Some observations about crime,
its causes and
responses to it
Presentation to Year 12 Legal Studies Class,
Ryde Secondary College
Clive Small
November 2011
I’d like to start by making a series of observations that I hope have some logical sequence about them and relevance to the criminal justice system, or at least my view of that system, and conclude with some general comments about ways in which I think the current system can be improved.
Observation 1
About 2300 years ago the Chinese sage Kao Tzu argued that human nature is inherently neutral and is what we make it, good or bad. He compared human nature to a pool of water: it can be made to flow towards east or west, depending on where the breach in the pool is made.[1] In varying ways this argument has been restated down the ages.
Today, Kao Tzu’s argument goes something like this. In almost any modern society there is a small percentage of the population, probably something in the order of three to ten per cent, which is inclined or drawn to criminal activity and corruption. There appears to be little that can be done to eliminate this tendency completely.
On the other hand, there is another segment of the population, also in the three to ten per cent range, which rejects criminality altogether, regardless of the conditions in which they live.
This leaves eighty to ninety per cent, most of the population, in question. A variety of political, economic, and social conditions can influence the direction of this overwhelming majority. Some conditions are likely to increase susceptibility to crime and corruption while others are likely to support the rule of law.[2]
Observation 2
Australia is, by-and-large, a lawful society. We have a large proportion of population swayed to lawfulness because of the prevailing conditions in our society. We must build on this strength.
Observation 3
Mobilising and deploying methods, tools and capabilities that support the rule of law in a civil society take two broad approaches:
· the regulatory and enforcement capabilities of the criminal justice system and
· interventions and non-regulatory methods focused on civil society that include co-operation between government, private and community associations.
The regulatory and enforcement approach attacks crime through what are essentially three different mechanisms. One is the sheer moral force of the law. The decisions many members of society make about crime are guided by the message of the law. The law also results in informal prevention activities by parents, friends, and relatives of potential offenders and intervention activities with those who do commit crime. In these ways, laws may succeed in reducing crime without any public enforcement activities.
The second mechanism is general deterrence. Many citizens are discouraged committing crime by the threat of arrest and prosecution.
The third mechanism is incapacitation. Imprisonment physically offenders from continuing their illegal activities, while in varying degrees bonds, diversion and other legal constraints control, more-or-less, the extent to which illegal activities can be continued.
Observation 4
The first challenge for the Government, as representatives of society, is to diagnose those conditions that are most influential in reinforcing a lawful society and to maximise the use of those conditions to reduce crime, disorder and fear.
Accepting for the moment my first three observations, the criminal justice system and the law in particular should be viewed as being regulatory rather than prohibitory. That is, the system and laws have as their fundamental goal decreasing the levels of crime and criminality in society rather than eliminating it. While governments and oppositions are unlikely to agree with this assessment, I have not heard any political party, whether in government or opposition, say that they will eliminate crime. Rather they talk about being “tough on crime” and claim success every time the level of recorded crime decreases; having claimed success rarely do they know the cause/s of the decrease nor do they really care. Alternatively, they claim success on the basis of the introduction of a new law that gives additional power to the criminal justice system; most often to the police.
Observation 5
Accepting now my first four observations, criminal justice policy and practice, and I would argue any policy and practice, could and should be subject to the following set of four questions:
· Which harms will it reduce?
· How and by how much?
· At what cost?
· With what side effects?
Observation 6
In practice, my first five observations are rarely applied. Why? Because NSW is most often described as being in the grip of a crime wave, irrespective of the facts. These complaints can be found in the Australian media as far back as the 1840s. The Sydney Morning Herald on 8th June 1844, for example, reported:
We feel we are in circumstances of imminent danger to our property, and danger to our very lives. Robberies and murders, increasing in numbers and audacity, infest our streets … Anxiety and alarm have seized our families. … Something must be done, done effectually, and done forthwith.[3]
Since at least the 1960s the public’s worries about crime and the governments’ responses have been consistently in the forefront of debates about the quality of life in New South Wales. Though the focus has shifted several times, a great deal of the concern has centred on juvenile crime, variously in the form of youth violence, youth gangs and drugs. There has been some justification for concern. For example, a 1996 NSW study found, 24,000 secondary school students committed a break and enter, 21,000 committed a motor vehicle theft and 173,000 admitted to attacking someone with the intention of hurting them, and that’s off the sporting field.[4] At the same time, the overwhelming majority of these young people offended one or a few times and stopped offending without intervention of any kind occurring.
The policy influence of the shrill cries of alarmists cannot be underestimated. During 2000-2002 some sections of the media were almost hysterical about crime, declaring crime was out of control, gang wars were about to explode and our streets were unsafe, when the truth was that crime had been essentially flat or declining since 1999; a trend that has continued through to today. In policy terms however, arguably we have never seen a more punitive period in the past 40 years of criminal justice policy.
Two illustrations: one, every election in NSW since 1965, when the Liberal’s Robert Askin promised more police to combat increasing crime, has been a “law and order” election, and two, since 1995 when the Labor Party was elected to government, the jail population has been increased from about 6,400 to about 8,000 in 2003 – a 25 per cent increase – and still more jails are being built.
To understand the policy decisions that have flowed from “law and order” debates you have to think in political terms.
Being tough on crime has been traditionally the most popular approach to our crime problems because it is seen to be
· punishing offenders and
· providing immediate results.
Alternatively, crime prevention is far less popular because it is seen to be
· soft on crime (it does not “punish” offenders, provide immediate results, provide good media “soundbites” or play the blame game) and
· a collection of social programs for the crime prone who wont help themselves.
