1. Crime, Prevention &
Victims

2. Crime Prevention & Control
Clarke describes situational crime prevention as ‘a pre-
emptive approach that relies on simply reducing
opportunity for crime’. He notes three features of
measurements to ensure this…
 Directed at specific crime
 Involve managing or altering the immediate environment
of crime
 Aim at increasing the effort and risks of committing crime
and reducing rewards

3. Underlying situational crime prevention is an opportunistic or
rational choice theory of crime (remember back to Clarke’s
rational choice theory in Right Realism!). This contrasts with theories
of crime that stress ‘root causes’. Clarke argues most
theories offer no realistic solution to crime. He argues the
most obvious thing to do it to focus on the immediate crime
situation as most crime is opportunistic. Felson gives the
example of a NYC bus terminal who ‘designed crime out’,
for example by putting in smaller sinks so homeless people
couldn’t take a bath. However, one criticism of this is that it
doesn’t reduce crime it merely displaces it; target hardening
will only make criminals go where targets are softer. It takes
several forms… spatial (moving elsewhere), temporal (committing
a crime at a different time), target (a different victim), tactical
(different method) and functional (committing a different type of
crime)

4. Nevertheless, situational measures were successful in the case of
suicide. In the early 1960s, over half of all suicides were by gassing.
From the 60s onwards, coal gas was replaced by less toxic neutral
gas so by 1997 the suicides by gassing were almost at 0. But, the
overall suicide rare decline so is this point valid?
Evaluation…
 It works to some extent by reducing certain crimes but there is
likely to still be some displacement
 Ignores white collar, corporate and state crime
 Assumes criminals make rational calculations which is unlikely
(could be under influence of drugs/alcohol)
 Ignores root causes of crime so it is hard to develop long-term
strategies
 Norris and Armstrong found CCTV focuses disproportionally on
young feminists (remember feminists ‘male gaze from Unit 1!)

5. Wilson & Kelling’s article ‘broken windows’ is the basis for the
environmental crime prevention approach. The phrase
stands for all the various signs of disorder and lack of
concern for others. They argue leaving broken windows
unrepaired sends out a signal that no one cares. In these
neighbourhoods, there is an absence of formal and informal
social control. The police are only concerned with serious
crime and ignore petty, nuisance behaviour while
respectable members of the community feel intimidated
and powerless. Respectable people move out and the area
becomes a magnet for deviants. Wilson & Kelling’s key ideas
is to crack down on any disorder using a two fold strategy…
 Environmental improvements
 Zero tolerance policing to proactively tackle even the
slightest sign of disorder

6. Evidence of this is the NYC ‘clean car programme’. This
meant graffiti from cars was largely removed. Later, the
same approach was extended to the cities police precincts
crackdown on. There was a crackdown on ‘squeegee
merchants’ which discovered many had outstanding
warrants for violent and property crimes. Between 1993-1996
there was a significant fall in the number of crimes within the
city – from 1,927 homicides to 986.
However, how far was zero tolerance policing the cause of
the crimes…
 NYPD benefitted from 7,000 extra officers
 A decline in the availability of crack cocaine
 Attempted homicide rate remained high so was the fall
in the actual number of homicide rate down to improved
medical emergency services?

7. By contrast, social and community prevention strategies
place the emphasis firmly on the potential offender and
their social context. The aim of these strategies is to remove
the conditions that predispose individuals to crime in the first
place. These are long-term as they attempt to tackle the
root of the problem. Because the causes of crime are often
rooted in social conditions, more general social reform
programmes addressing these issues may have a crime
prevention role.
The Perry pre-school project was for disadvantaged black
children in Michigan. An experimental group of 3-4 year olds
were offered 2 year intellectual enrichment programme
during which time they get weekly home visits. A longitudinal
study followed their subsequent progress. By the age of 40,
the experimental group had a lot less lifetime arrests and
more had graduated and/or were n employment.

8. These approached take for granted the nature and
definition of crime as well as disregarding crimes of the
powerful and environmental crimes. The definition of crime
problem reflects the priorities of politicians and agencies
tasked with crime prevention. Whyte conducted a study of
26 crime and disorder areas and found that vehicle crime
and burglary were the biggest targets of crime reduction
strategies whilst domestic violence was one of the least
targetted (only 8 areas targetted this). He points out that
there is no logical reason why such activities should not be
included in the crime and disorder partnership agendas.

