Crime Prevention

Crime prevention is certainly better than investigating and dealing with a criminal act once it has happened. Police officers who are ‘out and about’, travelling on trains, walking around shopping centres and patrolling the streets make life more difficult for criminals. Communities, too, are becoming more active in preventing crime. For example, eliminating laneways and ‘dark’ areas in large public housing estates is an effective way of reducing crime.

Public awareness campaigns also make people more aware of ways to prevent crime. For example, signs in car parks remind people to lock their cars and take their valuables with them.

Situational crime prevention

Situational crime prevention involves making it difficult for criminals to commit criminal acts by increasing the risk of being caught, making the crime more difficult to perpetrate or making the crime less rewarding. Such prevention is often referred to as ‘opportunity reduction’.

Use of situational crime prevention is increasing, particularly in commercial settings. For example, many shops now make use of surveillance cameras and security guards, which significantly increases the risk of offenders being caught.

Steel bollards placed in front of shop windows and steel shutters make crimes such as ram raiding more difficult. Reducing the amount of cash held on premises and colour-tagging clothes limits the rewards from crime.

Many cars are now fitted with electronic tracking devices that track a car once it is stolen and then allow an operator to turn off the engine and stop the car while alerting police to its location. Similarly, most modern cars are now fitted with immobilisers that prevent an engine being turned on unless a specially coded key is used to start the engine.

Social crime prevention

Social crime prevention attempts to reduce the factors that are likely to cause a person to commit a crime. These factors can include poor parenting and/or home environment, high levels of truancy and misbehaviour at school, drug addiction and exposure to criminal elements at an early age.

Lawmakers and enforcers are beginning to see the social and economic value in social crime prevention. The most common strategy to encourage young people away from crime is the use of diversionary programs that provide a venue for alternative activities, such as sporting groups, the Police Citizens Youth Clubs and drop-in centres. Programs that target substance abuse, enable intervention in violent behaviour and provide job training to reduce unemployment have also been adopted.

Parties to a crime

Crimes are often committed by more than one person, but some people may be more responsible for the crime than others. Consequently, the law allows for this by distinguishing between the roles of each member of a group that has committed an offence. The level of responsibility held by each party to a crime determines the level of punishment.

Principal in the first degree

This is the person who actually carries out the criminal act. Such a person is usually referred to as the ‘perpetrator’. For example, if a group of people conduct an armed robbery of a service station, the person holding the gun and threatening the attendant is the principal in the first degree.

Principal in the second degree

This person assists others in the commission of a crime. The principal in the second degree is present during the actual crime but is not a main participant (they are usually referred to as an ‘accessory’). In the armed robbery of the service station, for example, this could be someone who was standing guard at the door. The courts usually treat this person in the same way as the perpetrator, giving the same sentence.

Accessory before the fact

This person helps others commit a crime by helping them plan or prepare the criminal act. However, they are not present at the time the crime is conducted.

In the example of the service station robbery, this person may have gathered information about the location of the safe and the timing and frequency of the security guard’s visits. The court may still impose the same penalty on this person as on the others.

Accessory after the fact

This person helps criminals after they have committed a crime, but is neither present during the crime, nor aware of it beforehand. The law recognises this offence only for serious crimes, such as murder and armed robbery. In the service station case, this person may have helped the others to elude the police or may have got them a new car. The courts would give this person a lesser punishment than that given to the others.

Factors affecting criminal behaviour

Most people are conditioned to follow the law by their parents and educational institutions. Consequently, for the majority of people the concept that laws must be followed is developed from an early age. However, in spite of this there are wide variations in the degree to which people actually do comply with the law.

It is commonly suggested that people obey the law because they think that not obeying it would be harmful to society. The logical opposite of this is that those who break the law do not consider their actions to be harmful to society. However, it is hard to see how a murderer can think that the act of murder does not harm society. It is more accurate to suggest that these people do not care whether or not their act harms society. Other people may believe that their ‘criminal’ act may actually benefit society as it rids society of some perceived ‘menace’.

Social and economic factors

The majority of people recognise that it is in their own best interests to preserve society. They benefit materially from society and also gain some degree of safety by being a member of it. However, people who are disadvantaged perceive fewer reasons to obey the laws that hold our society together. For example, someone who is poorly educated or who has suffered family breakdown or physical abuse may see society as being the cause of their problems and therefore feel no desire to obey the laws established for its protection.

