Unit 4: AC 3.2- describe the contribution of agencies to achieving social control

Alternative transcript:

offenders can conceal themselves in. 3. A safe image- building designs that give the impression of a safe neighbourhood and residents who look after each other. A negative image means the area will be stigmatised and targeted by offenders. A safe location- a neighbourhood in the middle of a wider crime-free area is insulated from the world by a 'moat' of safety. 2. Defensible space: Newman- argues some spaces are defensible, some indefensible. Indefensible- where more crime occurs, like anonymous walkways that are owned/observed/cared for by no one. Defensible- areas with clear boundaries, it's obvious who has the right to be there. These areas have low rates of crime. 4 features of defensible spaces: 4. CPTED example- gated lanes: Gated lanes are lockable gates that prevent offender gaining access to alleyways, like those behind old terraced homes. These are used to prevent burglary, and may also stop fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour. Sidebottom et al- reviewed 43 studies and found gates reduced burglary rates because: 1. They're a physical barrier that increases the effort in committing crime. 2. They increase reside sense of territoriality. 3. Offender can no longer claim they thought it was a public space. Environmental design 4. They avoid the broken windows problem by indicated that the area is a cared-for space that doesn't tolerate crime. 5. Gating reduces the rewards of crime, like stealing large objects is harder when trying to go climb over tall gates. Limitations: Gates don't work against criminals who live in the gated area. Areas where neighbours don't get along/know each other may not come together to install and take responsibility for gates. Gated lanes may restrict access in emergencies. ● ● ● ● ● CPTED & right realist theories: Situational Crime Prevention- target hardening, where the physical environment is changed to make it harder to commit crime. Felson's theory- emphasises the need for a 'capable guardian' who protects potential crime targets. CPTED uses neighbour's surveillance as the guardian. Rational choice theory- CPTED sees offenders as acting rationally, so if intruders fear being challenged by residents, they won't commit the crime. Criticisms of CPTED: They focus too much on outsider's crime and ignores insider crime like domestic violence. CPTED can't prevent offences that don't intrude physically, like fraud and white collar crime. Some housing estates have high crime rates because of housing allocation policies, so 'problem families' are all placed together on 'sink' estates. Prison design: Foucault's panopticon theory shows how environmental design can also be used to prevent crime in prison. The panopticon has all prison cells visible to the guards in the watchtower. Prisoners never know if the guards are watching, so will constantly behave as though they're being watched- which can prevent crime. ● ● 1. Anti-social Behaviour Orders: ASBOS were introduced by Blair's New Labour government in 1998 to deal with low level anti-social behaviour, like vandalism, graffiti, public drunkenness and youths playing loud music at night. They were civil orders used to restrain someone from committing actions that threaten someone else's legal rights, like stopping them from behaving noisily outside houses at night. Breaching ASBO conditions was a criminal offence & could be punished wit up to 5yrs in prison. Labelling theory & ASBOS: ASBOS were not working- between 2000-13, ASBOS were issued to over 24,000 people, yet 58% of the breached their conditions. Labelling theorists- argue labelling people as criminal and deviant can cause a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is where the internalise the label as part of their identity, living up to it and earning status trough crime. Theorists say ASBOS became a badge of honour for young offenders, which reinforced their actions instead of preventing them. What is it? Token economy is a behaviour modification programme often used by prisons and young offender institutions. It aims to achieve social control by reshaping inmates' behaviour patterns to conform. Operant learning theory: Skinner's operant learning theory is the basis for token economy, with the idea being if a certain behaviour results in a reward, the behaviour is likely to be repeated. 2. Criminal Behaviour Orders: The Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaces ASBOs due to critics, with 2 new measures: civil injunctions & Criminal Behaviour Orders. • Injunctions- deal with low level nuisance and annoyance, breaching an injunction can mean up to 3yrs prison for adults or a 3-month detention order for under 18s. Criminal Behaviour Orders- CBOS deal with serious anti-social individuals who cause harassment/harm/distress. They last at least 2yrs for adults and 1-2yrs for under 18s. Breaching can mean 5yrs prison for adults and 2yrs detention for under 18s. ● They have positive and negative requirements: Negative-CBOS forbids a person from doing something like going places, seeing people, etc. Positive- unlike an ASBO, CBOS can make someone do something to improve their behaviour, like someone involved in drugs going to treatment. ASBOS & Criminal Behaviour Orders: Behavioural tactics Token economies: