Question

People across the United States are fearful - and fed up- with crime. Dogs for protection, special locks, and security systems have never been more popular. And no wonder: Almost half of U.S. adults claim that they are afraid to walk alone at night in the vicinity of their own homes. Government spending on crime prevention has risen steadily during the past thirty years, but so has the crime rate. At the same time, as noted at the beginning of this chapter, violent crime has gone down in the last few years. New York City is a case in point: Murders in the Big Apple dropped from 2,245 in 1990 to 803 in 1997. Are we beginning to learn something more about controlling crime? Three factors seem to account for the New York turnaround. First, more police are on the streets than ever before. Second, a program of "community policing" makes police commanders directly responsible for controlling crime in their district. Third, and probably more important, police are less focused on making arrests and more concerned with preventing crime in the first place. For example, police officers have begun stopping young men for jaywalking or even spitting on the sidewalk in order to check them for concealed weapons (as a result the word is getting around that you risk arrest for carrying a gun) and even blocking off streets to traffic if that's what it takes to put local drug dealers out of business (the policy seems to work: the drug trade is down). Travis Hirschi (author of control theory) offers his own version of a community approach to crime. Hirschi notes that criminals today have two things in common. The first is age; most offenders are young. Crime rates are high in the late teens and early twenties, and they fall quickly thereafter. Second, most offenders take a short-term view of their lives. Lawbreakers, as Hirschi sees it, are people who have trouble working toward any long-term goal, including an educational degree, a career, a successful marriage, or even keeping a steady friendship. More than anything else, in fact, offenders are people characterized by low self-control. That is why, according to Hirschi, our present criminal justice system can never control crime effectively. For one thing, going to jail is too uncertain (most crimes go unpunished) and too far removed in time (catching, trying, and jailing criminals often takes a year or more) to deter the typical offender. Thus, Hirschi explains, popular calls for "stiffer sentences" actually have little effect in suppressing crime. Moreover, by the time many offenders are sent to prison, they are moving beyond the "crime years" simply because they are growing older. Statistically speaking, then, offenders aging in prison represent a crime threat already shrinking on its own. Therefore, rather than locking up adults, Hirschi argues that society needs to focus on younger people before they commit crimes. /similar to the new approach in New York City, Hirschi's approach calls for closer attention to teenagers - those at highest risk for criminal behavior. Effective crime control depends on devising policies to keep teens away not only from guns and drugs, but also alcohol and, if necessary, cars. Ultimately, though, the most effective way to control crime, Hirschi concludes, is to teach children self-control . This is a reasonability that falls upon parents. Government can help, however, by intervening in dysfunctional families and by developing strategies that help build strong-preferably two parent- families. Eliminating pregnancy among teenage girls would do far more to reduce crime, Hirschi contends, than all the actions of today's criminal justice system. QUESTIONS 1. Do you thing we need more prisons? Is that an effective way to deal with the crime problem? What else might be done? 2. Hirschi's recommendations are controversial because he opposes the popular practice of building more prisons. What do you thing? 3. If we don't lock up today's offenders swiftly and surely, how can we satisfy society's demand for retribution? 4. Do you think that New York City's new crime approach and Hirschi's suggestions attack the broader conditions that breed crime, such as poverty, racial prejudice, and weak families? Why or why not? 5. Does lethal injection illustrate the "medicalization of death"? How or how not? 6. Does lethal injection "sugar coat" capital punishment by making suffering less apparent? Is lethal injection more humane? Why or why not?

Answer 1

• I personally think prisons are a good thing, but I don’t think that we need more.It is effective to deal with crime problems but there are more things we can do. We can, like Hirschi said, start with helping children before they commit crimes. People are afraid of prisons, so maybe they can have inmates talk to children and give them a little slice of the prison life. Another thing that can be done is having more after school programs that don’t require much money, so low income families can participate and keep out of trouble.
• I agree with Hirschi’s recommendations. More prisons wont solve the problem of crime, it just gives criminals more places to stay AFTER they commit the crime.
• I never really thought about what we can do instead. I do think we should still lock people up, but maybe make prison a harsher place to be. Inmates have college educations and healthcare in there, maybe it shouldn’t be that rewarding.
• I think that Hirschi’s suggestions are correct when it comes to the broader conditions.Certain social and physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods contribute to high crime rates. These characteristics include poverty, dilapidation, population density, and population turnover.
• Poverty and other community conditions give rise to certain subcultures through which adolescents acquire values that promote deviant behavior. Albert Cohen wrote that lack of success in school leads lower-class boys to join gangs whose value system promotes and rewards delinquency.
• I think that the lethal injection does not illustrate the medicalization of death because no medication condition is being treated. I think this is more deserving of people who are actually dying.
• I personally think that lethal injections “sugar coat” capital punishment. The way I think about it is that a criminal can have someone in their captivity for years. They can slowly torture them and do everything in their power to drain them mentally and physically. Why not repay the criminal with the same punishment in jail? Giving them the lethal injection is the “easy” way out in thesense that they get to just die easily without any torture or time to think about the crimes they have committed.