Criminology Essays Punishing Treating Preventing

Criminology Essays Punishing Treating PreventingPunishing Treating PreventingPunishing, treating and preventing offenseAn obvious uncertainty to pose regarding offenders is, how can they be prevented from recidivism? Examining the effectiveness of ways in which the discriminatory strategy responds to offenders will precisely enhance the understanding of how re offend can be removed.One of the mevery ways in which a legal system can respond to crime is by imprisoning an offender. Imprisonment can help oneself a number of possible functions including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and reform (Putwain and Sammons, 2002). Whether or non prison works is under constant review and there is lots disagreement on which of the possible functions should serve its purpose (Bottomley and Pease, 1986 Home Office, 1994 Zamble, 1990). in concert with questioning if it is an effective response to crime, there atomic number 18 numerous psychological do of shackles (Dooley, 1990 H eather, 1977 Rasch, 1981 Zamble and Porporino, 1988).Besides durance, legal systems all over the being have a variety of other means of punishing and rehabilitating offenders. unlike countries favour different methods but in Britain and the US, the most common forms of non-custodial sentences are fines (Caldwell, 1965 Feldman, 1993 Walker and Farringdon, 1981), probation (Oldfield, 1996 Roshier, 1995) and community service (Evans and Koederitz, 1983 Schneider, 1986). There is evidence that, for some offenders, these forms of sentence are at least as effective as chains and have a number of additional benefits. In grouchy, they are cheaper to trade than custodial sentences.You can get expert help with your essays right now. become out moreThe various custodial and non-custodial measures employed by discriminative systems are designed to serve a number of purposes of which rehabilitation is only one. The failure of judicial sanctions to make a significant difference to crime r ate (Lipsey, 1992) has prompted a number of psychologists to put forward rehabilitation programmes found on psychological principles. These differ from judicial sanctions in two key ways (Putwain and Sammons, 2002). Firstly, their take is solely to reduce the probability of reoffending, rather than unrelenting justice on the offender.Secondly, they are based on psychological theories of offending instead of the notions of human nature on which judicial sanctions are very much based. A large number of these interventions have been tried, however those demeanoral and cognitive treatments for offending have had the most conquest for instance token economies (Ayllon and Milan, 1979 Cohen and Filipcjak, 1971 Hobbs and Holt, 1976), sociable skills training (Blackburn, 1993 Goldstein, 1986 Spence and Marzillier, 1981) and fury focal point (Ainsworth, 2000 Novaco, 1975).All such measures, both judicial and psychological are forms of crime taproom insofar as they aim to prevent of fenders from committing further crimes. However, this is only one approach to preventing crime and is not what is usually meant by crime prevention. Brantingham and Faust (1976) have made a multipurpose distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary crime prevention.Primary prevention refers to reducing opportunities for crime without reference to the individuals who commit it. Zero tolerance (Bratton, 1998 Sherman, 1997 Wilson and Kelling, 1982) together with environmental approaches such as closed circuit television inspection (Burrows, 1980 Horne, 1996), target hardening and defensible space ( tenderman, 1973 Feldman, 1993 Wilson, 1980) are examples. Secondary prevention refers to measures directed at those at risk of becoming involved in crime to prevent them from doing so. Tertiary prevention refers to preventing further criminal behaviour by those who have already offended such as anger management.It is evident that that the utility of judicial measures in preventing r eoffending is limited. In particular, for most offenders, imprisonment seems to be no more effective than non-custodial sentencing, which may be seen as preferable, as it is cheaper for the authorities and less detrimental to the offender. There has been inadequate supremacy with psychological interventions, though cognitive-behavioural techniques appear to be more effective than rigorously behavioural techniques.Finally, it appears that the large range of crime prevention