Crime Prevention and Control -

Crime Prevention and Control - U.S. Justice System and Proactive Policing

The prevention and control of crime have hounded American society despite the expanse of its economic and political power in the world. Stanford Professor Friedman traces the failure of the efforts of the U.S. criminal justice system in curbing or preventing crime to the Americans' well-entrenched cultural taboos of their Manifest Destiny as a superior people and their demand for individual freedom and rights. From these taboos grew out prison buildings, the police, the courts, more severe court sentences and the celebrity culture. With the persistently increasing crime rates, preventive measures, like preventive detention, were tried. But preventive detention did not work. President Johnson believed that the root causes of crime were racism, poverty and social injustice and provided funds for States and local governments to address these root causes. Congress passed three bills to support his initiative. But it was not until the 90s that a workable alternative to crime prevention and control was introduced. Proactive or community policing actively involves the citizens in preventing or solving crimes through non-punitive or adversarial procedures. The proactive movement has earned the cooperation of prosecutors and other members of both the public and private sectors. When fully successful and accepted by the American public, it will make the U.S. The model in crime prevention and control.

Introduction

Americans pride themselves of their Manifest Destiny as a superior race and their individual freedom and rights. But crime rates in the midst of the practice of freedom continue to increase. Professor Friedman of the University of Stanford identified cultural taboos supporting this demand for individual freedom and rights as ultimately behind the unrestrained rise in crime rates. The existing criminal justice system is adversarial and punitive. Its crime prevention and control mainly deal with suppression. When this could not curtail crime, preventive detention was tried. Nonetheless, crime rates continue to increase till the late 70s. President Johnson offered the notion that the root causes of crime were racism, poverty and social injustice. He provided funds for the States and the local government in an effort at curbing these root causes. Congress also responded and signed bills to support President Johnson's initiative.

Discussion

But it was not until the 90s that a new concept was introduced. This was proactive or community policing, which would actively involve the citizens or the community in averting or settling conflicts. The concept is based on the philosophy that crime is the enemy of all relationships and its ultimate objective is to draw both sides of a conflict to a life of harmony. The proactive policing movement has made marked gains and, when fully accepted and ingrained into the mainstream, can make the U.S. The model in crime prevention and control.

A decade ago, Stanford University law professor and author of "Crime and Punishment in American History" said that cultural taboos stood on the way of reforms, aimed at lowering the crime rate (USA Today 1994). This was because many of these cultural taboos were entrenched in Americans' demand for individual freedom. Absolute curfews in other countries would be hard on burglars and their citizens and would be effective in controlling crime in those places. But most Americans would quickly object to such curtailment of their personal liberties and personal lives. Yet the continuous rise in the rate of serious crime could not be ignored. Measures were undertaken to respond to the situation while respecting cultural taboos. There had been more prison buildings erected. The courts imposed more severe sentences. Guidelines for mandatory punishments were issued and strictly followed. Putting more policemen, especially in crime-infested areas, was also proposed. Greater police presence would have an effect, but there could not be too many policemen for the sustained task. Gun control was another option but many believed that it would not work. People actually have an inclination to violence. Hence, genuine gun control was unlikely on account of the stated cultural taboos relating to the American demand for individual rights. Professor Friedman pointed to the celebrity culture, which worshipped a famous person, such as a rock or sports star or even a criminal who made fast money. The invention of television after World War II introduced this culture right into the home. Friedman said that people today had developed celebrity values, which inclined them away from graying Nobel Prize winners and corporate executives. Those who made the news by killing somebody became more enticing and people followed them through in the newspapers and television with interest (USA Today).

Whenever a heinous crime was committed, the initial reaction was to put the blame on everyone else (Doherty 1998). Taking stock of genocides, such as that in Rwanda, U.S. President Bill Clinton pointed to the international community's sharing in the responsibility and guilt. He said that evil was not in the irresponsibility of those who practice it but was the shame of everyone else who did not prevent it. If only the perpetrators should be blamed, governments could only arrest them, hold them for trial and punished, if found guilty. But if social forces, gun proliferation and violent television shows and movies were to blame, the police and the judges would not be enough. Programs, crusades and concerted government action to change the very nature of culture and society should be undertaken and set in place. In addition, real gun control, a revived economy, new forms of educational indoctrination and truly moral and brave leaders would be needed. It would need to address the one factor underneath individual mistakes, which were only the cumulative effects of bad decisions made by individuals in that social atmosphere of individual freedom. There would always be social forces that would influence an individual to commit a heinous crime, but self-restraint and prevention would also be within the scope of individual freedom. Instead of resorting to violence or a violation of law, the individual could avoid pregnancy, educate himself and become a self-sufficient person. These remained options to him despite the torrent of influences in society. He could opt to control his anger and become a positive, rather than a negative, force in society (Doherty).