Genetic theories

One of the more controversial theories about the cause of criminal activities is based on the concept that certain genetic differences may result in criminal behaviour.

This is not an entirely new concept—in the nineteenth century it was believed that the shape of the skull and the size of the nose could determine a criminal.

Some studies have shown that certain genetic characteristics may result in a greater chance that the person will engage in criminal activity. However, other studies have shown no link between genetic make-up and criminality. The most that can be said is that it is possible that some people commit more crimes than others because of their genetic make-up. Other factors are, however, much more important.

The theory of differential association

A sense of moral duty is one of the main reasons for people obeying laws.

Most people think that committing a crime is immoral. However, a person’s morals are a product of their environment. If a person has lived in an environment where there is no respect for law and where criminal behaviour is normal, their moral views are likely to

reflect this. Therefore, the theory of differential association can be summed up as stating that a person who is exposed to an environment in which criminal behaviour is normal is more likely to become a criminal. This is particularly so for children whose parents have shown no regard for the law. It is often suggested that if a child is brought up in a home where criminal activity is common the child is more likely to engage in criminal activities.

Other theories that have emerged from differential association include the 'anomie theory', which states that a person who has become alienated by society is more likely to disregard the laws of that society. The concept of subcultures has also emerged. A subculture is a culture that exists within a wider society, but which has different values and morals from the mainstream (gang culture is an example of this). A member of the subculture is expected to comply with its values and norms rather than with mainstream laws.

Political factors

There have always been groups in any society who have challenged the authority of the government and, by extension, the laws of that government. This may take the form of peaceful demonstration, but in extreme cases it can lead to violence, such as terrorist actions, violent demonstrations and assassination. For example, a series of violent protests, which saw thousands of cars torched, took place among the migrant population of France in 2005. Some migrant leaders argued that their people were so frustrated with racism and disadvantage that violent protest was the only way to have their concerns dealt with. Sometimes, politically motivated criminal activity may be considered justifiable (e.g. Nelson Mandela was declared a criminal and sentenced to prison for his actions against the racist apartheid government of South Africa).

Self-interest and greed

Our society has become increasingly materialistic and consumer-driven. As a result it is now obvious that many criminals are simply motivated by greed—some people take things just because they desire them. The common belief is that most thieves are poor and unemployed, but the majority of white-collar crimes are motivated by greed and self-interest.

Types of offences

There are three main types of offences: major indictable, minor indictable and summary. The most common offence are dealt with in the Magistrates Court. These offences are relatively minor and are principally summary offence - although included in this category are 'minor indictable' offences which are usually dealt with in the Magistrates Court but, if a defendant requests, may be dealt with in the District Criminal Court. For information about how charges are dealt with in court, see Court - Criminal Matters.

Various Acts create these common offences, but in this section only those offences created by the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SOA) and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) will be discussed.

Although many offender are fined or given bond, many are sent to prison. These convictions remain on police records, and employment applications often require them to be disclosed. Many of those convicted are the inarticulate, the young, the poor, the mentally impaired and the homeless, see effects of criminal convictions.

Questions of law may be raised in relation to these offences, although many cases simply depend on the facts and circumstances. As for all criminal offences, the prosecution (most often the police) must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary Offences

Crimes which can only be heard and decided by a magistrate in the magistrates court are called summary offence. In general, these offences are less serious than indictable offence and the penalties that can be imposed are not as great. Summary offences make up the majority of the so called common offences, see common offences. A summary offence is defined by the Summary Procedure Act 1921 [s.5] as:

• offences not punishable by imprisonment and having a maximum fine of less than $120 000
• having a maximum imprisonment of two years
• including most dishonesty offences involving $2500 or less (even if the maximum imprisonment is more than two years), but not including robbery, or offences of violence, or an offence that is one of a series of offences of the same or a similar character involving more than $2 500 in aggregate.

Examples of summary offences are disorderly behaviour, driving under the influence of alcohol or a drug and minor criminal damage to property. People charged with summary offences cannot be tried by juries even if they would prefer it. Because there is much expense and delay involved in running a trial by jury, many new offences are made triable only by a magistrate.

