THE POLITICS OF CRIME PREVENTION by Brigitte C. M. Koch. Aldershot, U.K. and Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 1998. 189 pp.
Reviewed by Charles Robert Davidson, J.D., M.A.L.D., Ph.D. Candidate, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
Brigitte Koch’s study of national crime prevention policy in England and Wales from 1979 to 1997 sets out to examine the various facets of prevention policy formulation and implementation. Specifically, her research seeks to examine the structural foundations of crime-prevention at the national level and to address how political actors, whether individuals or agencies, impact upon crime-prevention policy. To this end, Koch examined the structure and protocol of the principal organs of crime prevention in England and Wales and conducted interviews with "key crime prevention policy makers" and others closely involved with the promulgation and implementation of criminal policy. The result is a detailed and informative study which describes how policies aimed at crime prevention are actually made in England and Wales. While few students of policymaking would be surprised by Koch’s evidence of partisan influence on policy and excessively concentrated decision-making, the study provides interesting insights into the fashioning of English criminal justice policy.
This volume begins by providing a brief treatment of the various theories and definitional dilemmas surrounding the notion of crime prevention. Placing crime prevention theory in historical context, Koch rightly notes that the very concept of crime prevention, though solidly grounded in the history of criminology—Cesare Beccaria, the so-called father of Classical Criminology—treated the issue in his famous 1764 work ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT, suffers from a severe case of definitional ambiguity, and despite various efforts at defining crime prevention, "little success has been achieved in coming up with one definition which is understood by government officials, the public, academics, and the police. In fact, even within one particular group, a single definition has not been agreed upon." (p.22). However, as the author points out this lack of clarity about how best to prevent crime may paradoxically prove to be a boon: in the absence of a specific, universally-recognized definition of crime prevention, agencies are free to interpret the term as they deem appropriate, and thus unwittingly work in tandem with other crime prevention agencies and organizations (who, of course, themselves have interpreted their crime prevention mandate as they see fit). Moreover, the lack of a concrete definition obviates the need for continual readjustment of that definition with every shift in the understanding of the term; policies may thus be refined and refocused without the need to create new terminology. Further complicating the matter, Koch demonstrates how various agencies charged with crime prevention understand their mandate in different ways, each corresponding roughly to one or the other schools of criminology. Some agencies conceptualize their role as essentially "situational crime prevention", that is, prevention of criminal events, whereas others conceptualize crime prevention as targeting the potential criminal offender.
The following chapters of the work consist largely of a detailed examination of the major government branch charged with crime prevention policy and its component branches. Crime prevention policy in England and Wales dates back to the 1980s and has continually grown in importance since that time. Primarily the bailiwick of the Home Office, the governmental office charged with the "administration of justice, criminal law, the treatment of offenders including probation and the prison service, [and the] police" (p. 28), crime prevention policy is largely shaped by the Home Secretary and the Minister for crime prevention.
Although the specifics of Home Office operations may be rather irrelevant to some readers, Koch’s work is interesting in its discussion of the influence of the individual actors in criminal policymaking. Her research suggests that national crime prevention policy in England is in fact made by a very few individuals from a few agencies and organizations. According to Koch, in 1995 crime prevention policy in England and Wales was effectively in the hands of five individuals who wielded an inordinate amount of influence on the shape and direction of crime prevention policy. This exclusive coterie of policymakers, Koch argues, prevents the inflow of new or alternative information and informal contacts between these individuals only heightens the potential for collusive and "off-the-record" decision-making.
The influence of this insular coterie of elites is all the more troubling when it is considered that the crime prevention establishment has been deeply inspired by the political ideology of one party--the Conservative Party, in power from 1979 until May 1997. The basic ideological orientation of this party according to Koch can be summarized as advocating "more police, more prisons, and stiffer sentences. (p.175)." Perhaps more than in some areas, the role of ideology in criminal justice policymaking cannot be overstated; indeed, as several respondents in Koch’s field research indicated, political ideology more often than not trumped empirical findings on crime prevention strategies (p. 27). For instance, Koch notes that the ideological orientations of two key players in crime prevention, the Home Secretary and his Minister tend to be politically motivated and are largely formulated with an eye towards their own partisan advantage. (p.36).
As noted, by examining various publications of the Home Office and other government organizations, the author shows that in the main the government position on criminal policy during the period from 1979-May 1997 was overwhelmingly concerned with classical crime prevention, that is, a model emphasizing the criminal act and de-emphasizing the criminal. However, close analysis indicates just how pervasive the influence of the Home Secretary can be on crime prevention policy. Koch illustrates that the personal influence of leaders on policy is so pervasive as to permit the close correlation of policy decisions with the official in power at the time of their making. Where the Home Secretary in power was thought to be more focused upon the larger issues of crime prevention, the policy position of the Home Office tended to take on a more "offender-oriented" approach; this was the case in 1984 and 1990, where Koch discerns in the literature a shift towards a more "criminality prevention" approach.
Aside from these two periods, the author found little indication that the Home Office had any concern regarding offender-oriented strategies; the Home Office viewed crime prevention largely as a matter of policing and "target-hardening" prevention strategies. Research was typically disregarded in favor of questionable or controversial pet schemes of various leaders, such as closed circuit television monitoring (CCTV) or various other widely touted (but empirically unproved) anti-crime initiatives.
This is consistent with Koch’s findings that the very research agenda of the crime prevention establishment long reflected the Conservative Party ideology of the nation’s crime prevention policy makers. Accordingly, the research agenda of the division charged with providing research support to policymakers focused on three main areas: police, prisons and correctional matters, and courts and sentencing. Koch notes " the findings…are consistent with Conservative party ideology whose emphasis was on police, prisons, and stiffer sentences. Their focus was on ‘individual responsibility’ and opportunity reduction, as opposed to tackling the social-economic factors associated with crime." (p.178).
Koch’s research is a call for greater and more meaningful participation in national crime prevention policymaking. If greater input were given to other opposing perspectives and research agendas, she argues, greater progress might be made in crime prevention. To successfully attack the problem of crime, a wide variety of inputs and perspectives are needed. Failure to incorporate strategies which resolve the larger socio-economic ills that lead to criminal behavior ensures that mere "target-hardening" and other situational strategies will be insufficient to diminish crime.
While this volume is of limited use in American criminal justice courses because of its exclusively British
focus, excerpted, it could provide useful material for comparative case study in criminal justice policymaking.
Students may benefit from examining how crime prevention strategies are conceived, shaped, and implemented in the
British system and drawing parallels and making distinctions with our own system of criminal policymaking.