Chapter 8: Having an impact on crime. Important notes These slides are not a replacement for the text Please use these slides as a starting point for.

Chapter 8: Having an impact on crime

Revising the crime funnel

Original funnel 10% increase prosecutions

25% increase in detections

Actual offenses 1000 1000 1000

Reported to police 410 410 410

Recorded by police 287 287 287

Detected offenses 75 75 93

Charged or summoned 37 41 47

Proceeded against at court 21 23 26

Found guilty 15 17 19

Custodial sentence 3.7 4.1 4.7

The limitations of arrest strategies

Even though many police officers profess to wanting to catch the criminal elite, they are constrained by an organizational system that rewards them for the volume of arrests rather than the quality of their captures

As a result of observations of over 300 crack dealers, and interviews with over 120, Johnson and Natarajan estimate that experienced and higher-level dealers can minimize the risk of arrest to one for every thousand drug transactions or more (See Johnson and Natarajan 1995: 54)

Conviction rates in the UK from suspicious transaction reports during the early 1990s were as low as one for every thousand suspicious reports(See Levi, 2002)

The benefits of crime prevention

Original funnel 10% Decrease in actual crime

Actual offenses 1000 900

Reported to police 410 369

Recorded by police 287 258

Detected offenses 75 67

Charged or summoned 37 34

Proceeded against at court 21 19

Found guilty 15 14

Custodial sentence 3.7 3.4

Why don’t politicians embrace prevention?

Steve Lab (2004) points out why there is a general lack of enthusiasm for prevention from policymakers. Politicians prefer programs with:

immediate results focus on outcomes that can be counted a sensationalist streak an eye to the immediate problems of the day

Defining reduction, disruption or prevention Crime reduction

Brings ‘net benefits after considering the impact of displacement and diffusion of benefits, fear of crime and the impact from other programs that may have contributed to any specific crime reduction activity’ (Chainey and Ratcliffe 2005: 19)

Disruption Disruption ‘occurs when the business is hampered for a period

of time, normally as a result of law enforcement action, but is not permanently disabled’ (EUROPOL 2006: 17)

Crime prevention Involves any activity by an individual or group, public or private,

which attempts to eliminate crime either before it occurs or before any additional activity results (Lab 1988)

Levels of crime prevention

Primary prevention Identifies conditions of the physical and social environment that

create, precipitate or provide opportunities for criminal behavior (Brantingham and Faust 1976)

Secondary prevention Aims to reduce risks associated with those people vulnerable to

involvement in crime, and to ameliorate the chance of high-risk offenders developing more serious criminal activities.

Tertiary prevention Deals with actual offenders and involves ‘intervening with the

lives of these offenders in a manner that prevents them from committing other crimes and includes arrest and prosecution, reform and rehabilitation, and institutional education programs’ (Chainey and Ratcliffe 2005: 17)

Levels of crime prevention: ILP relevance

Primary prevention Used to tackle the systemic weaknesses that offenders

exploit so that more strategic problem-solving can take hold

Secondary prevention Provides opportunities to identify priorities for resource

allocation and targeting Tertiary prevention

Prevention benefits from the arrest and prosecution of high-risk, prolific and persistent offenders

The changing leadership role

Most police commanders have been groomed for leadership positions by subjecting them to training and experiences that are not related to crime reduction

‘We have people in leadership and management positions who were never expected to do the job I’m asking them to do’

(New Zealand Police District Commander quoted in Ratcliffe 2005: 449)

The limitations of lawyers

In many US jurisdictions, the chief law enforcement officer has a legal background (district attorney or county prosecutor)

This often prevents them from understanding the benefits of crime disruption or prevention

‘Although the gradual acceptance of prevention as the primary purpose of intelligence may precipitate improvement, law enforcement has a long history of strategies that respond to a current problem but rarely prevent or control an emerging or anticipated threat’ (Higgins 2004: 72)

Does police targeting prevent crime?

Unfocused increases in police numbers appears to be relatively ineffective

10 per cent increase in police numbers would, on average, result in a 3 per cent reduction in the major crime types for a city• Evidence from a study of 49 states and 56 cities

conducted by Marvell and Moody, 1996

‘Hiring more police officers did not play an independent or consistent role in reducing violent crime in the United States’ (Eck and Maguire 2000: 217)

Police impact on crime Limited or no value

Unfocused increases in police numbers Targeted patrols at drug corners Arrests of some juveniles for minor offences Drug market arrests Community policing with no clear crime-risk factor focus

Positive impact Targeted patrols in (non-drug) crime hotspots Civil code violations and nuisance legislation applied to drug

houses Proactive arrests of serious repeat offenders Combine enforcement with prevention strategies

Concentrating on the 6 per cent

The 6% that commit 60% of all crime New South Wales Police Compstat-like process

encouraged local police commanders to focus on Crime hot spots and hot times Spend more time searching people for illegal weapons Target recidivist offenders

OCR process shown to reduce crime and a burglary was prevented for every two arrests, a vehicle theft was prevented for every five arrests, and a robbery was prevented for every 30 arrests (See Chilvers and Weatherburn 2001a: 11)

University of Maryland review

Successful strategies Incapacitating offenders who continue to commit crimes at

high rates Family therapy by clinical staff for delinquent and pre-

delinquent youth Short-term vocational training programmers for older male

ex-offenders no longer involved in the criminal justice system

Prison-based therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders

University of Maryland review

Promising tactics (but that have to be evaluated further) Gang violence prevention focused on reducing gang

cohesion Battered women’s shelters for women who take other

steps to change their lives Housing dispersion programs Enterprise Zones Intensive, residential training programs for at-risk youth

University of Maryland review

Unsuccessful tactics Gang community mobilization against crime, in high-crime,

inner-city poverty areas Gun buy-back programs operated without geographic

limitations on gun sources Summer job or subsidized work programs for at-risk youth Short-term, non-residential training programs for at-risk

youth Emphasized specific deterrence such as shock probation

and Scared Straight

“Whether the motivation is religious fundamentalism, anti-government sentiment, or the disaffected loner, radicalized

groups or individuals are increasingly perpetrating terrorism. A substantial attack upon U.S. soil is increasingly likely. The

answer rests with prevention. …

The only way to prevent radicalization is to end the conditions that foster it. When efforts at prevention are

unsuccessful or impractical, a fully trained and seamlessly integrated public safety force is required to recognize

preincident indicators and develop interdiction, disruption, or arrest strategies.” (Bratton 2007: 6-7)