That desired dramatic change in the U.S. criminal system occurred in the last decade (Robinson 2001). Its focus broadened from the traditional punishment of past crime to prevention of future crimes by imprisonment and control of dangerous offenders. Habitual offender laws impose life imprisonment on repeat offenders. Jurisdictional reforms lower the age at which young offenders can be tried as adults and increased terms of imprisonment beyond those provided by juvenile courts. Gang membership and recruitment became punishable under the law. The community became obliged to report the presence of a convicted sex offender. Sexual offenders could be subjected to civil detention even at the end of their criminal term, according to sexual predator laws. And the sentence of offenders with a prior criminal history would be increased, according to sentencing guidelines, as these offenders would most likely commit future crimes. The new emphasis on prevention may not have altered the way the criminal justice system presents itself in that it continues and must continue to impose punishment for the commission of crimes. "Punishment" means subjecting the offender to pain, loss or suffering on account of a crime or wrongdoing. But "dangerous" refers to a threat of future harm. A probable offender can be restrained, detained or incapacitated for being "dangerous" but his "dangerousness" cannot logically be punished Robinson).

Despite recent declines in the late 1970s, the violent crime rate was still three times higher that during the decade of World War II (Robinson 2001). Aggravated assault was almost four times the pre-War level as unbroken crime increases went up three times the level of the 50s. The emergence of juvenile crime with other unpredictable and unprecedented changes would negate those decreases in crime volume. Even if crime rates went down every year for the next three decades, people would remain apprehensive because of the changes in their lifestyle. Reducing crime rates to the level of the 50s would require a return to the lifestyle of that time if the freedom and sense of security of old must be re-established. But this would not be feasible or likely at this time, so the clamor for protection was directed at legislators who established the new trend of detaining dangerous offenders as a prevention of future crime. But this otherwise-praiseworthy attempt went in the wrong direction by perverting the justice process itself while proving to be a costly yet ineffective prevention-detention system. Punishment and prevention are different and separate functions with their respective criteria and procedure. The use of a single system to perform both functions would not work. It would be a mixed system wherein preventive detention would be cloaked as criminal justice. This would not achieve either justice or protection. There was no guarantee that a legislature or court would not abuse its power. That danger would be greatest if preventive detention was cloaked as criminal justice. But an open system of prevention could be the alternative. It would subject the court or legislature to closer and public scrutiny (Robinson).

President Lyndon Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice was viewed as the single and most influential postwar American criminal justice policy (Coles and Kelling 1999). Its wisdom, contained the policy's main report, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, published in 1967, swiftly transformed into conventional wisdom. It became the foundation for criminal justice policy in the 70s to the 90s. It recommended that the police firmly adhere to lawful procedures in handling offenders and the nation's criminal justice agencies, especially the police department, should improve their relations with minority communities. The Commission had important contributions, but its findings and conclusions were later challenged and even abandoned. It pointed to the police, prosecutors, jails, prisons, probation, parole, and the courts as comprising the criminal justice system, the function of which was to process cases. Only felonies like murder, rape, assault and robbery were considered serious and minor offenses, like public drunkenness and crimes without victims, were decriminalized. Only highly trained professionals could handle responses to crime. Citizens reported the crimes and acted as witnesses. And the prevention of crime, within this system, was to be performed through imprisonment and deterrence. The Commission also identified the root causes of crime as racism, poverty, and social injustice. It meant that the crime could become preventable if these root causes were effectively addressed through radical social change. Liberals shared that view. Conservatives claimed that the decline of the family structure and the erosion of traditional values should be reversed to eliminate or prevent crime (Coles and Kelling).

In the 70s, team policing as a community-based approach became popular (Coles and Kellling 1999). Foot patrols also became popular, as a result, and it was reported to have reduced fear. University of Wisconsin professor Herman Goldstein in 1979 suggested the adoption of an alternative philosophy of police being the problem-solvers rather than mere incident reactors. Prosecutors themselves got tired of the routine of imprisoning convicts and began to feel that they had to establish new roles. In the late 80s and early 90s, district attorneys and county prosecutors entered into more direct relationships with citizens in exploring these new roles in crime reduction and prevention. There evolved a new movement, called community prosecution, which caught the attention of prosecutors. Its goal of broadening their function from mere case processing or handling cases was not new. The American Bar Foundation in the 50s conducted a study on the routine, daily work of police, prosecutors, judges and corrections officers. It found that these officers managed intricate tasks by routinely using only their discretion in deciding the process and addressing the problems brought to them. There were expected errors in judgment, such as regarding minor offenses as serious felonies. Dropped charges could imply poor judgment in solving the problem, which should have been done outside the prosecution. The situation urged for an alternative to the traditional model of prosecutors as processors of felonies. These prosecutors saw what the police saw earlier that citizens wanted quality-of-life issues be taken seriously. The prosecutors began see the citizens' problems within a neighborhood or community context. They came to realize that citizens' problems required from them a broader scale of tactics than mere case processing (Coles and Kelling).

