type of social
inequality , poor are
disproportionately
the main victims of
crime because m/c
can afford secruity
etc
•
They ignore white
collar crime

5. Enviromental crime prevention
(ECP)
Right Realist –James Q Wilson•
Crime is caused by anti-social behaviour
vandalism,graffiti,drugs
•
If these behaviours are tolerated =‘anything
goes’ develops
•
E.g broken windows thesis
•
This happens because little sense of
community
•
Informal and formal social control are weak
•
Members of community feel powerless

6. Wilson proposes
•
Any sign of enviromental decline such as
broken windows or grafitti must be tacked
immediatly otherrwise neighberhood
deterioration will follow
•
All public housing should not exceed three
floors and all residents should be encouraged
to take responsibility of communal space –
protect from outsiders
•
Police should tackle all types of crime and
disorder and not just serious crime –zero

7. This is what I
call a perfect
neighbourhood
Wilson and Kelling
•
Well-maintained areas
•
Low crime rates
•
Feel apart of society
•
Less likely to offend

8. Wilson and Kelling
(1982)
Oh my! What is thisworld coming to, Idon’t feel safe
anymore!
•
No social control
•
Loose their sense of belonging
•
Increase in crime
•
Damaged society

9. Social and community crime
prevention
left realists and other critical
criminologists –Marxist
•
SCP & ECP treat symptom of crime and not
cause
•
Risk conditions of crimes need to be
addressed such as poverty,unemployment ,
poor housing etc esp for young and some
ethnic minority groups
•
L.R argue that urban crime is rational
response to lack of legitimate oppurtunities

10. •
Government through policies should tackle
crimes in inner city areas and on sink council
estates
Educational programmes –improving
educational success in inner city areas , reducing
exclusions and number of 16s year olds leaving
schools with no qualifications
People are paid fair wage so not welfare
dependant
Reduction in wealth and income inequalities –
taxation

11. Too soft on crime
evaluation of L.R
•
Crime is society’s fault rather then looking at
individual choice
•
Fail to explain why most ppl living in poverty
do not commit crime
•
R.R argue L.R make excuses for criminals ,
tighter control ,effective socialisation of
children,more severe punishment should be
ways to reduce crime

12. Punishment
Ways too reduce crime &
Does prisons work?

13. Ways in which to reduce crime
Deterrance R.R position suggest ‘prisons works’ as
priosns deter many potential offenders
away from crime by increasing cost of
crime
Incapacitation R.R prison is important because it
removes known criminals from the streets
so they cannot offend again .(Note in
other societies incapacitation can
involving cutting off ppl’s hands,chemical
castration and capital punishment ;in
Carlifornia ‘three strikes and uou are ou
policy- commiting even a minor third
offence can lead to length priosn
sentence)
Rehabilitation Punishment can be used to refor or
change offenders to they will not return
to their criminal careers . Education and
trainignis encouraged so prisoners can
earn honest living once out

14. Does prison work ?
•
UK heavily invested on prisons –prison
population rose (check what is happening now
in the news regarding prisions
•
Roger Matthews –rather the reducing crimes
prisons act as ‘universities of crime’ and
‘expensive way of making bad people worse’.
Prisons are ‘warehouses’ in which reasons for
offending are rarely addressed and little
attempt is made to rehabiliate the offender

15. •
E.Soloman – many ppl being imprisioned for
minor offences in which community
punishments more suitable .
•
High rate if recidivsim –repeat offending
suggest prison do not deter . E.g damilola
taylors