CONSIDERING PARADIGMS
OF CRIME REDUCTION IN
DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
Keith Soothill and Brian Francis
Lancaster University
United Kingdom
What is the sub-text?
Are lessons or messages coming from the
criminological literature in the northern
hemisphere relevant to issues arising in
South Africa?
THE ANSWER IS ‘YES’!!
MORE SPECIFICALLY…
What are the implications of the
longitudinal study published as ‘Exploring
Paradigms of Crime Reduction’ in the
British Journal of Criminology in March
2010?
The debate about ‘Why Crime Rates Fell?’
in many western countries – focusing on
the explanations.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CRIME
REDUCTION
Many and various! – see Hope (2000)
Our own work focuses on four major paradigms:
 Relating to parental child-rearing methods.
 Relating to structural factors relating to the
family during adolescence.
 Relating to geographical segregation.
 Relating to individual resource deficits
WHAT IS A PARADIGM?
A paradigm is an explanatory framework – it
provides a statement of the most
appropriate way of studying an issue.
(Term famously developed by Thomas Kuhn in The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962)
FOUR PARADIGMS
(1) Parental child rearing methods (e.g. child neglect)
Crime reduction - the focus is on early developmental prevention, for
instance, on child rearing methods - as early as possible in the
child’s life. Has a largely psychological thrust.
(2) Structural factors relating to the family during
adolescence (e.g. poverty)
Crime reduction? – the focus is on factors that are not potentially
modifiable within a generation. Has a largely sociological thrust.
FOUR PARADIGMS (continued)
3.
The geographical segregation paradigm (e.g.
linked to localities/neighbourhoods)
Crime reduction – the focus is on community crime prevention, a
perspective oriented toward social control, instead of aiming at
changing the motivation and predispositions of offenders. Again
has more of a sociological thrust.
4. Individual resource deficits
Crime reduction? - it tries to deal with the issue by increasing the
individual’s resources through education, training and
employment. Again a focus on social factors rather than
psychological deficits.
THE OUTCOME FACTORS
These were the first time conviction of three
offences of interest – violent offences,
shoplifting and burglary.
The possibility is that different offences
emerge from a set of different causative
influences.
OUR DATA SOURCE
With the help and support of our colleague,
Mogens Christoffersen, we considered a
national cohort of males born in in
Denmark in 1980; this cohort was followed
up to the end of 2005.
COHORT AND OUTCOMES
The 1980 birth cohort included 29,944 males and their
parents.
Of these, by the end of 2005, 1,989 were convicted of
shoplifting, 1,324 were convicted of burglary, and 1,901
were convicted of violence.
The numbers may seem low for shoplifting but the focus
here is on convictions - lesser crimes, such as
shoplifting, are likely to have warnings and cautions to
prevent a court appearance.
RESULTS (1)
Detailed results are shown in the British Journal of Criminology paper,
but….

All the paradigms examined seem likely to make a contribution
towards explaining crime and criminal behaviour in Denmark. Is
this true for other countries? Needs to be tested.

Some risk factors seem to have stronger links with particular
offences. So, for example:
(1) Domestic violence has a stronger link to violence offences.
(2) ‘Children being in care’ has a stronger link with burglary offences.
(3) Family separation has a stronger link with shoplifting offences.
RESULTS (2)
However, some paradigms may explain more than
others:
Likely to be more widespread benefit in
focusing on structural issues within a society
which have widespread impact (such as
unemployment and the lack of vocational
qualifications) rather than the more individual
deficits (such as a psychiatric disorder or even
drug addiction) that may affect fewer people.
NOT A POPULAR CONCLUSION?!
No ‘easy fix’ or ‘magic bullet’ is on offer to
reduce crime – familiar story that crime
and criminal behaviour are complex
phenomena to explain.
FOCUS ON DEBATE ABOUT
‘WHY CRIME RATES FELL’
Dramatic decline in the rate of crime per 100,000
inhabitants in the United States between 1991
and 2001.
e.g. Homicide rates plunged 43% from the peak in
1991 to 2001 – reaching the lowest levels in 35
years.
In fact, all of the seven main categories of crime
decreased dramatically.
WHY?
Many explanatory theories –
e.g. some point to increased incarceration
rates, whilst others note the booming
economy. Some appeal to changing
demographics, whilst others credit the
increased access to legal abortion.
THREE COMMENTATORS
Conklin, J. E. (2003) Why Crime Rates Fell. New
York: Allyn and Bacon
Levitt, S. D. (2004) Understanding Why Crime Fell
in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the
Decline and Six that Do Not. Journal of
Economic Perspectives. 18:1, 163-190.
