Needed: strategic approaches to crime prevention

Lionel WIJESIRI

Over the past few decades, crime in Sri Lanka has skyrocketed, and so have its costs. The government is spending increasing amounts on the Police, prosecution, court and prisons. Crime control uses up a substantial amount of our gross domestic product every year but this spending has done little to reverse crime rates or reform offenders. The number of repeat offenders among former prisoners remains discouragingly high.

It is in this context that we should view the statement made by Most Venerable Aggamahapanditha Kotugoda Dhammawasa Anu Nayaka Thera recently. The Most Venerable Thera said the time has come for the government to appoint a Presidential Commission to investigate the causes for the rise in crime in the country.

This valuable statement should make all our political and social leaders sit up and think. And, think honestly and seriously because the time is running out.

Causes

The starting point to preventing crime is the right understanding of what causes crime. Publicly, politicians tend to oversimplify crime prevention policy, arguing that 'more Police equals less crime'. Yet international studies suggest that more Police do not necessarily reduce crime and there are better and cheaper ways of reducing crime through investment in programmes that tackle the causes of crime.

To tackle the causes of crime, we need greater investment in programmes that tackle the causes of crime rather than greater investment in Police and prisons; greater investment in early therapeutic and diversionary interventions particularly for at risk young people; and to expand court programmes which address the causes of offending.

Lowering the crime rate also involves addressing each of the factors that cause crime: from early intervention with young people at risk of involvement in crime, to working with those with substantial criminal histories to address the causes of re-offending.

Explanations

Multiple factors cause crime. While there is debate about the importance of various factors, most agree that multiple factors cause crime, and causes of criminal behaviour vary between different people and between different types of crimes.

Bizarre or not, three explanations have emerged. The first is that crime is not a social and economic problem but have a genetic cause, predisposing some people towards aggression. The second is that there can be no inevitable link between unemployment and crime because years ago when more youth were out of work, the country was experiencing lesser crime. And the third is that a country's morals determine whether it is a happy and safe place to live.

Politicians favour tough penalties because they are cheap and psychologically reassuring, but in reality, harsh penalties may make things worse. Politicians are not alone in recommending harsh penalties to combat crime. Many theories advocate imposing maximum penalties, which can include massive fines, life sentences, or even the death penalty - it does not really matter, so long as the hypothetical penalty is harsh enough to deter all but the most criminal element. Though such punishments are often unrealistic (or morally questionable), these theories draw on some sound logic: enforcing laws and conducting investigations are expensive, but deterring crime through harsh penalties is cheap, which according to existing theories, makes them the most efficient deterrent.

But we don't experience penalties like this in real life, particularly in democratic countries. The reasons for this include mankind's propensity to make mistakes, society's general sense of fairness, and the impossibility of implementing certain maximum penalties, such as sufficiently large fines.

Permissive society

But the most obvious cause of crime is the collapse in our traditional family structures and the ending of sexual and social taboos. This is real 20th-century revolution in most countries, including our island. Many believe that increased freedom has brought some unhappy consequences. Robert Reiner, Professor of Criminology at the London School of Economics, says that culturally repressive societies had the advantage that citizens did not need to be coerced into behaving themselves. They had 'a policeman in their heads' which kept them out of trouble. The policemen seem to have gone, but we are not about to set aside our personal freedoms to bring him back. The question is, can we restore a more morally responsible culture without loss of civil liberty?

One can disagree with Professor Reiner questioning him whether permissiveness by itself bring crime. Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries are very permissive, but law and order in those countries are not a great problem because the markets are strictly controlled by liberal policies but with social democratic interventions. In other words, their cultural climates are permissive, but their economic climates are more controlled.

Curbing desire for crime

The difficulty for Sri Lanka is that we have the worst of both worlds. We have the free economic market and permissiveness at the same time - economic and moral laissez-faire. There's no point in telling the young people to be responsible if you won't intervene on social democratic lines and offer them the reward of a place in society. You can try to preach, but they won't listen.

A good social crime prevention programme can work at eliminating causes that may lead a young person to crime, such as inadequate parenting, poor early education or bad physical and mental health. The community can lend a hand by teaching young people about the rule of law, building up local Police/community relations and setting up educational/recreational centres for unemployed youngsters or voluntary treatment programmes for drug addicts. This strategy has yielded astonishing results in some Far Eastern countries.

Thwarting organized crime

Crime prevention has also become increasingly popular to combat organized crime. In such situations, key strategies include counteracting the appeal of criminal groups through social and cultural programmes in schools or the media, boosting efforts to discourage juvenile delinquency and reducing opportunities for organized crime by limiting illegal markets. For example, good information campaigns may squeeze criminal markets by reducing the demand for illicit drugs.

Preventing crime in the future

Although numerous projects undertaken by government and Non-Government organizations have shown that good crime prevention programmes are becoming successful, roadblocks still remain. Most difficult obstacle is the lack of government funding, which has traditionally been directed at building up criminal justice systems rather than preventing crime.

Although spending on community and situational crime prevention has risen over the past decade and such issues as child development are beginning to attract more interest, money is still desperately needed for future research.

Funding will be needed to apply crime prevention techniques to more contemporary crimes, such as transnational crime, crimes against tourists and computer-related crimes. The current levels for these offenses will rise sharply as our trade become more global, business and leisure travel expand and traditional borders open up.

Any effective crime prevention strategy should be based on the premise that well-designed interventions can have a positive influence on behaviours; crimes can be reduced or prevented by addressing risk factors that can lead to offending. Successful interventions have been shown to reduce not only victimization, but also the social and economic costs that result from criminal activities and the costs related to processing cases in the criminal justice system.

This overview addresses the following key elements of the strategy;

1. Expanding the knowledge base of risk factors associated with the likelihood that individuals will engage in criminal activity;

2. Identify individuals at different stages of development who exhibit or are exposed to these risk factors; and

3. Build on the body of knowledge on effective interventions for addressing these risk factors.

To conceptualize and evolve such a far reaching national programme, it is indeed a good idea, as Most Venerable Aggamahapanditha Kotugoda Dhammawasa Anu Nayaka Thera suggested, to appoint a Presidential Commission to find ways and means of tackling the national issue of crime prevention from a new perspective.