Answer to Question #198893 in English for ORATILE

Question

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT GOALS OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL IS TO PREVENT CRIME .IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL TO USE ALL THE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES ,METHODS AND TECHNIQUES AVAILABLE TO PREVENT CRIME EFFECTIVELY .

BRIEFLY DISCUSS HOW YOU WOULD APPLY THE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES ,METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF CRIME PREVENTION IN YOUR OWN WORK ENVIRONMENT .USE THE FOLLOWING HEADINGS TO STRUCTURE YOUR ANSWER:

1.INTRODUCTION (ELABORATE ON THE TOPIC)

2.DEFINITION OF CONCEPT

3.PHASES IN CRIME PREVENTION

4.SOCIAL CRIME PREVENTION

5.METHOD AND TECHNIQUES OF CRIME PREVENTION

6.COMMUNITY EDUCATION

7.ROLE-PLAYERS IN CRIME PREVENTION

8.CONCLUSION(MENTION YOUR OWN FINAL REMARKS AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS)

9.LIST OF REFERENCES

Answer 1

1.INTRODUCTION (ELABORATE ON THE TOPIC).

Crime prevention is a multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary, and integrated endeavour.

The introduction to the Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime indicates that: "There is clear evidence that well-planned crime prevention strategies not only prevent crime and victimization, but also promote community safety and contribute to sustainable development of countries. Effective, responsible crime prevention enhances the quality of life of all citizens. It has long-term benefits in terms of reducing the costs associated with the formal criminal justice system, as well as other social costs that result from crime."

2.DEFINITION OF CONCEPT.

A common challenge when discussing 'crime prevention' is identifying exactly what is captured by the term. Defining crime prevention is difficult because, "[i]n practice, the term 'prevention' seems to be applied confusingly to a wide array of contradictory activities" Gilling (1997) suggests that "crime prevention is a difficult beast to tame" and Homel observes that:

When one examines what could be described as 'crime prevention' in most developed countries one finds a bewildering array of activities and programs. Exactly how bewildering the analysis depends on where one draws the line in terms of what counts as 'crime prevention' and what does not.

3.PHASES IN CRIME PREVENTION.

• Common crime types/problems - each jurisdiction will define what is classified as a crime. Most criminal law statutes or laws will cover many thousands of offences ranging from the minor (such as not paying to ride on public transport or consuming alcohol in a public place) to the major (such as murder, sexual assault, drug trafficking). This means that decisions often need to be made about which crimes we might seek to prevent. This may result in the allocation of attention, and resources, to particular crime types rather than others - and there may be situations in which this is problematic.
• The causes of crime might vary depending upon the offence, the perpetrator and the context. Some crimes might be motivated by need, such as theft of food; others might be motivated by greed, such as fraud to acquire greater wealth and assets; others might be politically motivated, such as anti-government graffiti. It is not possible in this Module to explore all causes of crime. This exercise is merely designed to trigger discussion of the diverse, and often inter-connected, causes of crime.

4.SOCIAL CRIME PREVENTION.

Socio-economic development and inclusion refer to the need to integrate crime prevention into relevant social and economic policies, and to focus on the social integration of at-risk communities, children, families, and youth.

The social crime prevention include;

• Create, implement and monitor a national <span style="color:#0645AD">action plan</span> for violence prevention.
• Enhance capacity for collecting data on violence.
• Define priorities for, and support research on, the causes, consequences, costs and prevention of violence.
• Promote primary prevention responses.
• Strengthen responses for victims of violence.

Integrate violence prevention into social and educational policies.

5.METHOD AND TECHNIQUES OF CRIME PREVENTION.

Crime prevention is a broad topic that encompasses a great many programs and initiatives. A great diversity of crimes can be the target of crime prevention and different approaches to crime prevention target different factors contributing to crime. Consequently, a diversity of actors will frequently be engaged in efforts to prevent crime. This can range from international agencies such as the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, to national crime prevention bodies, down to local actors. Government, non-government, civil society, voluntary, activist, private sector and individual citizens can and do engage in crime prevention activities. Preventing crime produces many positive outcomes. The prevention or non occurrence of some future criminal incident reduces the human costs for victims of crime. Lives can be saved, physical harm can be prevented, and financial lost can be minimised. For this reason, crime prevention is very attractive to many governments and other groups, and it is the reason why crime prevention has become an important area of policy and practice. However, crime prevention is not without problems. Governments and private entities can, in the name of crime prevention, seek to control and monitor 1 citizens; crime prevention can become a commodity and sold to those who can afford it, leaving those who cannot even more insecure; efforts to prevent crime can stigmatise people and communities; and victims can be blamed for contributing to their own victimisation. Therefore, it is always important to consider the negative unintended consequences of efforts to prevent crime. It is important to acknowledge that there are significant legal, cultural and political differences across regional and local contexts that impact on how crime prevention is considered and practiced. Even the term ‘crime prevention’ will be used differently, if at all, across regions of the world. The body of knowledge about crime prevention often comes from a small number of countries and regions, which is highly problematic. Particular approaches might work well in one context but have negative impacts in another.