Zimring, F. E. (2007) The Great American Crime
Decline. New York: Oxford University Press.
CONKLIN’S CONCLUSION
Conklin (2003: 200) concludes that “on the
basis of the evidence examined in this
book, I believe that the rising rate of
incarceration was probably the most
important reason that crime rates fell after
1991.”
LEVITT’S
FOUR FAVOURABLE FACTORS
increase in the number of police;
the rising prison population;
the receding crack epidemic;
the legalization of abortion.
ZIMRING’S CONCLUSIONS
More measured in his conclusions, but
points to the combination of increased
prison populations, a strong economy,
and appropriate demographics as
creating a very favourable condition for
a decline in crime rates. The latter two
elements are in contrast to Levitt who
argues that the economy and
demographics make a negligible
contribution.
ZIMRING’S METHODOLOGICAL TIMEBOMB:
Comparison with Canada
While the declining crime rates of the United
States and Canada are remarkably similar,
Canada’s prison population remained relatively
stable over this period, while the prison
population in the United States grew
significantly.
Also, for example, while the booming economy
explanation is seductive, Canada did not
experience the same economic boom as the
United States.
TWO TRADITIONS
Note remarkable contrast between factors
discussed in our work using the Danish birth
cohort and the American work focusing on
‘Why Crime Rates Fell’
(1) Ameliorative tradition of trying to make things
better for offenders and potential offenders.
(2) Social protection/social defence tradition –
reacting to crime e.g. more police, more
prisons etc.
TWO LEVELS AND TWO
CONSTITUENCIES
Micro-level – focusing on individuals in a
birth cohort and the influences prior to the
first conviction.
Macro-level – higher level of generality
focusing on crime in general. Here the
contribution of persistent offenders is
crucial.
NUMBER OF COURT APPEARANCES (RESULTING IN
A CONVICTION FOR EVERY 100 PERSONS IN
ENGLAND AND WALES)
67 persons – not convicted
17 persons – convicted once
5 persons – convicted twice
8 persons – convicted three times
) Around 50%
) of the total
) convictions
3 persons – convicted on four or more occasions )
Around 50% of the total convictions.
THREE MAJOR TASKS
•
Making the group who are not convicted (currently around 67 per
cent) as large as possible. This is the issue of onset.
•
Making the group who are convicted (currently around 33 percent
of the population) be only one-time offenders, rather than
becoming persistent offenders. This is the issue of recidivism.
•
Dealing with the group who are convicted on four or more
occasions (around 3% of the population who contribute to around
50% of the total convictions). This is the issue of persistence.
INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CONTROLS?
Development of internal controls
A focus on helping persons to build up their
own stake in society and, thus, develop
internal controls whereby they can resist the
temptation to commit crime.
Use of external controls
A focus on more intrusive policing, and more
and more prisons and so on, which produces
permanent outcasts who must be locked up
for long periods.
EXTERNAL CONTROLS? – BUT
AT WHAT SOCIAL COST?
Implementing draconian measures on certain targeted groups can have an
impact, but at what social cost?
A recent article in Time magazine provides a vivid clue - "Increased sentencing
in some communities has removed entire generations of young men" from
some minority communities, says San Francisco police chief George
Gascón. "Has that been a factor in lowering crime? I think it probably has. I
think it also probably has had a detrimental effect on those communities."
The article vividly reminds that “Prison is expensive, demoralizing and
deadening .... Prisoners leave saddened parents, abandoned mates,
fatherless children. Of course, in many cases, those families are better off
with their violent relatives behind bars. But a court system that clobbers
first-time offenders with mandatory sentences — sometimes for nonviolent
crimes — will inevitably lock up thousands of not-so-bad guys alongside the
hardened criminals” (Von Drehle, 2010).
DEPLORE THE COMPLACENCY OF
SOME AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGISTS
While it may be true that one can achieve lower
crime rates by massive investments in measures
of external control – that is, by high incarceration
rates (the United States has one of the highest
incarceration rates in the world) and more
intrusive policing – is this the way that one wants
a society to develop? Essentially this approach
disenfranchises a significant minority to penal
waste bins and damages whole communities.
A SIMPLE MESSAGE
The pivotal issue is whether one can
develop a society in which all persons feel
that they have a stake and, thus, develop
internal controls to resist crime. The
development of more prisons and more
intrusive policing is a sad measure of a
failure to do this.