Preventing Crime

A Holistic Approach

Tore Bjørgo

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781137560476
• eBook ISBN: 9781137560483
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Traditional "schools" of crime prevention, like the criminal justice model, social crime prevention or situational crime prevention, have proved to be too narrow and do not combine well with other approaches. However, each of these models provides important insights and contributions for reducing crime. By extracting the main preventive mechanisms of these diverse approaches, this book develops a more holistic, general model that consists of nine preventive mechanisms: building normative barriers to crime, reducing recruitment, deterrence, disruption, incapacitation, protecting vulnerable targets, reducing benefits of crime, reducing harm, and facilitating desistance.
The measures to activate the preventive mechanisms may differ according to the type of crime, as may the actors in charge of implementing the relevant measures. However, Tore Bjørgodemonstrates how his model of crime prevention can be effectively applied to diverse forms of crime, from domestic burglaries to criminal youth gangs and driving under the influence to organized crime and terrorism. In doing so, this important book will be of interest to scholars and students of policing, security studies and criminology, as well as practitioners and policy-makers.

1

Introduction: A Comprehensive Model for Preventing Crime

Combating crime and preventing crime are two sides of the same coin: preventing criminal acts occurring or preventing them from occurring again. Nonetheless, people commonly think of prevention as primarily being about “soft” measures aimed principally at children and young people, while “real” crime fighting involves collecting intelligence, making arrests, investigating and punishing after criminal acts have been committed. This is a narrow, old-fashioned and not particularly productive approach.

This book aims to develop a general, comprehensive model for preventing crime. The model integrates traditional social and individual-oriented crime prevention, the situational prevention strategy of making it harder to commit crimes, combating crime via the criminal justice system, and societal security and risk management perspectives.

The general model can, in principle, be used to prevent all forms of crime, from terrorism to domestic violence, youth crime, driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants and domestic burglary. The concept of “prevention” is used here in a broad sense to mean reducing the occurrence of future criminal acts and reducing the harm caused by crime.

We can never eradicate crime completely – it is part of the human condition. Yet we can reduce the frequency and the impacts of crime to levels we can live with – at least at a societal level. However, we should keep in mind that for some direct victims of crime, the consequences and harm can be unbearable even if the crime rate drops to more “acceptable levels”.

The police are of course a key actor in the area of crime prevention, if only one of many actors. They have a substantial, but nonetheless limited, repertoire of means at their disposal. Many of the measures for preventing crime can be found in the toolboxes of other public agencies, voluntary organisations, businesses, schools, parents or other actors in civil society. These various prevention actors must therefore understand their role in relation to the roles played by others and how they can work together with other prevention actors to help reduce various crime problems.

The objective is to develop a comprehensive model for preventing crime in which various sub-strategies and measures can interact and complement each other, and in which the prevention roles performed by different actors within the various sub-strategies are clarified. The model will be described in detail in relation to five completely different forms of crime in order to demonstrate that it is applicable to crime in general and that taking a prevention approach to combating all forms of crime is productive. Another goal is for the model to be as intuitive, self-evident and practical as possible.

At the centre of this model lies the concept of crime prevention mechanisms, which are simple explanatory models that explain how a measure can lead to a reduction in a crime problem. The study identifies nine different general prevention mechanisms that can, in principle, be applied to all forms of crime:¹

• Establishing and maintaining normative barriers to committing criminal acts;

• Reducing recruitment to criminal social environments and activities by eliminating or reducing the social and individual causes and processes that lead to criminality;

• Deterring potential perpetrators from committing crimes through the threat of punishment;

• Disrupting criminal acts by stopping them before they are carried out;

• Protecting vulnerable targets by reducing opportunities and make it more demanding to carry out criminal acts;

• Reducing the harmful consequences of criminal acts;

• Reducing the rewards from criminal acts;

• Incapacitating (or neutralising) perpetrators by denying them the ability (capacity) to carry out new criminal acts; and

• Encouraging desistance from crime and rehabilitating former offenders so they are able to settle back into a normal life.

These mechanisms will be described in more detail later in this chapter and in more specificity in relation to various forms of crime in subsequent chapters. These nine prevention mechanisms are generic (or general) – that is, they apply across the various forms of crime, even if they may be described in slightly different ways depending on the type of crime. However, the measures that can activate these mechanisms and who has the relevant measures at their disposal vary according to the type of crime involved. This is why the model must be described specifically for the various forms of crime in order to apply it as a comprehensive prevention strategy for a specific crime problem or, more concretely, to prevent or reduce specific types of criminal acts.

