New Bureaucratic Criminology approach to criminology originated in the Home Office in England. It developed there and, around 1960, replaced social democratic positivist thought. There are striking similarities between left-wing idealist criminology and this approach. Both are against the punishments of post–World War II social democratic criminology and neo-classicism.
The primary objective of this criminology is to avoid the etiological crisis, as it conveys the impression that discovering the causes of crime is either not very important or politically impossible to resolve. It is considered sufficient to recognize that crime exists and that measures should be taken to reduce it. Thus, for the proponents of this approach, the cost of reducing crime becomes the key issue, and consequently, the cost-benefit ratio of crime control gains central importance. This criminology regards the presence of crime and its serious dangers in its surroundings as the main issue.
This new bureaucratic criminology has no connection with the broader problem of social organization.
It is more closely related to Hirschi’s social control theory, which asks the question—why do people commit crimes?—in a completely opposite way: why do most people not commit crimes?
In this way, this criminology becomes linked with Hobbes’ idea that people commit crimes due to the absence of restraint, because there is no one to stop them. Thus, the commission of crime becomes a social reaction, involving both prevention and control on one hand, and motivation or inducement toward crime on the other. However, for a comprehensive theory, it is necessary to explain both the motivating factors of crime and its prevention, because in practice, prevention itself depends on those very factors that give rise to crime.
According to conventional wisdom, prevention depends on understanding and analyzing the causes of crime. Although it is acceptable that preventive measures can reduce crime even without fully understanding its causes—for example, installing speed breakers to control speeding, or using better locks, stronger doors, and scientific security devices such as closed-circuit television (CCTV), cameras, and alarm systems outside banks to prevent theft—such measures, which reduce opportunities for committing crime, have limited effectiveness. They may temporarily reduce crime in a particular area, but criminals simply move to other areas to commit offenses. Social measures—such as creating employment opportunities, providing facilities for sports, improving education, and making better use of leisure time—are far more effective, as they eliminate the basic causes that motivate crime. Although the public, and perhaps magistrates and police, may not agree with these preventive measures, they are highly popular in academic circles.
The new bureaucratic criminology does not deny the increase in crime, but it claims that this increase appears because crimes are now reported more frequently. Furthermore, the proponents of this criminology also believe that one reason for the rise in crime is that opportunities for committing crimes are now greater than before.
The basis of this criminology lies in the surveys of the British Home Office that began in 1982. Their objective was to reduce the greatly exaggerated fear of crime. The results of these studies are as follows:
The person affected by crime is much like the criminal himself—not an old person, not a woman, not a wealthy individual, but a young unmarried man who drinks heavily and engages in violent behavior against others.
The fear of crime is greater than the reality of crime. Outside cities, crime is not such a major threat. On this basis, and on the assumption that the crime rate in the future will remain the same as it was in 1961, an average person aged sixteen or above should expect that:
These surveys further created the impression that the image of crime presented by politicians, the media, and the police (who always seek an increase in their budgets) is greatly exaggerated, and that most law-breaking is of a minor nature. Therefore, the police should focus more on preventive measures rather than waging a crusade against crime.
The views of this criminology regarding the police have already been mentioned in parts above. It can further be said that the role of the police in controlling crime is quite limited. According to this “bureaucratic criminology,” the police may be effective in preventing serious crimes, but their role in influencing or reducing the overall level of crime is highly doubtful. In their view, there is no evidence that increasing patrol police reduces crime, although it is true that such a presence increases the public’s sense of security.
New bureaucratic criminology confines itself only to crime and makes no effort to search for its causes. Without identifying and analyzing the causes of crime, its prevention is difficult. The application of the methods suggested by this criminology merely shifts crime from one place to another.
No Comments