Observation 7
There are compelling arguments that crime prevention is both effective and cost effective. The following table summarises some of these interventions and results.
Effective Actions Targeting some Risk Factors[5]
Risk Factors / Actions / Effects on experimental groupInconsistent and poor parenting / Home visits by nurses
Parent training / 62% fewer child abuse cases
66% fewer arrests
19% less self-reported delinquency
Social and cognitive abilities of children / Preschool enrichment program
Home visits by teachers
Mentoring / 50% fewer arrests
80% less chronic delinquency
33% fewer aggression
Social exclusion / Community integration program / 56% fewer arrests
School drop out / Incentives to complete school / 17% fewer arrests
Unemployment, especially for youth / Youth employment program / 33% fewer arrests
Dysfunctional families and irresponsible behaviour / Functional family therapy / 40% less recidivism
Alcohol and drugs / Drug and alcohol treatment program / 63% less recidivism (program results – not experimental group)
In addition to being effective, there is strong evidence at least some prevention programs are also cost-effective. For example:
o Encouraging the social development of children, youth and families reduces delinquent behaviour with cost benefit ratios varying from a low of $1.06 to a high of $7.16 for every $1 spent.[6]
o Reducing opportunities, and so decreasing victimisation, have cost benefit ratios from a low of $1.83 to a high of $7.14 for every $1 spent.[7]
o Enhancing school programs for young people in conflict with the law to keep them at school costs $6,950 and programs to help youths find jobs cost $1,167, compared with $10,542 for judicial intervention.[8]
o Each high risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime saves society between $1.7 million and $2.3 million.[9]
A US study by the RAND Corporation illustrates the costs implications of different approaches, showing that to reduce crime by 10 per cent it would cost each family in additional taxes
o $228 to use only incarceration
o $118 to use probation
o $48 through parent training, and
o $32 through programs using incentives to help youth in difficulty complete school.[10]
More recently, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy reviewed around 400 programs aimed at reducing criminal behaviour and conducted mostly in the US and Canada over the last quarter of a century.[11] The review divided programs into four broad categories:
o early childhood programs
o middle childhood and adolescent (non-juvenile offender) programs
o juvenile offender programs, and
o adult offender programs.
It found that some programs simply didn’t work, others reduced crime but were not cost-effective, and others reduced crime and were cost-effective. The largest and most consistent economic returns were found to be for a range of programs for juvenile offenders with the benefit to cost ratios of some programs exceeding $20 for every $1 invested. In addition, the Institute found prevention programs for young children, adolescents and adult offenders were cost-effective.[12]
Observation 8
A review of community safety concerns in 28 disadvantaged communities across NSW found several common themes.
Common themes emerging from community consultations
at 28 locations across NSW
Clearly there are significant overlaps in several of these concerns. For example, many of the children and young people identified as being absent from school are the same children and young people who are causing concern after school and late into the night. A core of these young people is repeat offenders. Many were identified as coming from families where there are poor parental skills and supervision is lacking. Alcohol is said to be a major contributing factor to the dysfunction in some of these families. The advantage of overlaps is that if you fix one problem it might well fix others or at least impact on them in positive ways.
These concerns are consistent with both national and international findings on risk factors relating to crime. Some issues are so dominant that they provide a good guide as to where additional investments might be made to have the biggest impact on crime and community well-being in disadvantaged communities.
I have drawn out a few of these themes to highlight their connection with crime and the benefits to be gained by giving them priority.
School absenteeism, including truancy
Unexcused absence from school is a risk factor for serious juvenile delinquency which extends to adult years and often leads to further trouble. Studies have shown that students who truant are more likely to be involved in crime compared with students who do not truant. Secondary students who truant a lot are more than three times likely to be involved in assault, nearly five times more likely to participate in malicious damage and nearly nine times more likely to be involved in property crime.[13]
However, to focus on truancy is to focus on only one part of the problem. Many students have patterns of absenteeism that are not considered truant because their absences are excused by parents or carers. The 1998 Premier’s Forum, “Working Together”, held at Dubbo reported that: “School absenteeism was acknowledged as a worrying issue in some communities with 95% of school absenteeism reflecting parental condoned absence. … Parental cooperation was highlighted as essential to effectively address the issue.”[14]
In May 2003, one metropolitan police command ran a concentrated one day “truancy patrol” over a six hour period. In that time they detected 81 school aged students absent from school. Twenty six were truants, 55 were “approved” absences.
Student suspensions must be also considered. For students who are given out of school suspensions the above factors are exacerbated: not only are the students roaming the streets but they have also been labelled “bad or “delinquent” by the community.
Unsupervised after school and night activities by children and young people
Unsupervised children and young people on the streets after school hours and well into the night are often the same children who are frequently absent from school. Secondary students who receive low level supervision (going out 4 or more nights without adult supervision) are 1.4 times more likely to be involved in assaults, more than two times more likely to be involved in malicious damage and almost three times more likely to be involved in property theft than students who receive high level supervision.[15]
Poor parental supervision greatly increases the risk of involvement in crime, wherever you live, but the effect is much more pronounced in neighbourhoods characterised by high levels of economic and social stress.[16]
Repeat offending (Prisoner reintegration)
Repeat offending is for the most part about prisoner reintegration. Twenty seven per cent of adult offenders who have served one jail term and fifty two per cent of adult offenders who have served more than one jail term are convicted of an offence within two years of their release, resulting in another fulltime jail term. [17] The recidivism rates for this group of offenders vary from 20 to 60 per cent, depending on the type of offence for which they were originally convicted. At the 60 per cent end are people convicted of property offences.[18]