Definitions of concepts, theoretical models and analytical approaches

When these general mechanisms are specified in relation to concrete forms of crime, they can be viewed as nine strategy components or sub-strategies that together form a single, comprehensive, overarching strategy for preventing these various forms of crime. The main questions we have to ask in relation to each form of crime we look at are: How do the various prevention mechanisms work to reduce this crime problem? What measures can be used to activate these mechanisms? Who are the measures aimed at (entire populations, risk groups, problem groups or victims) and who has the measures at their disposal and are thus the principal actors in implementing the strategy? The study also examines the strengths and weaknesses, as well as the limitations and side effects, of the various measures. Finally, it discusses the need to balance and coordinate the various sub-strategies to ensure they complement and reinforce each other as much as possible, rather than the short-term and long-term strategies undermining and counteracting each other.

Key analytical terms in this study are crime, prevention, strategy, mechanisms, measures, context and holistic.

Crime or criminal acts can, from a legal perspective, be understood as breaches of standards of behaviour that are laid down in law (Wikström 2014: 75). Such offences usually qualify for a criminal sanction. However, deciding which acts should be deemed criminal is a far more complex discussion. The acts that are defined as criminal vary greatly over time and from country to country. For example, acts that are criminalised under current Norwegian law were until recently not illegal in Norway, and are still permissible in many other countries. Examples of these include corporal punishment for children, buying sexual services or paying bribes in connection with business transactions abroad. Some acts that used to be against the law have been decriminalised in some countries, but not in others. These include, for example, sexual relationships between people of the same sex or using various types of intoxicants. Other acts are criminal in some social contexts, but permitted in other contexts. Punching someone in the face with your fist is a crime if you do it on the street, but is permitted if you do it as part of a regulated form of martial arts in a boxing ring (Riches 1986).

Crime prevention is about reducing the occurrence of future criminal acts and/or their harmful consequences. I will argue for a broad and inclusive approach to crime prevention. This is contrary to some other scholars in the field. Welsh and Farrington (2012a: 4) maintain that “crime prevention is best viewed as an alternative approach to reducing crime, operating outside the formal justice system. Developmental, community and situational approaches define its scope”. These authors also embraced the following statement by Peter Lejins (1967): “If societal action is motivated by an offense that has already taken place, we are dealing with control; if the offense is only anticipated, we are dealing with prevention”. In contrast, I hold that criminal justice prevention through law-making (as norm-setting), deterrence and incapacitation is oriented towards reducing future crime and should thus be viewed as integral to a broad approach to preventing crime. I will also argue that harm reduction is within the field of crime prevention, as long as it is based on preparations to reduce future harm. This is supported by Paul Ekblom (2005: 28) who stated that “crime prevention is intervention in the causes of criminal and disorderly events to reduce the risks of their occurrence and/or the potential seriousness of their consequences.” Steven Lab (2015: 27) also emphasises reducing victimisation in his definition: “Crime prevention entails any action designed to reduce the actual level of crime and/or the perceived fear of crime.” Thus, it is the future-orientated aspects of criminal justice and harm reduction which makes it useful to include them, along with social and situational approaches, in a broad view on crime prevention. These and other perspectives on prevention will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Strategy is here about putting the available measures and resources into an action plan to achieve a specified effect, for example to reduce a specified actor’s capacity to carry out certain acts of crime, such as terrorist attacks or driving under the influence. Strategies are therefore based on conceptions of certain mechanisms – a process in which some factors or measures influence other elements and bring about a specific effect (Elster 1998; Eck 2005: 707–712; Tilley 2009: 4–6). In other words, a preventive mechanism is an explanatory model which is intended to describe how certain measures can create a crime-reducing outcome. The theory behind the social mechanism concept and how it can be applied in crime prevention is discussed in more detail below.

Measures are the means, methods or deliberate courses of action implemented to activate a specific mechanism and through this they produce an intended effect. Measures can be anything from grand programmes to simple but targeted acts, for example making an arrest or installing a burglar alarm. However, it is important to note that such measures may have unintended side effects as they may also activate mechanisms other than the intended ones (Elster 1998). For example, heavy-handed repressive measures to deter violent activism or incapacitate activists may provoke anger and increase recruitment to violent extremist groups. It is important to differentiate between a strategy/mechanism and the measures used to activate it. The same measures (e.g. arrest) can trigger different mechanisms (e.g. deterrence, disruption or incapacitation) and thus be included in several prevention strategies at the same time, but have a different preventive function in each of these strategies. Similarly, different measures can activate the same mechanisms, such that both a wailing burglar alarm and the intervention of a vigilant neighbour can help to disrupt a domestic burglary.

The context is the totality of the situation you want to produce a change in and where the measures will be implemented. There may be factors of significance on a macro level, such as conflicts in other parts of the world or corrupt authorities at a national level. These can also be on a meso level, such as conflicts between rival groups, high unemployment and ghettoisation in local communities. Or there may be factors on a micro level, such as (a lack of) social capital, motivation to change or other personal qualities of individuals you want to steer away from a criminal or extremist path. Furthermore, the qualities of the prevention actors are of great significance when it comes to the degree to which their measures have the desired effects: which profession implements the relevant measures (e.g. the police, youth workers, religious leaders or teachers), their personal qualities, and the degree to which they (as a professional group or individuals) have gained or can gain the trust of the target group at which the effort is aimed. Factors on a macro or meso level (e.g. military intervention or a case of brutal police violence) can in some cases have serious consequences for relationships between prevention actors and target groups on a micro level, and thus for the effectiveness of the measures.

