Recommendations for Reducing Crime in Canberra
Two Recommendations for Reducing Crime in Canberra
Introduction
The recent assessment done by the US department on Canberra in Australia recommends that the city is a low threat region for a crime. Therefore, it means that Crimes committed in the location do not hurt official U S state policies and interests. The city is however, engulfed with considerable crime scenes that, on many occasions, Australians and other foreigners are likely to encounter. Various property crimes such as theft, breaking, and burglary are among criminal acts of violence these groups of people face. Besides, outside the city center of Canberra, there is a sharp rise in physical assaults, which occur at a very high frequency. The situation gets worse when the crime is orchestrated in the central business district. Here, during the night, illegal peddling of drug and use coupled with other associated behavior is on the surge. The essay will delve into painting a clear picture of Canberra’s crime prevalence, emphasizing two recommendations for reducing crime in Canberra, Australia. The phenomenon will examine corruption in the city based on the deterrence theory, control, and critical criminology as pivotal fundamental essay module study.
Module 1: Deterrence;
Recommendation 1: Non-Capital Punishment
The surge in criminal actions in Canberra does not warranty calls for capital punishment to individuals who peddle this vice to deter them from such heinous behaviors. DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, (2018) suggest that Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty entails government-sanctioned legal practice in which a person is put to death sentence after being tried in the court of law. An individual who is warranting such execution must have committed capital felonies which depend on the jurisdiction they have committed. In Canberra, such capital crimes include, attempting to overthrow the government, drug trafficking, drug dealing and possession, crimes against humanity, and aggravated robbery and genocide. Many people view capital punishment as an ‘eye- for- an-eye’ form of instilling discipline directed towards offenders (Lecture 7 notes, 2020). Theories regarding this form of crime deterrence have come to the fore intending to explain the impact of such practice.
Deterrence Theory– Founded by Bentham and Beccaria, seeks to prevent state-sanctioned death sentences placed on persons accused of committing crimes supposedly warranting execution (Lecture 7 notes, 2020). Modern world theorists and scholars believe that deterrence theory should be enhanced even up to date. The logic behind the “threat of legal punishments deterring potential offenders unless they perceive those acts as sufficiently certain, swift and severe” (Lecture 7 notes, 2020) is still more relevant in the modern world considering that criminal actions differ from one element to another. Crimes such as theft, burglary, and drug trafficking are considered less heinous compared to overthrowing the government. In Canberra city, such criminal acts should not corporal but somewhat separated and punished independently. Severity, celerity, and certainty ought to predict lower levels of offending. The most fundamental key factor in deterrence theories revolves around the argument that if an offender is to be deterred, their perception of punishment needs to be equally altered. Perception deterrence theory emanating from a giant branch of deterrence theory should be applied in the Canberra situation. Increased capital punishment will not be able to help reduce crimes since, with time, the offenders are likely to change their behaviors. Today, it is commonly accepted with criminology that evil can be overcome when the perceived benefits of the action do not outweigh those of the costs of committing a crime. Capital punishment evades this kind of ideology and instead focus on the magnitude and consequence of criminal actions.
Another theory supporting the reduction of capital punishment, which Canberra city should employ, is the Rational Choice Theory (RCT) (Lecture 7, 2020). It is anchored on the idea of utility expectations with the assumption that individuals need to maximize profits and minimize their losses. RCT moves focus away from the acts of crimes an individual commits to balancing costs and the benefits accrued from the event. Multiple choices that on so many fronts are influenced by psychological and social factors must be considered instead of single decisions. The Australian government should balance these factors to uncover the reason as to why they drive some people to criminality as opposed to others. Crimes that purportedly warranty the death penalty, such as drug trafficking, should be critically weighed, notwithstanding its economic benefits. The government’s adoption of such jurisdictions might result in the following consequences (Lecture 7 notes, 2020):
- Criminologists will approach the element of capital punishment with ultimate specific types of crime, as opposed to general view. Choices made by the offenders in question is directly linked to the benefits and accrued form the acts and the nature of the offense.
- The legal team will be able to distinguish between choices related to ‘event’ and those of ‘involvement,’ thus making the right judgment.
- They will be able to separate different ‘event choices’- with emphasis on particular targets and ways of reducing risks.
RCT and crime policy intervention by Canberra city administrators should also purpose to reduce crime rates by installing street lighting. According to the theory, move crimes will be reduced by 21 percent (Lecture 7 notes, 2020). Besides, the installation of CCTV is an effective way of reducing crime acts in Canberra. The perpetrators of behaviors such as drug trafficking, motor vehicle theft, and other robbery crimes will be captured, tracked, and brought to book even after they have left the scene. Also, the CCTV will play an integral role in ensuring that the right person is nabbed and convicted relatively with the proper evidence. The current society will often equate crime with male species. The city of Canberra is not different. However, the study of biological genetics disputes this ideology as baseless. Both males and females are prone to committing any kind of crime in every corner of the city. CCTV enables the legal practitioners to know the gender that committed the offense and subsequent punishment to be invoked (Lecture 7 notes, 2020). Overall, capital punishment should not be used as a general tool to reduce crime but rather as deterrence of persons who would want to involve themselves in illegal acts.
