Crime Control, Punishment, and Victims (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes
Crime Control, Punishment, and Victims
Realist approaches to crime prevention
Both left and right realists view crime as a genuine and growing social problem that requires practical government intervention. However, they propose fundamentally different solutions based on their understanding of crime's causes.
Left realist solutions
Left realists emphasise addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour through social and community interventions. Their approach centres on Social and Community Crime Prevention (SCCP), which targets underlying issues such as poverty, social exclusion, and lack of opportunities.
Left realists believe that crime stems from social inequalities and can only be reduced by addressing these fundamental structural problems in society.
Key left realist strategies include:
- Community-based policing where officers build relationships with local communities and work collaboratively with schools and community groups
- Tackling social exclusion through improved educational opportunities and support for disadvantaged groups
- Addressing inequality as a primary driver of criminal behaviour
Left realists, influenced by Wilson and Kelling, argue that informal social controls and community cohesion are essential for preventing crime.
Right realist solutions
Right realists focus on crime control and prevention rather than addressing underlying causes. They believe crime results from rational choice and can be managed through effective deterrence and opportunity reduction.
Right realist approaches include:
- Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) through target hardening measures like security guards, CCTV, and gated communities
- Environmental Crime Prevention (ECP) including zero tolerance policing policies
- Professional policing as an impartial and important part of practical crime reduction
Right realists view criminals as rational actors who weigh up the costs and benefits of criminal activity. Their focus is therefore on increasing the costs and reducing the opportunities for crime.
Right realists view the police as professional and effective, arguing that crime can be controlled rather than solved.
Specific crime prevention policies
Situational Crime Prevention (SCP)
SCP operates on the principle of target hardening - making crimes more difficult to commit by reducing opportunities. This approach assumes criminals make rational choices about whether to offend based on risk assessment.
Real-World Applications of SCP:
The Port Authority Bus Terminal, New York: Facilities were redesigned to discourage rough sleeping and reduce opportunities for crime through environmental modifications.
Stoke Council Street Lighting Project: Improved street lighting reduced crime opportunities by 26% in targeted areas, demonstrating the effectiveness of environmental modifications.
Evaluation of SCP:
- Effective at reducing certain types of crime by increasing risks and effort required
- However, suffers from displacement - criminals may simply move to softer targets elsewhere
Displacement Effect Warning: Chalken et al. (1974) found that subway robbery crackdowns in New York simply displaced crime to street level rather than eliminating it entirely.
Environmental Crime Prevention (ECP)
ECP involves implementing zero tolerance policies where police proactively target minor offences to prevent escalation to serious crimes. This approach was notably adopted in New York under the "Clean Up" programme.
Evidence for ECP:
New York Zero Tolerance Success:
Between 1993-1996, New York's zero tolerance policies coincided with dramatic crime reductions:
- 50% decrease in homicide rates
- Significant reductions across multiple crime categories
Limitations of ECP:
Critical Evaluation Points:
- Other factors may explain crime reduction, such as falling unemployment and reduced crack cocaine availability
- The "three strikes" policy has led to massive increases in prison populations without necessarily deterring crime
- High recidivism rates suggest tougher sentences do not effectively prevent reoffending
Social and Community Crime Prevention (SCCP)
SCCP addresses crime by tackling its social roots through education, employment opportunities, and community support programmes.
Examples include:
- Sure Start programmes providing early intervention through preschool education and parenting classes
- The Perry Pre-school project in the USA, which provided intellectual enrichment for disadvantaged black children aged 3-4
Long-term Success of SCCP:
The Perry Pre-school Project Results: By age 40, participants had lower crime rates and higher employment than their peers, demonstrating the long-term effectiveness of early intervention.
Evaluation of SCCP:
- Often represents long-term solutions that are difficult to measure for immediate impact
- Critics argue these policies are "too soft" and that individuals make rational choices to commit crimes regardless of social circumstances
Punishment and the role of prisons
Punishment, particularly imprisonment, is believed to reduce crime through three main mechanisms:
The three functions of punishment
The Three D's of Punishment:
- Deterrence - Increasing costs of criminal behaviour
- Incapacitation - Removing criminals from society
- Rehabilitation - Reforming offenders through programmes
Deterrence: Right realists argue that prison increases the costs associated with criminal behaviour, making the rational choice to commit crime less attractive. The threat of punishment should deter potential offenders.
Incapacitation: This approach focuses on removing criminals from society so they cannot reoffend. Right realists see this as protecting society by physically separating offenders from potential victims.
Rehabilitation: Some theorists view punishment as an opportunity to reform offenders through education and training programmes, reducing their likelihood of returning to crime.
Sociological perspectives on punishment
Durkheim (1893) argued that public punishment serves society's interests by promoting social solidarity and consensus. He suggested punishment in traditional societies was based on retributive justice - severe punishment focused on revenge.
