Dear Editor,
The upsurge in violent crime this year understandably has all stakeholders distressed. In recognition of this state of affairs none other than President David Granger has identified several operational priorities which should be intrinsic to any crime prevention strategy. The concept of prevention is grounded in the notion that crime and victimization are driven by many causal or underlying factors. These are the result of a wide range of circumstances that influence the lives of individuals and families, as well as the situations and opportunities that facilitate victimization and offending.
Determining what underlying or causal factors are associated with different types of crime can lead to the development of a set of strategies and programmes to change those factors, and reduce the incidence of those crimes. These factors include global changes and trends that affect the social and economic conditions of regions and countries; factors affecting individual countries and local environments and communities; those relating to the family and close relationships; and those that affect individuals.
At the national level, the extent of the disparity in household income between the poorest and the wealthiest within a country, levels of corruption, the quality of the infrastructure and institutions and social and cultural patterns can all create situations that increase the risk of crime and victimization.
At the community or neighbourhood level, inadequate infrastructure and administration, poor housing and community conditions, lack of access to a good education and health services, high unemployment and easy access to drugs or arms can all increase the risks. Marked discrepancies and inequalities between different geographical sectors accompanied by poor or disorganized schools can result in poor achievement, dropping out of school, bullying behaviour and exclusion from school, all of which have been identified as risk factors for offending and victimization among children and young people.
At the individual level, risk factors for offending and victimization may lead to early aggressive behaviour or serious substance abuse, for example. Risk factors connected with relationships include family characteristics such as harsh or erratic parenting, family conflict and violence and abuse, family circumstances such as poverty and isolation, and relationships with friends and peers that can lead to risk-taking and law-breaking.
It is in that regard that any police force worthy of the name would seek to enhance its knowledge about the factors that put populations, communities and individuals at risk. This enlightened approach would have the advantage of enabling prevention programmes to be targeted to areas and neighbourhoods at high risk, or to groups of individuals who are already involved (or at risk) in offending. At the national level, government is better positioned to prioritise its crime problems, and to develop focused programmes for communities and sectors that seem most vulnerable. Such targeting of programmes and funds to tackle the greatest needs is an effective and economical way of reducing levels of crime and victimization.
Another factor worthy of consideration is whether additional police prevent crime. This all depends on how well those ‘boots-on- the-ground’ are focused in terms of specific objectives, tasks, places, times and people. This means for mobilisation and deployment to be effective a lot will depend upon putting police where serious crime is concentrated, and at the times it is most likely to occur. Whether adding more ranks causes crime to decrease, however, is not something which has definitively been established.
It is logical to assume that when more ranks are available for patrols, police response time is reduced thereby leading to the arrest of more offenders sooner rather than later. This hypothesis must of necessity include in the policing strategy the development of the 911 systems to speed victim contact with police divisional operations rooms, and the recruiting of more police in order to reduce average response times, and deter crime through greater certainty of arrest.
No specific crime prevention approach should be considered superior to the others. Any approach selected should form part of a strategic and balanced plan, and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in a particular context should be considered. Among the approaches to crime prevention are those which involve a range of social, educational, health and training programmes, which target at-risk children or families when the children are very young, to provide them with support and child-rearing skills. Some early intervention programmes are also referred to as developmental crime prevention, since they try to intervene to develop resilience and social skills among children and their families.
Community, or locally-based crime prevention targets areas (instead of individuals) where the risks of becoming involved in crime or being victimized are high. This includes areas with high levels of deprivation, both in terms of infrastructure, services and wealth, or lack of community cohesion.
Situational crime prevention aims to reduce the opportunities for people to commit crimes, to increase the risks and costs of being caught and to minimize the benefits. Situational prevention is criticised for focusing too much on opportunistic crime and/or surveillance, because it can displace crime and disorder to other areas. In addition it encourages unequal access to security ‒ for example, with the development of private space and gated communities; and for failing to tackle the social or economic causes of crime problems.
Reintegration programmes speak to crime prevention programmes that work with children, young people or adults already involved in the criminal justice system, including those in custody and returning to the community.
Crime prevention should also be linked to notions of sustainable development and sustainable livelihoods, in the sense that it should meet the needs of the present, without compromising those of future generations.
It is important to note that no comprehensive crime prevention strategy will be effective if designed and/or implemented without the benefit of strategic intelligence and strategic analysis. The aim of strategic intelligence in law enforcement is to provide the type of analysis which relates directly to achieving the objectives of, in this case, the Guyana Police Force. Intelligence is therefore the sum of what is known, integrated with new information, and interpreted for its meaning.
However, if the GPF fails to appreciate the strategic intelligence and relies mainly on tactical and operational results to provide direction towards the future, then it runs the risk of underachieving. In other words if the GPF is to take the simplistic approach of measuring arrests as the prime indicator of success, then it would have lost sight of the need to make sure that those arrests signify the most important and effective way of dealing with a particular type of crime.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick E Mentore