9. Punishment
Punishment is believed to be an effective
crime prevention measurement. Given that
punishment involves deliberately inflicting
harm, two main justifications have been
offered for it…
 Retribution
 Reducton

10. Retribution: ‘paying back. It is a justification for punishing
crimes that have already been committed rather than
preventing future crimes. Society is entitles to its revenge. This
is an expressive justification as it expresses society’s outrage.
Reduction (instrumental – punishment is a means to an end)
 Deterrence: punishing the individual discourages them
from future offending (e.g. Thatcher’s ‘short, sharp,
shock’ regime)
 Rehabilitation: punishment can be used to reform or
change offenders so they no longer offend (e.g.
providing education in prison)
 Incapacitation: punishment can remove the offender’s
capacity to offend again (e.g. imprisonment)

11. Durkheim, a functionalist, sees the function of
punishment as upholding social solidarity and
reinforcing shared values. It is primarily expressive.
Through rituals of order, shared values are
reaffirmed and members come to feel a sense of
moral unity.
While punishment functions to uphold social
solidarity, it does so differently in different types of
society. Durkheim identifies two types of justice
(corresponding to two types of society)…
 Retributive
 Restitutive

12.  Retributive: in traditional society, there is little
specialisation and solidarity is based on similarity to one
another. This produces a strong collective conscience
which responds with vengeful passion to repress the
wrong doer. Punishment is expressive, so severe and
cruel.
 Restitutive: in modern society there is extensive
specialisation and solidarity is based on
interdependence between individuals. Crime damages
this interdependence so it is necessary to repair this
damage (making a restitution). Motivation is instrumental
but it has an expressive element (shows collective
emotion)
In reality, however, traditional societies often have restitutive
rather than retributive justice as Durkheim thought. For
example, blood feuds are often settled by payment of
compensation rather than execution.

13. Marxists see the function of punishment as maintaining
existing social order. As part of the ‘repressive state
apparatus’, it is a means of defending ruling class property
against the working class. Thompson says 18th Century
punishments were part of a ‘rule of terror’ by the landed
aristocracy over the poor.
The form of punishment reflects the economic base of
society. Rusche & Kirchheimer argue each type of economy
has its own corresponding penal system. Under capitalism,
imprisonment becomes the dominant form of punishment as
it is based on the exploitation of wage labour.
Melossi and Pavarini also see imprisonment as reflecting
capitalist relations of production…
 Capitalism puts a price on the workers time; ‘prisoners
‘do time’ to ‘repay’ for their crime’
 The prison and the capitalist factory both have a similar
strict disciplinary style

14. Foucault distinguishes between two different forms of
punishment…
 Sovereign Power  was typical of the period before the
19th century when the monarch had power over people
and their bodies. Inflicting punishment on the body was
the means of asserting control and was usually a
spectacle
 Disciplinary Power  becomes dominant from the 19th
century. In this form of control, a new system of discipline
seeks to govern not just the body, but the mind/soul
through surveillance

15. Foucault illustrates disciplinary power with the panopticon –
a design for a prison in which all the prisoner’s cells are
visible to guard in a watch tower but the guards are not
visible to the prisoners. So, the prisoners only knew they might
be being watched so they had to behave at all times. This is
self-surveillance and self-discipline so the control is taking
place inside the prisoner. Foucault argues prison is one of a
range of institutions that increasingly began to subject
individuals to disciplinary power to induce conformity
through self-surveillance. In his view, it has now infiltrated
every part of society brings its effects ‘to the most minute
and distant elements’ (to the human soul).
Therefore, he argues the change in forms of punishment also
tells us how power operates in society.

16. Although Foucault’s work has stimulated considerable
research into surveillance and the exercise of disciplinary
power, he has been criticised…
 The shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment is less
clear than he suggests
 Unlike Durkheim, he neglects the expressive aspects of
punishment
 He exaggerates the extent of control. Goffman shows
how inmates are able to resist controls in institutions such
as prisons and hospitals

17. Until the 18th Century, prison was used mainly for holding
offenders prior to their punishment. Following the
enlightenment period, prison was seen as a form of
punishment. In liberal democracies, prison is the most severe
form of punishment but it isn’t an effective rehabilitation
method. Many critics regard prison as an expensive way of
making bad people worst. But, since the 1980s, there has
been a move towards ‘populist punitiveness’ where
politicians have sought electoral popularity by calling for
tougher sentences, for example in 1997, New Labour took
the view that prison should be also a deterrent for persistant
petty offenders. So, the prison population swelled in size.
One consequence is overcrowding (poor sanitation, barely
edible food, clothing shortages, lack of education). The UK
imprisons a higher proportion of people that almost any
other country in Western Europe. 139 people out of 100 000
are in prison compared to 99/100000 (France). But, this figure
is higher in the USA and Russia.

18. Garland believes, especially the USA, is moving into an era
of mass incarceration. From the 70s, the prison population
rose rapidly in – in total over 3% of the adult population are
in prison. He argues the reason for mass incarceration is the
growing politicisation of crime control. For most of the last
century, there was a consensus – what Garland calls ‘penal
welfarism’ – that punishment should reintegrate offenders
into society. Since the 70s, there has been a move towards a
new consensus based on a more punitive and exclusionary
‘tough on crime’ policies which has led to a rising number in
prison. Another reason is the use of prison to wage USA’s
‘war on drugs’.
There is also a trend towards transcarceration (individuals
become locked into a cycle of control, shifting between
different agencies, for example, they may be brought up in
care then sent to prison). Some see it as a product of the
blurring of boundaries between criminal justice and welfare
agencies.