Marxist View of Punishment: Marxist perspectives view punishment as serving capitalist interests. Althusser (1971) described punishment as part of the repressive state apparatus used to maintain capitalist control.
Rusche and Kirchheimer (1939) argued that punishment forms change with economic conditions - prisons were useful for training workers for industrial discipline.
Contemporary issues with punishment
Since the 1980s, UK prison populations have increased dramatically (from 42,000 in 1997 to 86,000 in 2015). Garland (2001) describes this as an era of mass incarceration, particularly affecting young black males in the USA.
Prison Effectiveness Question: High recidivism rates (repeat offending) suggest prison fails as both deterrent and rehabilitation tool. Two-thirds of prisoners reoffend, indicating that prison may not effectively prevent crime.
Surveillance and social control
The panopticon and disciplinary power
Foucault (1977) analysed how social control has evolved from public punishment to more subtle forms of discipline. He argued that modern punishment seeks to control minds as well as bodies through disciplinary power.
The Panopticon Concept: The panopticon was an "all-seeing place" prison design where guards could observe prisoners without being seen. This created self-surveillance as prisoners modified their behaviour assuming they were being watched.
From panopticon to liquid surveillance
Cohen (1985) argues that social control has expanded beyond prisons to include youth offending workers, schools, and private companies. This creates a net of control that extends disciplinary mechanisms throughout society.
Contemporary surveillance has become increasingly sophisticated with community-based controls like Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and electronic tagging.
Liquid surveillance
Bauman and Lyon (2013) describe modern surveillance as liquid surveillance - flexible, mobile, and expanding into multiple areas of life.
Characteristics of liquid surveillance
Modern liquid surveillance operates across multiple domains:
As travellers: Passport controls, body scanners, biometric checks, and smartphone tracking
As consumers: Monitoring of purchases, customer databases, QR codes, and loyalty schemes
As social media users: Exchange of personal information through online profiles and data sharing
Features of liquid surveillance
Key Difference from Traditional Surveillance: Unlike traditional fixed surveillance, liquid surveillance is post-panoptical - watchers need not be present and can operate remotely. This makes surveillance less visible but more pervasive.
Bauman and Lyon use the metaphor of "big brother" to describe how power can move at the speed of an electrical button. They argue this raises issues of justice and human rights, as surveillance can be abused by powerful groups and nations.
Victimisation
Sociologists have developed two main theoretical approaches to understand how and why people become crime victims.
Positivist victimology
Positivist victimology, developed by Miers (1989), focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence and attempts to identify patterns in victimisation. This approach examines how victims may have contributed to their own victimisation through factors such as:
- Low intelligence or poor decision-making
- Being the first to use violence in a situation
- Engaging in risky behaviours
Major Criticisms of Positivist Victimology:
- Accused of victim blaming by suggesting victims contribute to their victimisation
- Fails to examine less visible crimes such as state crime and corporate crime
Critical victimology
Critical victimology challenges positivist approaches by focusing on structural inequalities. Mawby and Walklate (1994) argue that victimisation results from structural powerlessness rather than individual characteristics.
Social Construction of Victimhood: Christie (1986) argues that the concept of victimhood is socially constructed. The stereotypical "ideal victim" is portrayed as weak, innocent, and blameless, typically attacked by a stranger.
Critical victimology perspectives:
- The criminal justice system can deny victim status by not applying the victim label
- Tombs and White (2007) highlight how failure to prosecute employers for industrial injuries keeps corporate crimes hidden
- Feminists argue that inadequate prosecution of domestic violence cases denies women victim status
Patterns of victimisation
Clear Victimisation Patterns from Research:
Research reveals distinct patterns in who becomes victims of crime:
-
Gender: Men are almost twice as likely to become victims of violent crime, despite women having greater fear of crime
-
Domestic and sexual violence: Women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence and sexual attacks than men
-
Age: Young males aged 16-24 experience the highest rates of violent crime
-
Ethnicity: Ethnic minorities, particularly mixed race individuals, face higher risks of victimisation than white people
-
Social class: The poorest groups, including unemployed and homeless people, are more likely to become crime victims than other social groups
Key Points to Remember:
- Left realists focus on causes (social exclusion, poverty) while right realists focus on control (target hardening, deterrence)
- Crime prevention policies include situational (SCP), environmental (ECP), and social/community (SCCP) approaches, each with different strengths and limitations
- Prison serves three functions: deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, though high recidivism rates question its effectiveness
- Surveillance has evolved from fixed panopticon-style monitoring to flexible "liquid surveillance" that permeates daily life through technology
- Victimisation theories differ between positivist approaches (focusing on victim behaviour) and critical approaches (focusing on structural power inequalities)