Community prosecution today is new concept, still evolving and defining itself (Coles and Kelling 1999). It has three common elements. Prosecutors are redefining their traditional mission to include crime prevention. They are moving away from the traditional reliance on criminal law and criminal prosecution and into developing a "problem-oriented" strategy. And they are collaborating more closely with other criminal justice agencies, the private sector and the citizens themselves in the community. Under the first, community prosecutors now view crime more broadly as including serious and violent crimes and low-level, quality-of-life offenses too. Along with this, prosecutors relate the public's fear to the crime itself. This means a greater emphasis on what citizens consider high-priority cases and offenders, whether street prostitutes, drug dealers or violent youth gangs. Under the second element, prosecutors will change and diversify their tactics. In addition to criminal prosecution, they will consider civil remedies for nuisances, for example; restraining orders for dangerous offenders, and working with local health and safety code enforcement. They are also hiring paralegal employees or non-lawyers who are better able to work on matters of public health, substance abuse treatment, social service, public relations, community organizing, marketing, journalism and crime prevention. Having become more creative in their tactics, community prosecutors can now set up community courts, drug diversion programs, substance-abuse clinics and children's advocacy centers. They can also secure funds and administer programs, which target or address crime and related issues of poverty, quality of life and housing developments. And under the third element, community prosecutors realize that they must work with citizens and others to jointly look out for priorities, approach crime within a community context, and encourage the same collaboration to ultimately reduce and prevent crime. Most of these prosecutors initiate the collaboration work, although their goal is for citizens to eventually assume responsibility for crime prevention and for prosecutors and police relegated in back-up position. These three elements are increasingly becoming visible in prosecutors' offices. Examples are the Safe Neighborhood Initiatives o SNIs in Boston, the Community Justice Task Force in Austin, a Children's Advocacy Center and Neighborhood Conference Committees set up District Attorney Ronald Earle; and the Justice Prosecution Program set up in August 1997 by County Prosecutor Claire McCaskill of Kansas. In each of these initiatives, prosecutors emphasize crime reduction, crime prevention, disturbing minor offenses and strengthening bonds with the rest of the citizens, other public agencies and community groups (Coles and Kelllng).

The growth of the community prosecution concept indicates that prosecutors, like the police before them, have been moving the boundaries of their functions by attempting to integrate case processing into crime prevention (Coles and Kelling 1999).Along with prosecutors, city attorneys, state attorneys-general and federal prosecutors have been adapting a problem-solving or community model in crime prevention and control. Probation and parole officers, courts and corrections personnel have also joined the stream. The involvement of district attorneys and country prosecutors is important to the development of this new crime-control concept and to the collaborative, community-based problem-solving initiatives for many reasons. Prosecutors wield

Power nd authority and enjoy an established and strategic position between the police and the courts, their contacts in the executive and legislative branches of government and the discretion they exercise. Their effects in cities where such projects or groups have been established reflect at least that their power can be as extensive as that of the police. The results of combined community policing and prosecution can be dramatic. The prosecutor is the most powerful locally elected justice official. He has the ability to convene the essential players in a case and secure resources from broth public and private sectors to be used in case or problem-solving (Coles and Kelling).

