Crime prevention embodies a range of volatile social issues. These issues encompass public safety, mass media response, and political strategies which induce intense public debate and criticism, especially during an age in which the world is engaged in a “war on crime”. Given the role of policy makers in crime prevention, effective strategies are hinged on a consideration of all these issues rather than singular measures focused on isolated strategies. This facet of policy implantation is attracting growing attention as a viable source of crime prevention substituting traditional criminal justice mechanics. In fact, a significant fragment of criminological literature is ...view middle of the document...
Crime prevention policies are most susceptible to being “ensnarled in the political maelstrom” in the prelude of proximate election periods. It has been opined that policies encompassing an emphasis on law and order principles rather than prevention policy influences a politician’s campaign strategy to solicit election votes. This perspective also has ancillary effects which entails a robust growth in budget and personnel pursuant to the public attention that these political platforms attract.
The emphasis on law and order based crime prevention signifies a “tough on crime” sentiment which is attractive for political representations and is a stance that offers an avenue of safety to the voting community. The oppoosing portrayal of being “soft on crime” encompasses a neglect of corrective responses towards delinquency which endangers electoral forecasts. Through this perspective, it is foreseeable that this political power struggle regularly obscures genuine debate of effective and logical direction to solving crime. Re-election and positional security is a dominant motivator for occupants of political office and therefore the dependence on these crime preventative mechanisms and their public impressions is a focal influencer in crime preventative policy generation.
Political dependence on these reputational indicators is compounded by public pressures to take punitive measures in order to conciliate media fuelled crime anxiety. The push for “tough on crime” policies is encouraged by the media which in turn has influenced a societal hunger for retribution and punishment. Theorists have postulated the existence of extensive pressure for successful portrayals of crime prevention amongst the mass media and politicians. Idiosyncratically, where crime prevention initiatives emulate the ability to evolve positive empirical research in constructive crime reducing tactics there will be avid exposure to political bodies, media and the public. The ensuing consequences will likely lead to a more precedential based crime prevention strategy which focuses less on the “quick fix” justice mechanics but rather on criminological reasoned policy implementation.
Some theorists have considered that political crime prevention stratagems can originate from a deficient understanding of crime prevention which forces politicians to introduce policy that is founded on insubstantial empirical evidence or wholly discount prevention strategies. This inaugurates from the bureaucratic focus on cost benefit analysis as a means of evaluating prevention schemes. This issue is particularly prevalent in reflective policy where political pressure is intensified by harm of individuals. The medium in which this generally enforced is mass media displays of individual victimisation. The subsequent public outcry can lead to political entrenchment of accelerated and often misappropriated deterrence mechanism to act as crime preventative actions.
The underlying political...