strategies that reduce the incidence of offending have a key impact in diminish crime in a particular area. Nevertheless, there is evidence that such crime is simply displaced to other areas. Rigorous enforcement of the law, even for minor offences suggests a reduction in crime but only if used in conjunction with other measures to improve the quality of policing in a particular area. Whilst all such measures have some impact albeit minimal in many cases, none can justifiably be called a firmness to the problem of crime.ReferencesAinsworth, P. B. (2000) psychology and criminal offence Myths and Reality. Harlow Pearson EducationAyllon, T. and Milan, M. A. (1979) Correctional rehabilitation and management a psychological approach. New York Wiley.Blackburn, R. (1993) The Psychology of woeful Conduct. Chichester John Wiley and SonsBratton, W. J. (1998) umbrage is down to in New York City Blame the police in N.Dennis (ed.) Zero Tolerance Policing in a Free Society. London IEA wellness and Welfare Unit.Cohen, H. L. and Filipcjak, J. (1971) A new learning environment. San Francisco Jossey Boss.Bottomley, K. and Pease, K. (1986) Crime and punishment understand the data. Milton Keynes Open University Press.Brantingham, P. J. and Faust, F. L. (1976) A conceptual model of crime prevention Crime and Delinquency, 22, 130-146.Burrows, J. (1980) Closed circuit television and crime on the London metro inR.V.G. Clarke and P. Mayhew (eds) Designing Out Crime. London HMSO.Caldwell, R. G. (1965) Crimin ology (2nd Ed). New York Ronald Press.Evans, R. C. and Koederitz, G. D. (1983) The requirement of comeback for juvenile offenders an alternative disposition Journal of Offender Counselling, Services and Rehabilitation, 7, 1-20.Feldman, P. (1993) The Psychology of Crime. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Heather, N. (1977) Personal illness in lifers and the effects of long-term intermediate sentences British Journal of Criminology, 17, 378-386.Hobbs, T. R. and Holt, M. N. (1976) The effects of token reinforcement on the behaviour of delinquents in cottage settings Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 9, 189-198.Home Office (1994) Criminal Statistics. London Home Office.Horne, C. J. (1996) The case for CCTV should be introduced International Journal of Risk, certification and Crime Prevention, 1, 317-326.Lipsey, J. W. (1992) Juvenile delinquency treatment a meta-analytical enquiry into the unevenness of effects in T. Cook (ed.) Meta-Analysis for Explanation A Casebook. New Yor k Russel acute Foundation.Newman, O. (1973) Defensible Space crime prevention through urban design. New York. Macmillan.Novaco, R. W. (1975) Anger Control. the development and evaluation of an experimental treatment. Lexington D.C. Health.Oldfield, M. (1996) The Kent Reconviction Survey. Maidstone Kent Probation Service.Putwain, D. W. and Sammons, A. (2001) Psychology. London Letts EducationalRasch, W. (1981) The effects of indeterminate detention a study of men sentenced to life imprisonment International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 4, 417-431.Roshier, R. (1995) A comparative study of reconviction rates in Cleveland.Middlesbrough Cleveland Probation Service.Schneider, A. L. (1986) Restitution and recidivism rates of juvenile offenders results from four experimental studies Criminology, 24, 533-552.Sherman, L. (1997) Policing for crime prevention in L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D.MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter and S. Bushway (eds) Preventing crime what Works, what doesnt, whats pro mising. Report to the United States relative prepared for the National Institute of Justice http//www.preventingcrime.org/Spence, S. H. and Marzillier, J. S. (1981) Social skills training with juvenile male offenders II Short term, long term and generalisation effects Behaviour Research and Therapy, 19, 349-368.Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. W. (1982) Broken Windows Atlantic Monthly, 249 (3), 29-38.Walker, N. and Farringdon, D. P. (1981) Reconviction rates of adult males afterward different sentences British Journal of Criminology, 21, 357-360.Zamble, E. (1990) Behavioural and psychological considerations in the success of prison reform in J .W. Murphy and J. E. Dison (Eds) Are Prisons any better? 20 years of prison reform. Newbury Park, CA Sage.Zamble, E. and Porporino, F. J. (1988) Coping, behaviour and version in prison inmates. Berlin Springer-Verlag.