There has been increasing evidence that these community partnerships in crime prevention have been effective (Coles and Kelling 1999). Indications of their success are not limited to crime reduction. Businesses have also expressed willingness to resume or begin their reliable delivery services, clean and accessible parks, clean walls, the disappearance of prostitutes in the streets, controlled drug trafficking, and improved schools. Problems and questions concerning this new concept have, however, developed as well. With this shift to community prosecution, the prosecutor is empowered by taking him into the traditional realm of police. He now has direct contact with offenders and victims and with residents and other users in the community. His expanded tactics have increased his power over offenders through nuisance abatement suits, restraining orders, and other civil initiatives, which enable them to avoid the burden of proof and ignore constitutional protections applicable in criminal proceedings. Through their close work and coordination with police and citizens, the prosecutor can become over-zealous and forget his obligation to protect the rights of the accused and indicted. The prosecutor has no legal training in problem-solving or encouragement to become involved in community affairs. Nevertheless, community policing opens the police department to public scrutiny. Community prosecution exposes the actions of district attorneys for review by citizens themselves as well as by the local government and other collaborating and cooperating agencies. Community policing has also been beneficial to prosecutors. In the past, he had to render a decision not to proceed with a case if there was poor police investigation in order to maintain high conviction rates by prosecuting only airtight cases. But under the new concept, the community prosecutor reports to citizens and police on why he took or did not take a particular course of action on a given case o offender. There is public exposure. In addition, the guidelines, which regulate his work, can prevent abuses. Suggested guidelines recommend that agency relationships with the community be regulated. The values that underlie the collaborative relationships should be described, limited and upheld. Other suggested guidelines require that civil initiatives define their purpose, conditions of use, the procedures of their use, and the potential of their abuse. These guidelines may not cover and answer all questions, but they can help hold both the prosecutor and the community accountable for their actions. As of now, there has risen a new sense of excitement and optimism in concerted crime-control efforts at present. Many uncertainties have been wiped out. There is excitement in watching the community experience success in reducing crime. This success is not confined to easy-to-manage and wealth neighborhoods only but has been occurring in economically struggling neighborhoods with large minority and immigrant populations. The accomplishments of community policing have been significant so that citizens have expressed unwillingness to revert to old strategies and to keep the police and prosecutors collaborating with them (Coles and Kelling).

Federal crime control efforts have traditionally been directed at problems beyond state boundaries and with maintaining law and order in areas exclusive to federal jurisdiction or of national concern (O'Bryant 2003). Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the 107th Congress was held during which authorities of the Department of Justice, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was tasked to deal with homeland security. Amidst law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism, Congress continues to stress and enhance the operating authority of the Department of Justice. Congress has been extending federal jurisdiction over crime control in areas within state and local jurisdiction, such as juvenile justice and gun control. It also increased federal support of state and local efforts in combating crime. It passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Crime Control Act of 1990 or Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, and the Violent Crime Control and law Enforcement Act of 1994. Since the enactment of three omnibus crime control bills, many bills followed to address crime and criminal justice issues. These and other measures have elicited renewed discussion and debate on still un-enacted proposals related to law enforcement (O'Bryant).

Earlier in June 1998, Congress demonstrated the same responsiveness to the increasing incidence of crime as reported by President Lyndon Johnson's report, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (O'Bryant 2003). Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to extend grants to states and local governments for the training of law enforcement personnel, recruitment, public education relating to crime prevention, building construction, education and training of special law enforcement to combat organized crime and the detection of riots and other civil disorders (O'Bryant).

All previous and current efforts have culminated in the development of the proactive policing movement as the key to a truly successful crime prevention and control system (Stephens 2001). Street crime rates drop dramatically when the police aggressively perform their function in cooperation and collaboration with citizens and social services in solving or arresting crime situations. Another way this has been achieved is through alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, arbitration, and conferencing between offender and victim in lieu of adversarial court proceedings. Under these methods, both victims and the community are compensated by the offender through community-developed programs. As a result of either mode, future crime is curtailed or reduced (Stephens).

The expected barrier to its swift success is the persistent holding on to old attitudes about crime and punishment and the war-model methods of fighting crime (Stephens 2001). These old methods and attitudes created the police, courts, and corrections within massive criminal justice industrial complexes in countries like the U.S. The emphasis was on crime repression by catching and punishing individual offenders and then lobby for more crimes to support its financial staff and operations requirements. The real change occurred in the 90s and continues to this day in the form of citizen response to crime, evolving from community action. At this time, most of the nation's police agencies aspire to participate in model community-oriented police operations. These police groups have settled more than 1,000 alternative dispute resolution programs, which handled both criminal and civil complaints. The trend has been quietly altering crime-ridden American into an effective and efficient crime-preventing and controlling society. Their statistics reflect crimes prevented and represented lowered overall crime rates. If crimes do not occur, huge savings result (Stephens).

The crime prevention sector has long used the formula of desire-plus-opportunity-equals-crime (Stephens 2001). But the emphasis has traditionally been confined to opportunity reduction through target hardening and using specific approaches. These tactics may have appeared successful in reducing crime, but they have also exacted a heavy toll on individuals and society by encouraging fear and distrust in one another. This formula has failed, Research has shown that punishment has not deterred or lessened crime by those caught and convicted. What evidence shows is that it has led to increased criminal activity. The equation will work if emphasis is made on proactive prevention to reduce criminal desire in place of the reactive method of hiding the offender behind locked doors and harshly punishing him. New technology has also begun emerging and offers provisions for safety and harmony in cooperating communities. Among these modern technological tools are surveillance to birth-to-death dossiers, DNA identification equipment, and chemical implants to control behavior (Stephens).