CONSIDERING PARADIGMS OF CRIME REDUCTION IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

Keith Soothill and Brian FrancisLancaster University

United Kingdom

What is the sub-text?

Are lessons or messages coming from the criminological literature in the northern hemisphere relevant to issues arising in South Africa?

THE ANSWER IS ‘YES’!!

MORE SPECIFICALLY…

What are the implications of the longitudinal study published as ‘Exploring Paradigms of Crime Reduction’ in the British Journal of Criminology in March 2010?

The debate about ‘Why Crime Rates Fell?’ in many western countries – focusing on the explanations.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CRIME

REDUCTIONMany and various! – see Hope (2000)

Our own work focuses on four major paradigms: Relating to parental child-rearing methods. Relating to structural factors relating to the

family during adolescence. Relating to geographical segregation. Relating to individual resource deficits

WHAT IS A PARADIGM?

A paradigm is an explanatory framework – it provides a statement of the most appropriate way of studying an issue.

(Term famously developed by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962)

FOUR PARADIGMS

(1) Parental child rearing methods (e.g. child neglect)Crime reduction - the focus is on early developmental prevention, for

instance, on child rearing methods - as early as possible in the child’s life. Has a largely psychological thrust.

(2) Structural factors relating to the family during adolescence (e.g. poverty)

Crime reduction? – the focus is on factors that are not potentially modifiable within a generation. Has a largely sociological thrust.

FOUR PARADIGMS (continued)

3. The geographical segregation paradigm (e.g. linked to localities/neighbourhoods)

Crime reduction – the focus is on community crime prevention, a perspective oriented toward social control, instead of aiming at changing the motivation and predispositions of offenders. Again has more of a sociological thrust.

4. Individual resource deficits

Crime reduction? - it tries to deal with the issue by increasing the individual’s resources through education, training and employment. Again a focus on social factors rather than psychological deficits.

THE OUTCOME FACTORS

These were the first time conviction of three offences of interest – violent offences, shoplifting and burglary.

The possibility is that different offences emerge from a set of different causative influences.

OUR DATA SOURCE

With the help and support of our colleague, Mogens Christoffersen, we considered a national cohort of males born in in Denmark in 1980; this cohort was followed up to the end of 2005.

COHORT AND OUTCOMES

The 1980 birth cohort included 29,944 males and their parents.

Of these, by the end of 2005, 1,989 were convicted of shoplifting, 1,324 were convicted of burglary, and 1,901 were convicted of violence.

The numbers may seem low for shoplifting but the focus here is on convictions - lesser crimes, such as shoplifting, are likely to have warnings and cautions to prevent a court appearance.

RESULTS (1)

Detailed results are shown in the British Journal of Criminology paper, but….

All the paradigms examined seem likely to make a contribution towards explaining crime and criminal behaviour in Denmark. Is this true for other countries? Needs to be tested.

Some risk factors seem to have stronger links with particular offences. So, for example:

(1) Domestic violence has a stronger link to violence offences. (2) ‘Children being in care’ has a stronger link with burglary offences.

(3) Family separation has a stronger link with shoplifting offences.

RESULTS (2)

However, some paradigms may explain more than others:

Likely to be more widespread benefit in focusing on structural issues within a society which have widespread impact (such as unemployment and the lack of vocational qualifications) rather than the more individual deficits (such as a psychiatric disorder or even drug addiction) that may affect fewer people.

NOT A POPULAR CONCLUSION?!

No ‘easy fix’ or ‘magic bullet’ is on offer to reduce crime – familiar story that crime and criminal behaviour are complex phenomena to explain.

FOCUS ON DEBATE ABOUT ‘WHY CRIME RATES FELL’

Dramatic decline in the rate of crime per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States between 1991 and 2001.

e.g. Homicide rates plunged 43% from the peak in 1991 to 2001 – reaching the lowest levels in 35 years.

In fact, all of the seven main categories of crime decreased dramatically.

WHY?

Many explanatory theories –

e.g. some point to increased incarceration rates, whilst others note the booming economy. Some appeal to changing demographics, whilst others credit the increased access to legal abortion.

THREE COMMENTATORS

Conklin, J. E. (2003) Why Crime Rates Fell. New York: Allyn and Bacon

Levitt, S. D. (2004) Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 18:1, 163-190.