 

6.COMMUNITY EDUCATION

Community crime prevention refer to actions intended to change the social conditions that are believed to sustain crime in residential communities. Different approaches have evolved, which can best be understood as a succession of policy paradigms emerging as responses to changing urban conditions; community organizing; tenant involvement; resource mobilization; community defense; preserving order and protecting the vulnerable. Prevention in high crime areas presents particular difficulties for community approaches. Community approaches have foundered mostly because of insufficient understanding of the nature of social relations within residential areas and of how community crime careers are shaped by the wider urban market.

 

7.ROLE-PLAYERS IN CRIME PREVENTION

Community crime prevention is based upon the premise that private citizens can play a major role in preventing crime in their neighborhoods. Community crime prevention programs focus on "increasing the participation of individual citizens, small groups, and voluntary community organizations in activities designed to reduce crime and to improve the quality of neighborhood life"

According to Rosenbaum, community crime prevention has consistently evolved since the 1960s, when most formal crime programs constituted little more than a "public relations tactic" by police to improve their image. In the mid-1970s, police departments began to instruct community members about individual and collective crime prevention techniques. However, police limited the scope of responsibilities they granted to citizens by only allowing them to act as "eyes and ears" for the police. Toward the end of the 1970s, two federal crime prevention initiatives allocated money to community programs rather than to police: the 1977 Community Anti-Crime Program and the 1980 Urban Crime Prevention Program. During the 1980s, many scholars put more faith in community efforts to prevent crime than in law enforcement. According to Rosen-baum, "we have learned since, however, that community groups are quite limited in preventing urban crime without the support of law enforcement, adequate funding, and considerable technical assistance"

Three programme have played a major role in citizen crime prevention in the United States: crime prevention security surveys, Operation Identification, and Neighborhood Watch. Security surveys have long been utilized as a tool for identifying targets that are vulnerable to crime, whether a poorly lit walkway or an unlocked window. Rosenbaum describes a security survey as "a detailed on-site inspection of the dwelling unit and the surrounding area by a crime prevention expert to identify deficiencies or security risks; to define the protection needs; and, to make recommendations to minimize criminal opportunity" Not surprisingly, local police are often the crime prevention experts called upon to conduct these surveys.

Operation Identification, first initiated in California in 1963, involves engraving and/or marking personal property with a unique code identifiable to the owner. Marking personal property is intended to deter potential burglars by reducing the value of the merchandise. An owner will also be able to recognize the marked property, which in turn can sometimes be used to link the burglar to the crime scene and increase the risk of apprehension. In 1994, Whitaker found that 25 percent of all U.S. households participated in Operation Identification.

Neighborhood watch programs are intended to reduce the opportunities to commit crime by increasing the guardianship exercised by local residents. Neighborhood watch meetings encourage residents to work together in making neighborhoods safer, watching each others' property, and creating a stronger sense of community. Garafolo and McLeod surveyed 550 Neighborhood Watch programs and found that most included property marking, home security surveys, meetings to plan and exchange neighborhood information, and neighborhood newsletters . In addition, more than one-third involved efforts to improve the physical environment. Thus, Neighborhood Watch is sometimes a forum for combining separate crime prevention strategies.

Once again, community crime prevention has its own history that is at least partially independent of the police. Yet, as Rosenbaum reports, the community is only one element of the crime prevention equation. Working alone and without funding, citizens are likely to accomplish little. Working together with local police agencies, they have the capacity to prevent crime. That is one of the fundamental elements of community policing. Under a community policing philosophy, police agencies are expected to forge new relationships with the community, consulting, and mobilizing them to take partial responsibility for preventing crime in their own neighborhoods.

8.CONCLUSION(MENTION YOUR OWN FINAL REMARKS AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS)

Modern police organizations were established to prevent and respond to crime. For several decades, evaluation research has cast doubt upon traditional strategies of policing. Police organizations around the world are now experimenting with new methods for controlling and preventing crime. Several crime prevention strategies have also emerged independently of the police. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, police organizations turned to community policing as a method for reducing and preventing crime while improving relationships with their communities. During this period, several streams of crime prevention thought began to converge: environmental criminology, situational crime prevention, community crime prevention, and problem-oriented policing. As the community policing movement continues to spread, these perspectives have had more and more influence on police policy. While crime prevention has emerged from many sources, the police continue to play an important role in its implementation.

 

9.LIST OF REFERENCES.

Proactive policing, as a strategic approach used by police agencies to prevent crime, is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. It developed from a crisis in confidence in policing that began to emerge in the 1960s because of social unrest, rising crime rates, and growing skepticism regarding the effectiveness of standard approaches to policing. In response, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, innovative police practices and policies that took a more proactive approach began to develop. This report uses the term “proactive policing” to refer to all policing strategies that have as one of their goals the prevention or reduction of crime and disorder and that are not reactive in terms of focusing primarily on uncovering ongoing crime or on investigating or responding to crimes once they have occurred.

Proactive policing is distinguished from the everyday decisions of police officers to be proactive in specific situations and instead refers to a strategic decision by police agencies to use proactive police responses in a programmatic way to reduce crime. Today, proactive policing strategies are used widely in the United States. They are not isolated programs used by a select group of agencies but rather a set of ideas that have spread across the landscape of policing.

Proactive Policing reviews the evidence and discusses the data and methodological gaps on: (1) the effects of different forms of proactive policing on crime; (2) whether they are applied in a discriminatory manner; (3) whether they are being used in a legal fashion; and (4) community reaction. This report offers a comprehensive evaluation of proactive policing that includes not only its crime prevention impacts but also its broader implications for justice and U.S. communities.