What is the answer to crime prevention, better laws or a good social net.....?

Question

What do you think...

Answer 1

Crime prevention remains a difficult balance. No one answer really works because the topic occupies such a broad area. Every aspect needs work.

The primary effort must be to improve funding to the police, this doesn't necessarily mean raw numbers. The changes effecting a screwed up police department e.g. New Orleans Police Dept. would only mean instead of a small screwed up Police Department (PD) the city only would get a larger screwed up PD.

Rather the first move is the improvement in training, a reduction in the numbers of supervisors returning their desk warted butts into the field would go a long way to addressing the shortage of trained field officers. Training for a police officer should be tripled in time and quantity. Further recruitment from visible minorities be encouraged.

Anti-corruption within the PD be strengthened. It is essential that any PD be above suspicion. Any punishment must be more severe if a police man is found to be corrupt. The vast majority of police who are good cops must be encouraged to realize that if they know of a corrupt policeman they must do everything to bring that officer to judgment.

Here's why. Police are the front line of the justice system. Corruption will occur but a vigorous response to it is the only way to deal with such vile behavior. The inside code of police not ratting out police is a ludicrous thing that only emerged recently. Such codes do not protect the many good policemen, it only serves to protect the very few corrupt police.

Too often police men believe that effective duty comes from packing heat. This is a tragedy. Guns do not earn police respect. Respect is earned. To apply enforcement of ethical or legal standards one cannot be an abuser of those same laws. The only really effective police tool is not a pistol it is respect. Any citizen who sees that uniform will ask two questions. "Do I respect that policeman? Do I trust that policeman?"

The second part to this is re-invigorating the courts systems. The more Conservative elements of societies only believe in picking narrow minded hanging judges. This is totally wrong. Go to Texas, go to Florida, capital and strong punishments don't really deter criminal behavior. Mandatory sentences do not work as well as the theory that they would.

One of the most interesting evolutions has been in Canada. Parts of that country have developed an interim step between the court room and prison. It is called Sentencing Circles of the First Nations.

What are Sentencing Circles (SC). The convict comes from court and sits before a committee of his/her community peers and neighbors. This frees judges from the arduous task of assessing punishment rather the judge and juries only determine guilt or innocence. Assessing appropriate punishment is negotiated with between the convict and the community using the existing law as a guide. The final decision of the SC is sent back to the judge and he/she has the final say but often the recommendations are accepted.

The media sensationalizes crime. It sells papers. It adds viewers to its audience. In truth crime declined in the last fifteen years. Most of the committed crimes are petty theft. By far the vast majority of murders are committed by persons known or intimate to the victim.

Too often people see so much print committed to the commission of a single crime the viewer or reader imagines that the streets are unsafe and all around them as soon as they step out the door. This is a false presentation of the situation. The invention of the SC in Canada led to the over all reduction of those crimes because so many of those crimes were committed by troubled youth. The SC makes the community aware of the problems of the youth, administers appropriate punishment and then does something that the traditional court and prison system doesn't do which is to follow up with the individual making sure that that the troubled person gets access to the right solutions within the social support. It lowers the likelihood of that individual re-offending a second time.

Too often the traditional court system mishandles the first conviction. The eye for an eye approach is absolutely the worst response. Usually the best thing is a controlled, strong but minimal response. Often the first crime is forgiven by the courts. They are right not to send a person to jail, for a youth it is only a college for crime. There must be constructive punishment where the first time convict serves a punishment with counseling, understanding.

The obvious problem here is that the victims situation must be solved also. It is inappropriate to deal so much with the guilty convict and not at the minimum paying attention to the needs of the victim. Not only do the SC's consult with the accused but equally they must interview the victim(s). The SC provides method by which the victim feels that at the very least they participated in the applied punishment.

In the last fifteen years the Conservative governments have gutted the social support systems. As they scream that crime is everywhere they closed housing which housed the mentally ill, they froze welfare payments indeed they cut physically ill unemployable people off welfare all together. Ironically they saved nothing because they had to take the monies they saved to get more police officers.

I should point out that I am a Conservative but not one of those who believe that Christian Fundamentalist nonsense. Church and state must be separate including the administration of justice. After eight years and twelve years in control of the Congress patently one thing is clear. That this strategy, much like Iraq, doesn't work.

It also makes me wonder that when people who scream follow the Bible" don't appear to understand what is written. The primary ethic of Jesus teachings is to A. Forgive. B. Give. C. Love.

If one wishes to apply justice according to the Christian ethic it would be a good idea to actually follow it. And why? Well its only basic humanity. Being humane works. Because in our approach to fight crime it is more beneficial to keep in mind that to save humanity, we must be firstly humane. We must endeavor to be fair.

Realize that 15 years ago the average social worker tended to 30 to 50 clients. Today that number is 130 plus. And many are the former mental patients heavily sedated on anti-psychotics. I know the computer helps but can any person believe that this system works? Welfare clients and the poor deserve a better lot. Money is important but solving problems is far more important. The gutting of the social safety net did nothing to diminish crime.

Restoration of the social support with attention not just to the amount of money spent but whether or not the funding is being effectively spent. The problem with the old systems twenty years ago was yes it was inefficient, change was needed but they threw the whole thing rather than restructuring.