Another reason why it is important to distinguish between measures, preventive mechanisms and effects is that politicians or other prevention actors have a tendency, according to their interests or ideological standpoints, to promote one specific type of measure. This is often done without a clear conception of how this particular measure will bring about the desired outcome,² and without evaluating the potential negative side effects. The visibility of the measures often becomes more important that the results they produce and how the measures could perhaps produce these results. Politicians also have a tendency to be more interested in short-term results rather than effects in the long term.

When I use the term holistic crime prevention approach, it refers to a comprehensive approach which makes use of all the nine preventive mechanisms and their relevant measures, as opposed to narrow approach to crime prevention, which put all efforts into one single or a limited range of mechanisms and measures, for example relying on a criminal justice strategy for reducing crime, with punishment as the main measure.

Theoretical considerations on prevention mechanisms

The model of preventive mechanisms presented in this book is derived from general theories on social mechanisms as explanations of causation in social processes and systems (Elster 1989; Hedström and Swedberg 1998; Bunge 2004). In criminology, mechanism-based approaches have been developed to explain criminal behaviour (Wikström and Sampson 2003; Pauwels, Ponsaers and Svensson 2010; Wikström et al. 2012) as well as for providing a theoretical basis for crime prevention (Tilley 2009).

A mechanism is an explanatory model which is intended to explain which causal relationships we regard as being active, or how a measure brings about an outcome (Elster 1998; Hedström and Swedberg 1998: 7–9, 22–23). The mechanism can be understood as that which links a cause to an effect (Mahoney 2003; Wikström and Sampson 2003) or how the processes in a system work, or what is inside the “black box” of causation (Bunge 2004: 186). Social mechanisms are not usually directly observable. They are rather postulates based on a theory that establishes the probability of how something affects something else. Social mechanisms do not follow laws of physical necessity: they are more likely to work under some conditions and less likely under others, and there is often uncertainty about whether or not they will work in specific situations or in relation to specific people. Thus, social mechanisms are context-dependent.

One example of this is the assumption that the threat of punishment deters individuals from committing crimes because they (presumably) will make a rational assessment, weighting up the costs against any benefits, which in turn can reduce motivation. The actual mechanism here is a mental process – a deliberation that takes place in the minds of the actors. However, it is far from certain that everyone will end up making the same decision. Traits with the person as well as the situation (context) may influence the outcome (Pawson and Tilley 1997: 55–82; Wikström 2014: 77). A person who is intoxicated may not make the same rational decision about costs and benefits of committing a crime as when that person is sober. Some mechanisms lie in the interaction between individuals and their social or physical environment and may be more directly observable. For example, a repeat offender may be denied the ability to commit new crimes by being detained behind prison walls, which effectively prevents him/her from carrying out criminal acts in society. When the terrorist was arrested and disarmed on Utøya island in Norway on 22 July 2011 after having killed 69 people (plus another eight in a bombing in Oslo earlier that day), he was stopped from continuing his massacre of children at the Norwegian Labour Youth camp by being disarmed and handcuffed. In this case the preventive mechanism is relatively observable and tangible. While some types of mechanism can be abstract or mental, other types of mechanism can be more concrete and observable.

Another example from the field of reducing car accidents shows that preventive mechanisms can also be both mental and physical, and that various measures and mechanisms can be used to achieve the same effect: signs stating “Overtaking prohibited” can be set up together with an unbroken line painted on the road to prevent head-on collisions in traffic. This measure triggers two preventive mechanisms that prevent most people from attempting to overtake: the establishment of a normative barrier (sufficient for some people) that it is wrong and thoughtless to overtake here, and deterrence (for those who are not stopped by norms) in that they refrain from performing the act out of a fear of being fined by the police. These mechanisms will be sufficient for most drivers, but some will still not allow themselves to be stopped by these. Therefore, a physical barrier can be constructed between the lanes, which makes it almost impossible to overtake even if you want to. In this case the mechanism is a form of incapacitation. It eliminates a person’s ability to carry out an undesirable act. The first “barrier” against crossing the centre line consists of men...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Foreword by Professor Lieven J. R. Pauwels
• Series Editor’s Introduction
• Preface
• 1. Introduction: A Comprehensive Model for Preventing Crime
• 2. Domestic Burglary
• 3. Violent Youth Gangs
• 4. Organised Crime Originating from Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
• 5. Driving Under the Influence
• 6. Terrorism
• 7. Concluding Remarks on Application and Evaluation
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index