Zimring, F. E. (2007) The Great American Crime Decline. New York: Oxford University Press.

CONKLIN’S CONCLUSION

Conklin (2003: 200) concludes that “on the basis of the evidence examined in this book, I believe that the rising rate of incarceration was probably the most important reason that crime rates fell after 1991.”

LEVITT’S FOUR FAVOURABLE FACTORS

increase in the number of police;

the rising prison population;

the receding crack epidemic;

the legalization of abortion.

ZIMRING’S CONCLUSIONS

More measured in his conclusions, but points to the combination of increased prison populations, a strong economy, and appropriate demographics as creating a very favourable condition for a decline in crime rates. The latter two elements are in contrast to Levitt who argues that the economy and demographics make a negligible contribution.

ZIMRING’S METHODOLOGICAL TIMEBOMB:Comparison with Canada

While the declining crime rates of the United States and Canada are remarkably similar, Canada’s prison population remained relatively stable over this period, while the prison population in the United States grew significantly.

Also, for example, while the booming economy explanation is seductive, Canada did not experience the same economic boom as the United States.

TWO TRADITIONS

Note remarkable contrast between factors discussed in our work using the Danish birth cohort and the American work focusing on ‘Why Crime Rates Fell’

(1) Ameliorative tradition of trying to make things better for offenders and potential offenders.

(2) Social protection/social defence tradition – reacting to crime e.g. more police, more prisons etc.

TWO LEVELS AND TWO CONSTITUENCIES

Micro-level – focusing on individuals in a birth cohort and the influences prior to the first conviction.

Macro-level – higher level of generality focusing on crime in general. Here the contribution of persistent offenders is crucial.

NUMBER OF COURT APPEARANCES (RESULTING IN A CONVICTION FOR EVERY 100 PERSONS IN

ENGLAND AND WALES)

67 persons – not convicted

17 persons – convicted once ) Around 50% 5 persons – convicted twice ) of the total 8 persons – convicted three times ) convictions 3 persons – convicted on four or more occasions )

Around 50% of the total convictions.

THREE MAJOR TASKS

• Making the group who are not convicted (currently around 67 per cent) as large as possible. This is the issue of onset.

• Making the group who are convicted (currently around 33 percent of the population) be only one-time offenders, rather than becoming persistent offenders. This is the issue of recidivism.

• Dealing with the group who are convicted on four or more occasions (around 3% of the population who contribute to around 50% of the total convictions). This is the issue of persistence.

INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CONTROLS?

Development of internal controlsA focus on helping persons to build up their

own stake in society and, thus, develop internal controls whereby they can resist the temptation to commit crime.

Use of external controlsA focus on more intrusive policing, and more

and more prisons and so on, which produces permanent outcasts who must be locked up for long periods.

EXTERNAL CONTROLS? – BUT AT WHAT SOCIAL COST?

Implementing draconian measures on certain targeted groups can have an impact, but at what social cost?

A recent article in Time magazine provides a vivid clue - "Increased sentencing in some communities has removed entire generations of young men" from some minority communities, says San Francisco police chief George Gascón. "Has that been a factor in lowering crime? I think it probably has. I think it also probably has had a detrimental effect on those communities."

The article vividly reminds that “Prison is expensive, demoralizing and deadening .... Prisoners leave saddened parents, abandoned mates, fatherless children. Of course, in many cases, those families are better off with their violent relatives behind bars. But a court system that clobbers first-time offenders with mandatory sentences — sometimes for nonviolent crimes — will inevitably lock up thousands of not-so-bad guys alongside the hardened criminals” (Von Drehle, 2010).

DEPLORE THE COMPLACENCY OF SOME AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGISTS

While it may be true that one can achieve lower crime rates by massive investments in measures of external control – that is, by high incarceration rates (the United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world) and more intrusive policing – is this the way that one wants a society to develop? Essentially this approach disenfranchises a significant minority to penal waste bins and damages whole communities.

A SIMPLE MESSAGE

The pivotal issue is whether one can develop a society in which all persons feel that they have a stake and, thus, develop internal controls to resist crime. The development of more prisons and more intrusive policing is a sad measure of a failure to do this.