There is a time limit of two years to lay a complaint for a summary offence or six months if an expiation notice may be given for the offence [Summary Procedure Act 1921 s.52].

Minor Indictable Offences

Indictable offence are divided into major indictable offence and minor indictable offences. Major indictable offences must be dealt with in the superior courts (District or Supreme). Minor indictable offences are dealt with in the Magistrates Court unless the defendant chooses to have the charge dealt with in a superior court. This is an important decision, and should only be taken after receiving legal advice.

If dealt with in the magistrate court, minor indictable matters are prosecuted by the police. If the defendant elects for trial by jury, the Committal Unit, staffed by solicitors from the State Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), takes over the conduct of the matter at the magistrates court. The DPP has the conduct of the matter once it reaches the District or Supreme court.

Minor indictable offences are defined in the Summary Procedure Act 1921 [s.5] as:

• offences not punishable by imprisonment and having a maximum fine exceeding $120 000
• offences with a maximum imprisonment of five years
• offences with a maximum imprisonment greater than five years, being one of the following:

-          an offence involving interference with, damage to or destruction of property where the loss resulting from commission of the offence does not exceed $30 000

-          aggravated assault causing harm

-          indecent assault (where the victim is 14 years of age or older)

-          dishonesty offences where the amount involved is $30 000 or less (but not robbery or offences of violence)

-          serious criminal trespass where the intended offence is an offence of dishonesty (not being an offence of violence) involving $30 000 or less, or an offence of interference with, damage to or destruction of property involving $30 000 or less.

Some examples of minor indictable offences are listed below, with the relevant sections of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 noted:

• Theft and receiving s.134 ($2500 - $30 000 total)
• Deception s.139 ($2500 - $30 000 total)
• Serious criminal trespass — places of residence s.170; non-residential places s169
• Illegal use/ interference with a motor vehicle (subsequent offence) s.86A
• Aggravated assault causing harm s20(4)
• Indecent assault s.56
• Causing harm s.24
• Stalking s.19AA
• Gross indecency s.58
• Property damage s.85 (less than $30 000 but more than $2500).

Major Indictable Offences

An indictable offence is one that guarantee the defendant the right to a trial by jury. Indictable offence are generally the more serious crimes, and penalties are generally greater than for other offences. Major indictable matters can only be dealt with, whatever the defendant is pleading, in the District or Supreme court. Some examples are murder, robbery, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, dishonesty and damage property offences (including arson) where the amount involved exceeds $30 000.

The most serious offences, murder, attempted murder and treason, are dealt with in the Supreme court. Other major indictable offences are dealt with in the District court.

Before a person charged with an indictable offence goes to trial, there is usually a committal hearing at which the prosecution's evidence is presented to see if there is enough evidence upon which a conviction could be founded.

There is no time limit to lay a charge for an indictable offence. From 17 June 2003, this includes sexual offences which are alleged to have occurred before December 1982 (these alleged offences were previously immune from prosecution).

Dumping rubbish- Offences against Public Order

Anyone who puts any rubbish on land without the owner's or occupier's consent or without some other lawful authority, is guilty of an offence and may be fined up to $750. Whether or not a fine is imposed, the court can order an offender to remove the rubbish within a certain time and, if it is not removed, the offender is liable to a fine of up to $125 and may also be ordered to pay compensation to the owner or occupier of the land for the cost of removing it [Summary Offences Act 1953 s.57].

Playing games as to cause damage- Offences against Public Order

A person who plays any game that is likely to injure a person in a public place or that is likely to damage property is guilty of an offence and may be liable to a penalty of a fine of up to $250 [Summary Offences Act 1953 s.53].
Playing a game on an oval, court or other area set aside for that purpose is not an offence, but playing a game in, say, Rundle Mall invites prosecution. However, the prosecution can only succeed if someone is injured or property is damaged or there is a likelihood or danger that one of those things would happen.

Throwing stones- Offences against public order

A person who discharge a firearm or throws a stone or other missile, without reasonable cause, so as to be likely to injure, annoy or frighten any person or damage any property is guilty of an offence and may be fined up to $10,000 or goaled for up to two years [Summary Offences Act 1953 s.51]. Although the Section refers to discharging firearms, it is generally used for the prosecution of people who throw stones or other missiles without reasonable cause.