File Name: crime trends and prevention strategies in nigeria .zip
In the never-ending search for ways to combat crime more effectively, one thing is clear: the ideal solution is to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place. Since the s, many law enforcement agencies around the world have been using some form of intelligence-led policing for crime prevention.
- Looking for other ways to read this?
- School-Based Drug Abuse Prevention: Promising and Successful Programs
- Looking for other ways to read this?
- Urbanisation and Crime in Nigeria
Looking for other ways to read this?
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. Juvenile crime is one of the nation's serious problems.
Concern about it is widely shared by federal, state, and local government officials and by the public. In recent years, this concern has grown with the dramatic rise in juvenile violence that began in the mids and peaked in the early s. Although juvenile crime rates appear to have fallen since the mids, this decrease has not alleviated the concern. Many states began taking a tougher legislative stance toward juveniles in the late s and early s, a period during which juvenile crime rates were stable or falling slightly, and federal reformers were urging prevention and less punitive measures.
Some of the dissonance between the federal agenda and what was happening in the states at that time may have been caused by significant changes in legal procedures that made juvenile court processes more similar—though not identical—to those in criminal adult court. The main response to the most recent spike in violent juvenile crime has been enactment of laws that further blur distinctions between juvenile courts and adult courts.
States continued to toughen their juvenile crime laws in recent years, making sentencing more punitive, expanding allowable transfers to criminal adult court, or doing away with some of the confidentiality safeguards of juvenile court.
Many such changes were enacted after the juvenile violent crime rate had already begun to fall. The rehabilitative model embodied in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of , focusing on the needs of the young offender, has lost ever more ground over the past 20 years to punitive models that focus mainly on the offense committed.
These puni-. In , 40 percent of all those living below the poverty level in the United States were under the age of 18 Snyder and Sickmund, Structural changes in society, including fewer two-parent homes and more maternal employment, have contributed to a lack of resources for the supervision of children's and adolescents' free time. Government policy on juvenile delinquency must often struggle with the appropriate balance of concern over the healthy development of children and adolescents who violate the law and a public desire to punish criminals.
This tension between rehabilitation and punishment when dealing with children and adolescents who commit crimes results in an ambivalent orientation toward young offenders. Criminal acts must be suppressed, condemned, and punished. Nevertheless, children and adolescents who commit criminal acts must be educated and supported in a growth process that should be the objective of government policy for all young people, including young offenders.
A number of cognitive and social features of childhood and adolescence influence the content of juvenile crime policy. Historically, children under the age of seven have been considered below the age of reason, and therefore unable to formulate the criminal intent necessary to be held accountable for criminal offenses. In practice, children younger than age 10 are rarely involved in the juvenile justice system. Arrests of those younger than 10 years old account for less than 2 percent of all juvenile arrests.
By the age of 16 or 17, most adolescents are deemed to have sufficient cognitive capacity and life experience to be held accountable for intended wrongful acts. How to deal appropriately with those who commit crimes between the ages of 10 and 17 is the issue faced in juvenile crime policy. Adolescence is a period of dating, driving, and expanding social networks—all choices that can produce positive or negative consequences for the adolescent and the community.
Public policies in the areas of education, medical care, alcoholic beverage control, and juvenile crime reflect beliefs that adolescents have not acquired the abilities or capacities necessary for adult status. Creating the appropriate public policy for a period of semiautonomy is no small task Zimring, To best answer the questions of how to deal with young offenders requires knowledge of factors in the individual, family, social settings, and community that influence the development of delinquent behavior; of the types of offenses committed by young people; and of the types of interventions that can most efficiently and effectively prevent offending in the first place or prevent its recurrence.
This study reviews literature in all of these areas to provide an objective view of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system in the United States. What is often missing from discussions of juvenile crime today is recognition that children and adolescents are not just little adults, nor is the world in which they live the world of adults.