Module 3: Control and Critical Criminology
Recommendation: Hot-Spot Policing
The recent statistics in Canberra showed a sharp rise in some personal acts of crime, notably thefts, assaults, and burglaries. However, moving forward, the deployment of hot spot policing strategy should see these acts drop drastically. Whereas police practices have come under considerable criticism over the past couple of years, they still hold dear lives and properties of Australians (DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2018, p. 8). Canberra’s hot spots for crimes like the central business district where acts of misconduct like theft and burglary are on the surge should be controlled. Therefore deployment of police, intelligently, specifically in these areas keeps will keep the offenders at bay hence fighting crime and violence amicably.
Control Approach-To control crime acts, hot spot policing would come in handy, primarily where the enormous magnitude of criminality profoundly characterizes the location. Theories have come forth to explain how crimes could be controlled not only in urban setups like Canberra but across major cities. In 1990, self-theory it was published. Self-control theory was the driving force in explaining deviance and crime (Lecture 6 notes, 2020). It premises the idea that “the lower the self-control, the higher the level of crime, analogous behaviors, and social failure.” Therefore, self-control is a permanent state of mind that is internalized by people and not the product of ongoing sociological influence. Self-control develops from the early stages of a human being, from age 8-10 (Lecture 6 notes, 2020). However, individual differences persist throughout one’s lifetime. Persons predisposed to crime at the early stages of life could prove futile to any change as the behavior is ingrained in their system. Therefore in such a scenario, when they grow up, a certain degree of intolerance will suffice. The presence of police in specific locations will trigger them to avoid places they consider prime to unleash crime acts.
Critical criminology theory approach– As the city of Canberra fights to keep criminal activities at bay; power comes to play. Critical criminology bases its ideology from Marxist philosophy. It argues that governments create criminal laws that benefit people that own resources, otherwise called capitalism. Marx’s theory suggests the under the capitalist mode of production, those who do not own and means of production are called proletariat (Lecture 6 notes, 2020). Conversely, those that own the mode of production are known as the bourgeoisie. Today, critical criminologists focus on the conflict arising between the haves and have-nots and the power structure. Therefore, individuals in power tend to use justice systems and economic advantages to control the vulnerable in society. They include the poor, women, and minorities. The elite group may jeopardize law-making processes to suit their interests at the expense of the proletariat. In this case, the Australia government should ensure that bourgeoisie interests do not outweigh those of the vulnerable group (Lecture 7 notes, 2020). This can be done through regulating the judicial and crime investigating departments of the state, failure to which hot spot policing will be compromised big time.
Additionally, it should promote democracy and consensus amongst the people. That way, individuals purportedly found in crime scenes are given the freedom to express themselves before the court of law. A fair trial and same sentence should also be passed across all groups of individualism regardless of their status quo. Marx points out that people under capitalism see less productive work, which, to a large extend, may lead to a demoralized society. Moreover, such kinds of people would be are prone to committing crime coupled with other forms of vice-ridden behaviors. The critical criminology theory further points to the fact that law is an expression of elites, representing the interests of the dominant class in society. It does not, therefore, uphold the stakes and the rights of all citizens. Perhaps that is why the current government should evaluate the police who cover these prime locations in Canberra city. If found leaning in a particular direction of a specific influential group of persons in the society, stern action should be taken against them.
Another recommendation on hot- spot policing is the issue of feminist criminology. Canberra city does not have a shot of crimes being committed by females. The society in Australia views the male species as being predisposed to more crimes than women. However, that is not the correct position. In the early 1960s, mainstream criminologists decided to include women as variables in statistical analysis (Lecture 7, 2020). It is the basis through which a relationship is made between gender and crime acts, law-making, and reactions to crime. Gender is not only limited to natural fact but also as a complex historical, cultural, and social product. While hot spot policing makes it easier to reduce crimes, individuals operating these places should not undermine the involvement of female species in these acts. Therefore fair security measures should be accorded in this location regardless of their gender inclination.
Conclusion
As much as Canberra enjoys the lowest crime rates in Australia, 2017, statistics revealed that some rise in personal crime had risen drastically. The essay has delved into giving two honest recommendations for reducing those crimes in the city. Capital punishment seems not to be the perfect way of reducing crimes. Deterrence theory founded by Bentham and Beccaria probably shapes the way crime offenders should be punished by not necessarily executing them upon the governments-sanctions is passed. Individuals possess different perceptions; therefore, crimes be weighed based on rational crime theory. The paper has also examined the control and critical criminology approach, recommending the need to adopt a hot- spot policing as a way to reduce crimes. Marx’s theory of critical criminology however, gives a disclaimer to capitalism practices engineered by most governments. Precaution should be taken since these groups of people tend to own the modes of production hence compromise the law-making process. Besides, they might take control of the government’s arms, thus jeopardizing its fight against criminology.
References
Beaver, (2020). More critiques of self-control theory; Lecture 7, Notes
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2018). Introduction: Critical criminology: Past, present, and future. In Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology [2nd edition] (pp. 1-12). Routledge.
Foucault, (2020). The discourse of power. Lecture 7, Notes
Friedrichs, (2020). Origins of critical criminology. Lecture 7, Notes.
Iadicola & Shupe, Miller, 2020). Feminist criminology; Lecture 6, Notes
Messerschmidt, (2020). Two feminist challenges; Lecture 6, Notes