英语论文网

mise of social democratic positivism was, by the end of the 1970's, deemed false and impractical because the initiatives which were based on it had completely failed in their task of reducing crime and delinquency. "Whilst lip-service was still being paid to these types of programmes, there was already a preparedness to look elsewhere for alternative solutions to the delinquency problem [Box 1980: 116-117].
 
Alternatives which could be seen to be emerging included a revival of the neo classical criminology [as could be seen by the introduction of the 'short, sharp shock' treatment initiatives of this period (Fyvel 1963: 17)] and a reformulation of positivism from a social to an individual and biological focus [Young, 1995 p101]
 
However, these emerging approaches were not ideal alternatives. Both neo-classicism and individual/biological positivism as explanations and approaches to the reduction of crime had evident limitations, both political and explanatory. Neo classicism lost much of its credibility in the 1970's as a result of convincing research which found that measures such as increasing the number of police, using 'saturation' policing initiatives and reducing the time taken to respond to emergency calls [which were all true hall marks of the neo classical approach] would not, in practice, serve as an effective means by which crime and deviance could be controlled and reduced. As Jerome Skolnick and David Bayley [1986: 5-6] comment, these findings were devastating. Just as social democratic positivism had been discredited by the soaring crime rates of the 1960's, by the end of the 1970's, so too had the rehabilitative prison regimes and the short sharp shock initiatives advocated by neo-classical policy-makers.
 
As for individual and biological positivism, whilst some of the emerging criminology in this area did provide some good insight into some of the possible causes of crime and deviance, it was clear the not all crime was caused by biological factors and as such, it was soon recognised that biological positivism could only explain a small proportion of the problem of crime. On top of this, the individual therapy programmes needed to 'cure' such offenders proved very expensive and as such, impractical on any widespread scale.
 
This crisis in etiology and penology serves as an exquisite example of how, despite large amounts of thinking, writing and debate about criminology and the causes of crime, excessive reliance on approaches which focussed too heavily on singular aspects of the processes involved in the causes of crime and deviance lead to widespread failures in their reduction. These theories and resulting criminal justice practices simply failed to recognise the complexity of the causes of crime. The reaction however to these crises spurned a new, more comprehensive approach. In the latter part of this essay I will discuss one such criminological approach, namely that of left-realism. I will argue that whilst the content of the left-realist doctrine may or may not be the correct analysis of the process of crime, more importantly, this approach might have paved the way for a brighter future in terms of effective crime control, in which we might actually see a resulting reduction in crime.
 
The criminological void which was left as a result of the failings of the existing 'partial criminologies' of the 1950's to 1970'本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。