Physical, emotional, and cognitive development continue throughout adolescence. Although young people can approach decisions in a manner similar to adults under some circumstances, many decisions that children and adolescents make are under precisely the conditions that are hardest for adults—unfamiliar tasks, choices with uncertain outcomes, and ambiguous situations see, for example, Beyth-Marom and Fischhoff, ; Cohn et al.
Further complicating the matter for children and adolescents is that they often face deciding whether or not to engage in a risky behavior, such as taking drugs, shoplifting, or getting into a fight, in situations involving emotions, stress, peer pressure, and little time for reflection. Young people are liable to overestimate their own understanding of a situation, underestimate the probability of negative outcomes, and make judgments based on incorrect or incomplete information Quadrel et al.
Although adults are also prone to the same misperceptions, children's and adolescents' lack of experience increases their vulnerability. Quadrel et al. Emotions can affect decision making for both adolescents and adults. When people are experiencing positive emotions, such as excitement, happiness, love as adolescents often do when with groups of their peers , they tend to underestimate the possibility of negative consequences to their actions.
When experiencing negative emotions, such as anger, jealousy, sadness, people tend to focus on the near term and lose sight of. This is particularly relevant for adolescents, who have been found to experience wider and more rapid mood swings than adults Larson et al. Studies of young people's understanding of legal processing and the consequences of various legal choices, such as forfeiting the right to remain silent or to have an attorney, show differences between those younger and older than about 15 years Grisso, Those under age 15 often misunderstand the concept of a right, in general, and of Miranda rights, in particular.
They foresee fewer alternative courses of action in legal proceedings and tend to concentrate on short-term rather than long-term consequences Grisso, ; For example, younger youth often misconstrue the right to remain silent, believing it means they should be quiet until they are told to talk.
Nor do they completely understand the right to have an attorney present, without charge, before they talk Abramovitch et al.
These misunderstandings raise concerns about children's and young adolescents' competence to stand trial in adult court. Children and adolescents from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and those with low IQs fare worse in understanding the legal process and their rights than do other children and adolescents of comparable ages Grisso, Furthermore, experience with the justice system does not ensure that young people fully understand the process, their rights, or the implications of the decisions they make.
Both Grisso and Lawrence have found that adolescent delinquents had much poorer understanding of their rights than did adult defendants. Emerging research using magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrates the cognitive and emotional differences between adolescents and adults.
Children and adolescents process emotionally charged information in the part of the brain responsible for instinct and gut reactions. Children and adolescents may be physiologically less capable than adults of reasoning logically in the face of particularly strong emotions. In a recent study, Thompson et al. These new insights on brain development may have implications for holding children and adolescents criminally responsible in the same way as adults and raise concerns about initiatives to transfer younger and younger defendants to adult courts.
Looking at the policies of other countries provides some perspective on criminal justice in the United States. An international study of 15 countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland—notes that all have special provisions for young criminals in their justice systems, although some such as Denmark, Russia, and Sweden have no special courts for juveniles. Table depicts some of the differences among countries, showing the range in variability for the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the age at which full responsibility as an adult can be assumed, the type of court that handles young people committing crimes, whether such young people can be tried in courts that also try adults, the maximum length of sentencing for a juvenile, and policies regarding incarcerating juveniles with adults.
The United States was not alone in seeing a dramatic increase in violent crime by juveniles in the s and early s. Many European countries and Canada experienced increases in their rates of violent crime, particularly among juveniles Hagan and Foster, ; Pfeiffer, It is difficult to compare rates across countries, because legal definitions of crime vary from country to country.
For example, in Germany, assault is counted as a violent crime only if a weapon is used during the commission of the crime, whereas in England and Wales, the degree of injury to the victim determines whether or not an assault counts as a violent crime. Crime is also measured differently in each country. For example, the United States commonly relies on numbers of arrests to measure crime. In Germany, Austria, and Italy, among other countries, crime is measured by the number of cases solved by police even if the offender has been apprehended Pfeiffer, Nevertheless, trends in juvenile violent crime appeared similar in many developed countries in the s and early s, 2 although the rates were different.