Most criminals can be restored to society, indeed they tend to be excellent contributors. Yes there are incorrigibles. One must not be blind to that reality. And yes the door locked and the key deposited in the deep well infested with the appropriate Piranha. But they are the abnormal examples. They are sadly the criminals that the media wants to make into heroes.

This is an outline of what is needed. It is only a sketch of the necessary changes to our present approach.

Answer 2

Simone, I do not understand what you mean when you say "a good social net". Are you talking about friends and family, or some sort of social program?

If you're talking about friends and family (a good social net), then I would say that the best crime prevention is a combination of the two, or both.

The morals are set by the family, or at least they should be. The laws are a reflection of those morals.

The other argument I've heard regarding crime prevention is the use of...(can't think of the right word)..."examples"? A judge will rule, making an example of the defendant, based on a set of standards that become more harsh with the repetiveness of the crime. I wish a could think of that term...too early in the morning I guess.

Added: Thank you Proud American...deterrents...that's the word I was trying to think of earlier.

Answer 3

The laws exist. They are just not enforced. A good social net? Who is responsible for supplying this? It is unrealisitic to expect or even request law abiding citizens to improve other peoples lives so that they won't turn to crime. If there is a person that is willing to commit crime for whatever reason there is no amount of assistance that will deter them. Enough is never enough for these people. They will always want what they don't have.

If you truly want to prevent crime there is only one way.

Community involvement.

Block watch programs. A working Block Watch Program is probably one of the most effective and biggest deterrants to crime. Neighbors watching out for neighbors and multitudes of sets of eyes watching out for any suspicious behavior in their neighborhoods.

Identifiable safe houses for children to go to if they feel threatened. These are houses where the people in the house have had extensive background checks, are known by local law enforcement agencies and a placard is placed in a window of the home that identifies the house as a "safe haven" for anyone who is feeling theatened while out and about for any reason. They are mainly located close to schools and parks where children are more likely to be passing by.

Law enforcement officers should be more visible in the communities. Foot patrols in the business districts. Bike patrols in the neighborhoods. MORE FUNDING.

Enforcement of current laws by the courts. The courts needs to hold criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law. More often than not convicted offenders get a slap on the wrist and are released back into society to only violate the law again. The police officers are doing their jos. The judges need to do theirs.

Answer 4

I think the best thing to do to prevent crime is to prevent people from becoming criminals, which I think is fairly obvious. I would disagree with the person who says we should build more prisons because what does that mean? That means we have room for even more criminals roaming our streets once they are released from prison. I think we have to acknowledge that for most cases, crime is directly connected to poverty. In very impoverished areas of cities, crimes always occur and I think it's because people are desperate for money and crime is definitely a fast and easy way to get money. These areas also have little police activity because I think there's a reluctance to give a **** about the bad parts of cities. We as moral people need to put better politicians in our offices, ones who care about this issue and ones who will fight for the next generations of people. We need better education, better health care and a strew of other things in order to lower crime.

Answer 5

The answer to crime prevention is better housing, better food for poor people, better services for the poor, good health program for the poor and putting a stop to racially influenced police procedures. A return of a decent mental health system and more residential treatment facilities will help.

Answer 6

I think addressing the root cause of crime(Poverty, addictions, mental disorder) would solve far more than more prisons or laws.
Treatment for addicts, job training, mental health counseling directly treat the issues of why most crime occurs.
How many criminals go to jail only to become worse criminals? how many are released and go back to their same patterns of behavior? How many are truly reformed by incarceration?
The pattern i see is the equivilent of a social "time out". Our justice system punishes, but being overstretched due to draconian laws; are unable to truly reform criminals.
We incarcerate more people than China or any other country for that matter. What does it solve? Or is it becoming a thing feeding upon us?

Answer 7

Good social skills, especially those provided by parents of very young children, are critically important. Few young parents know how to deal with young children to get them started off right. Once you are dealing with school age children there needs to be firm but reasonable rules and guidelines firmly enforced. The majority of our social ills come from how a child is raised.

In dealing with young adult and adult offenders the punishments need to be somewhat harsh and promptly enforced. Waiting years for punishment is not ever going to work. Neither is a light slap on the wrist.

We handle our crime problems in a very ineffective manner.

Answer 8

Definately a good social net, because the majority of crimes happen after a person has been put through some sort of metal torture and extreme stress.

Answer 9

i felt that we have enough laws that deal with crimes from A-Z, and i believe that they are well enforce in the state...the sad truth will always trench down to the current state of the people, recent reports says that about 750 thousand americans (to about one million) are homeless - literaly sleeping on the streets, and without any stable source of income...hunger and pain hybernates anger towards the system, this prompt them to do undesirable things like stealing and robbing people and stores. if we can only address this problem then we're doing something about crime prevention.

Answer 10

well i think both america has lost its pride , people use to take pride in there last name and would be discraced if they done a crime and there last name was smeared threw the mud , and now you take a family member who is on drugs and try to help them get off of it it has to be at there will back in the day family use to be able to step in and do something now unstead of letting family step in they have to do severel crimes in order to get help and its sad and then they just send them to jail why not actually getting them help , jail not the awnser they need more than that
if you put them in jail they still need to be rehabed , i think each state needs to court order these people rehab and i also think if caught stealing ,or cheating, or driveing drunk, and small offences , they should have to carry a sign and stand out in front of a busy store saying what they done for a few weeks alittle emberrisment isent going to kill them just hurt there pride like thay have done americas