19. In the past, ‘diversion’ dealt with young offenders. The focus
was on welfare and treatment, using non-custodial,
community based controls. In recent years, community
based control methods have grown but at the same time
the number in custody has been rising steadily. So, Cohen
argues this growth has cast the ‘net of control’ over more
people. Following Faucault’s ideas, he argues the increased
range of sanctions available enables control to penetrate
even deeper into society. Community controls may divert
young offenders into society, for example using ASBOs as a
way of fast-tracking young offenders into custodial
sentences.

20. Victims of Crime
The United Nations defines victims as those who have
suffered harm through acts of omissions that violate the laws
of the state. Christie believes ‘victim’ is socially constructed
(similar to Palmers ideas about childhood – Unit 1); that the
stereotype of a weak, innocent person is favoured by the
media, criminal justice system and the public. The study of
victims is called victimology and there are 2 main
perspectives…
 Positivist
 Critical

21. Miers defines positivist victimology as having three features…
 It aims to identify the factors that produce patterns in
victimisation – especially those that make some
individuals or groups more likely to be victims
 It focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence
 It aims to identify victims who have contributed to their
own victimisation
The earliest study focused on the idea of ‘victim proneness’
and sought to identify the social and psychological
characteristics of victims that make them likely to be victims.
(Hans Von Hentig identified 13 – e.g. being female, elderly).
The implication is that victims ‘invite’ victimisation by being
the kind of person they are. For example Wolfgang’s study of
588 homicides in Philadelphia found 26% involved victim
precipitation.

22.  Brookman notes Wolfgang shows the
importance of the victim-offender
relationship
 This approach ignores wider structural
factors influencing victimisation
 It can easily tip over into victim blaming
 Ignores situations where victims are
unaware of their victimisation or harm is
being done but no laws are being broken

23. Critical victimlogy is based on conflict theories such as
Marxism and feminism. It focuses on two elements…
 Structural Factors  (e.g. patriarchy and poverty) which
place powerless groups at greater risk of victimisation. As
Mawby and Walklate argue; victimisation is a form of
‘structural powerlessness’
 The State’s Power to Apply or Deny the Label of Victim 
‘victim’ is a social construct in the same way as ‘crime’ or
‘criminal’. Through the criminal justice process, the state
applies the label of victim to some but withholds it from
others, for example when police don’t charge a man
with domestic violence they are denying the women her
victim status

24. Tombs and Whyte show ‘safety crimes’ are
often explained away as the fault of
‘accident prone’ workers. This denies the
victim status by blaming them for their fate.
They note the ideological function of the
‘failure to label’ is that by concealing the
true extent of victimisation and its real
causes, the crimes of the powerful are
ignored. In the hierarchy of victimisation, the
powerless are most likely to be victimised yet
least likely to have this acknowledged by the
state.

25. This approach disregards
the role victims may play in
bringing it on themselves
It is valuable in drawing
attention to the way ‘victim’
status is constructed by
power and how this benefits
the powerful at the expense
of the powerless

26. The average change of someone becoming a victim of a
crime in any one year is around 1 in 4. But, the risk is very
unevenly distributed between social groups…
 Class: the poorest group are more likely to be victimised.
Newburn & Rock found homeless people were 12x more
likely to experience violence than the general population
 Age: younger people are more at risk of victimisation
(e.g. infants under one are most at risk of being
murdered). The elderly are at risk of abuse too but it
could take place in a nursing home so would be less
visible
 Ethnicity: minority ethnic groups are at greater risk of
being victims and feeling ‘over-policed and under-
protected’

27.  Gender: males are at greater risk than
females of being victims of violent attacks,
especially by strangers. About 70% of
homicide victims are male but women are
more likely to be victims of domestic
violence, stalking etc.
 Repeat Victimisation: according to the
British Crime Survey, about 60% of the British
populaton have not been victims of any
type of crime in a given year, whereas a
mere 4% of the population re victims of
44% of all crimes in that period

28. Crime can have physical and emotional impact. It can also
create ‘indirect’ victims such as those who have witnessed a
crime. Pynoos et al found a child who witnessed a sniper
attach had altered behaviour and grief-like dreams a year
later. Hate crimes can created a ‘wave of harm’ – these are
‘message’ crimes aimed at intimidating the whole
community and challenging the value system.
Secondary Victimisation is the idea that individuals may
suffer further victimisation at the hands of the criminal justice
system. (feminists argue women are treated poorly in rape
cases – think of Walklate & gender differences in crime)
Crime can also create a fear of becoming a victim. Some
sociologists argue this fear is often shown as irrational, for
example women are least likely to go out at night but men
are most likely to be victims of violent attacks by strangers.
But, feminists argue we should focus on women’s safety, not
their state of mind.