Social control: A token economy aims to achieve social control by establishing desirable behaviours such as: Obeying the rules. Positive interactions with staff/inmates. Staying drug-free. Joining in purposeful activity like vocational training and anger management. If prisoners behave in the desired way, they earn a token, which can be exchanged for rewards like extra phone calls, a TV in their cell, spending more of the money they earned, etc. How effective are token economies? Some studies show the positive effects of token economies. Hobbs & Holt- study of 125 boys ages 12-15 in a USA correctional institution found that behaviour changes lasted through the 14 month study. However- other studies find once the offender leaves prison and reinforcement stops, the desired behaviours stop too. Though it should be notes token economy offenders return to crime slower than other offenders. ● ● ● Prison rules: The prison service has set prison rules that apply to all prisons, though a prisoner governor can add local rules for their prison: ● ● ● The courts: Courts can sentences offenders to various punishments for their offences. ● Sentences can be used to achieve both individual and general deterrence, as punishing an offender puts them off committing further crime while also being a lesson to the public. Courts can also use Community Orders that require offenders to rehabilitate, such as drug treatment. The aim here is to change their behaviour patterns. Offending, hurting or threatening someone. Stopping staff from ding their jobs. Escaping prison. Using drugs/alcohol. Damaging the prison. Possessing forbidden items like knives. Being somewhere in the prison you shouldn't be. Not doing as staff tell you. ● ● Institutional tactics The probation service: This service supervises and monitor offenders' behaviour, whether they're serving a community sentence or have been released on licence. The offender can be returned to prison r court for re- sentencing is they don't meet their licence requirements. What breaking rules leads to: A caution. Loss of earned privileges. ● ● Phased discipline: This is a common way of trying to achieve social control. A first offence is often dealt with more leniently, such as a police caution or conditional discharge. Repeat offending, more so if it's serious, is often met with stronger sanctions like probation or prison- so that future behaviour is deterred. Solitary confinement. Prevented from working/being paid for working. Punishments are time-limited, like confinement up to 35 days. More serious offences can add up to 42 days to your sentence, and attempts to escape can have you sent to a higher security prison. State agencies of social control such as the police, CPS, courts, prisons and probation service all achieve some level of social control, though never complete. Reasons for this are: 1. Resources 2. New technology 3. Unreported crime 4. Existing laws ● ● ● New technology: There's an extra burden imposed on criminal investigations by technology, which makes state agencies less able to achieve social control. In 2018, the head of CPS said the CJS was creaking, unable to cope with the huge amounts of data generated by technology. ● ● ● ● There have also been problems checking phones for evidence, leading to failure to disclose evidence and a fall in the number of rape/sexual assault charges. The cost of tech such as DNA profiling can also be a limitation on the police's ability to investigate offences. Resources: The funds for state social control agencies mainly comes from the taxes we pay. There are limits on how much the public is willing to pay for these agencies, meaning governments face competing demands for resources from other sectors, such as the NHS, education and welfare state. Budget cuts: After the 2008 financial crisis, government spending cuts and re-organisations have reduced the effectiveness in state agencies maintenance of social control. Between 2010-18: Police budget- cut by 19%, causing a fall of 20,000 in police numbers. CPS budget- but by a quarter and 1/3 of staff was lost. Prisons- budget fell by 16%, staff fell by 15%. Gaps in state provision Unreported crime: Criminal justice agencies can only investigate/prosecute/convict offenders if their crime has been reported in the first place. Only 40% of crimes are reported to police. Only 4 rapes/attempted rapes are reported. ~2.3M domestic abuse cases happened in 2019-20, only 759,000 were recorded. White collar and corporate crimes are often unreported because victims don't know that they're victims. ● Existing laws: Social control by criminal justice agencies can only be achieved by having the appropriate laws in the first place. If a new type of harm occurs and there's no existing law that forbids it, state agencies aren't able to control the harmful behaviour. Social media and the law: There's debate around the responsibilities of social platforms for the offensive/harmful content that appears on them. EG: a right-wing terrorist massacred 51 Muslims in New Zealand while on a Facebook livestream. Because social media companies claim they aren't the publisher of the content on their platform, they can't be prosecuted for the material on their sites. However, Germany enacted a law in 2017 that makes platforms quickly remove hate speech, illegal material, etc or face a 50M euro fine.