Traditional versus evidence-based crime policy effectiveness

Traditional Crime Policy

Over the last several decades, the policy approach that is used in enforcing the law has been increasingly brought to the forefront. This is because there has been a sharp rise in the crime rates around the world since the end of World War II. At first, these increases were believed to be a part of the adverse changes from the war and its impact on society. (Gilling)

However, by the 1950s it was obvious that society was facing tremendous challenges with these rates. In response, a series of studies were conducted to effectively deal with the root causes of criminal activity (by focusing on the pathology of the individual). This created heated debates between traditional and evidence based advocates, who believed that the current approach can address these issues (by serving as a deterrent for everyone). (Gilling)

As a result, tough sentences were handed down to offenders in order to achieve these objectives. This resulted in the country facing massive increases in the total number of offenders inside the criminal justice system. Evidence of this can be seen in the below chart (which is highlighting the rate of these increases since 1980 (based upon Justice Department figures).

To address these issues, many advocates of evidence-based crime are calling for a new approach. This is leading to increased debates about the policies for dealing with these challenges. To determine which strategy is the most effective requires: comparing traditional and evidence-based crime policies. This will highlight the benefits of making this kind of change and the potential challenges that will be encountered during the process. ("Key Facts at a Glance") (Gilling)

Traditional Crime Policies

Traditional policies are focused on preventing someone from becoming involved in criminal activities through a policy of deterrence. This is when the law clearly defined what activities are considered to be illegal. Anyone who violated these regulations was subject to strict penalties. Several of the different laws that fall under this theory include: prostitution, murder, rape, robbery, assault / battery and the possession of illegal substance. The basic idea is to have these kinds of policies can change the behavior of criminals. (Gilling) (Walker)

During the court proceedings, the standards for proving someone guilty are based upon: eyewitness testimony, the evidence that is collected from the crime scene and any other information. The combination of these factors is used to demonstrate if the perpetrator is guilty in a jury trial. (Gilling) (Walker)

When this occurs, they will more than likely face long jail sentences with little to no support in reforming the individual. This is illustrating how the traditional approach is seen as one that will punish criminals for their actions. It is at this point that many people will think twice about becoming involved in something that is considered to be illegal. (Gilling) (Walker)

Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Walker (2011) who said, "In the past, criminal justice practitioners operated on instinct and assumption, not science. They tried new approaches, because they sounded as though they should be effective. But, it did not occur to them to examine the research before they instituted a new technique or to measure its effectiveness when deploying it. In short good policies are not enough; sound policies require solid evidence." This is illustrating how the traditional approach for dealing with criminal activity is to go after the perpetrators. The way this is accomplished is to give investigators tremendous latitude when implementing these practices. (Walker)

As a result, this has led to high numbers of incarnations and repeat offenders. The reason why is because many programs are launched with the best of intentions. However, law enforcement officials do not conduct any kind of critical research to determine if this will serve as an effective deterrent. When this happens, these programs will be ineffective, which is leading to an increase in arrests and incarceration rates. (Walker)

Traditional vs. Evidence-Based Crime Policies

The biggest disparities between these policies are that the traditional approach is designed to aggressively enforce the law. This is giving the police large areas to operate when achieving these objectives. At the heart of this approach, is to use punishment as a deterrent in preventing someone from becoming involved in criminal activity. Moreover, there is a lack of research conducted when implementing any kind of program for addressing potential challenges. This is illustrating how these procedures are designed to serve as a way of forcing everyone to obey the law (through dissuasion). (Walker) (Gilling)

While evidence-based policies, are focusing on understanding the root causes of crime. This means that there is an emphasis on reform and limiting the total amounts of tough sentences that are handed down. Furthermore, there is a concentration on understanding the effectiveness of various programs. This is accomplished by conducting research to see if these kinds of initiatives can reach the overall objectives (prior to implementing them). (Walker) (Gilling)

These areas are showing how evidence-based polices want to see the effectiveness of all programs. This is different from the traditional approach that is often limited in scope by: focusing on punishment and how this can help to deter someone. These disparities are illustrating how a new strategy is evolving to address the underlying challenges of traditional procedures in crime and punishment. (Walker) (Gilling)