Monday, June 3, 2019

Criminology Essays Punishing Treating Preventing

Criminology Essays Punishing Treating PreventingPunishing Treating PreventingPunishing, treating and preventing aversionAn obvious question to pose regarding offenders is, how tush they be prevented from recidivism? Examining the effectiveness of ways in which the legal system responds to offenders will only enhance the understanding of how reoffending can be removed.One of the many ways in which a juridical system can respond to crime is by imprisoning an offender. Imprisonment can serve a number of possible functions including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and reform (Putwain and Sammons, 2002). Whether or not prison kit and boodle is under constant review and there is much disagreement on which of the possible functions should serve its purpose (Bottomley and Pease, 1986 Home Office, 1994 Zamble, 1990). Together with questioning if it is an effective repartee to crime, there be numerous psychological effects of imprisonment (Dooley, 1990 Heather, 1977 Rasch, 1981 Zamble and Porporino, 1988).Besides imprisonment, legal systems all over the world postulate a variety of former(a) means of punishing and rehabilitating offenders. Different 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 consequence that, for some offenders, these forms of sentence are at least as effective as imprisonment and have a number of additional benefits. In particular proposition, they are cheaper to administer than custodial sentences.You can get expert help with your essays right now. Find out to a greater extentThe various custodial and non-custodial measures employed by judicial systems are designed to serve a number of purposes of which rehabilitation is only one. The failure of judicial sanctions to make a significan t difference to crime rate (Lipsey, 1992) has prompted a number of psychologists to put forward rehabilitation programmes based on psychological principles. These differ from judicial sanctions in two important ways (Putwain and Sammons, 2002). Firstly, their engender is solely to reduce the probability of reoffending, rather than exacting justice on the offender.Secondly, they are based on psychological theories of offending instead of the notions of human spirit on which judicial sanctions are often based. A large number of these interventions have been tried, however those demeanoural and cognitive treatments for offending have had the most achievement for instance token economies (Ayllon and Milan, 1979 Cohen and Filipcjak, 1971 Hobbs and Holt, 1976), social skills training (Blackburn, 1993 Goldstein, 1986 Spence and Marzillier, 1981) and anger management (Ainsworth, 2000 Novaco, 1975).All such measures, both judicial and psychological are forms of crime prevention up to no w as they aim to prevent offenders 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 useful 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) in concert with environmental approaches such as closed circuit television surveillance (Burrows, 1980 Horne, 1996), target hardening and defensible space (Newman, 1973 Feldman, 1993 Wilson, 1980) are examples. Secondary prevention refers to measures tell 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 reoffending 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 success with psychological interventions, though cognitive-behavioural techniques appear to be more effective than purely behavioural techniques.Finally, it appears that the large range of crime prevention strategies that reduce the incidence of offending have a key clash in decreasing 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 small 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 solution to th e chore of crime.ReferencesAinsworth, P. B. (2000) Psychology and Crime 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 Criminal Conduct. Chichester John Wiley and SonsBratton, W. J. (1998) Crime is down to in New York City Blame the police in N.Dennis (ed.) Zero Tolerance Policing in a Free Society. London IEA Health and Welfare Unit.Cohen, H. L. and Filipcjak, J. (1971) A recent learning environment. San Francisco Jossey Boss.Bottomley, K. and Pease, K. (1986) Crime and punishment interpreting 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 Underground inR.V.G. Clarke and P. Mayhew (eds) Designing Out Crime. London HMSO.Caldwell, R. G. (1965) Crimi nology (2nd Ed). New York Ronald Press.Evans, R. C. and Koederitz, G. D. (1983) The requirement of restitution for juvenile offenders an alternative disposition Journal of wrongdoer 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, pledge and Crime Prevention, 1, 317-326.Lipsey, J. W. (1992) Juvenile delinquency treatment a meta-analytical enquiry into the variability of effects in T. Cook (ed.) Meta-Analysis for Explanation A Casebook. New York Russel Sage Foundation.Newman, O. (1973) defendable 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 postponement 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 evaluate in Cleveland.Middlesbrough Cleveland Probation Service.Schneider, A. L. (1986) Restitution and recidivism rank 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 promising. Report to the United States Congress prepared for the National Institute of rightness http//www.preventingcrime.org/Spence, S. H. and Marzillier, J. S. (1981) Social skills training with adolescent 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 after 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) argon Prisons any better? 20 years of prison reform. Newbury Park, CA Sage.Zamble, E. and Porporino, F. J. (1988) Coping, behaviour and adaptation in prison inmates. Berlin Springer-Verlag.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.