The United States has a high violent crime rate—particularly for homicide—in comparison to other countries, although property crime rates, particularly burglary, are higher than U. In , the violent crime arrest rate includes homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape for to year-olds in the United. Data from other countries after were not available to the panel at the time this report was written, so no comparisons for the latter half of the s were possible.
Children's courts, which are part of the criminal justice system and deal with juveniles charged with a crime. States was nearly per , Federal Bureau of Investigation, In England and Wales, about per , to year-olds were convicted or cautioned by the police for violent crimes homicide, assault, robbery, and rape in In Germany, per , to year-olds and in The Netherlands per , to year-olds were suspects of violent crime in Pfeiffer, Comparing how different countries deal with juvenile offenders is equally challenging.
Countries differ in the ages of young people considered legal juveniles, in how juvenile courts are organized, and in the types of institution used to sanction juvenile offenders.
As Table shows, the minimum age for being considered criminally responsible varies from 7 years in Switzerland and the Australian state of Tasmania to 16 in Belgium and Russia. The age of full criminal responsibility i. In the United States, both minimum and maximum ages of juvenile court jurisdiction vary by state, with most states having no minimum age although in practice, children younger than 10 are seldom seen in juvenile courts.
The maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is younger in many U. At the same time that states and the federal government in the United States have been moving toward treating juvenile offenders more like adult criminals, many other countries retain a strong rehabilitative stance. The Youth Court Law of Austria, for example, describes juvenile offending as a normal step in development for which restorative justice, not punishment, is the appropriate response.
The Belgium Youth Court Protection Act specifies that the only measures that can be imposed on a juvenile are for his or her care, protection, and education. In New Zealand, since , Family Group Conferences have been used to replace or supplement youth courts for most of the serious criminal cases. In the early s, England and Wales moved toward community-based sanctions for young offenders and away from institutional placements. This trend was reversed in the s, however, when England and Wales reacted to the upswing in juvenile violence in a manner similar to the United States, focusing on the offense, rather than the offender.
The U. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of made it easier to place offenders younger than 15 years in juvenile correctional facilities and extended the maximum length of allowable sentences. Crime and Disorder Act of moved the English juvenile justice system even further toward a punitive, offense-based model. Neither Sweden nor Denmark uses a separate juvenile court, but youthful immaturity is considered a mitigating factor in deciding their criminal responsibility.
In Denmark, maximum punishments well below those available for adults are specified in law for juveniles 15 and older; juveniles under the age of 15 may not be punished, but may be referred to a social welfare agency. In Sweden, imprisonment may only be imposed on juveniles under exceptional circumstances, and even then, the sentences imposed are shorter than for adults. The United States has a very high overall rate of incarceration. At per ,, the U. Although adequate juvenile incarceration figures do not exist in the United States, the incarceration rate for homicides committed by juveniles is illustrative of the difference in incarceration rates.
In , Comparable numbers in other countries are 2. Some of the differences in juvenile homicide incarceration rates are likely to be due to differences in homicide commission rates. In none of the 15 countries surveyed by Weitekamp et al. The Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control was asked to identify and analyze the full range of research studies and datasets that bear on the nature of juvenile crime, highlighting key issues and data sources that can provide evidence of prevalence and seriousness; race, gender, and class bias; and impacts of deterrence, punishment, and prevention strategies.
School-Based Drug Abuse Prevention: Promising and Successful Programs
Department of State. This is an annual report produced in conjunction with the Regional Security Office at the U. Consulate General in Lagos, Nigeria. The current U. Overall Crime and Safety Situation. The U. Consulate General in Lagos does not assume responsibility for the professional ability or integrity of the persons or firms appearing in this report.
Looking for other ways to read this?
Research demonstrates that crime is concentrated. However, most research on crime concentration has been conducted in the US or European cities and has used secondary data sources. In this study, we examine whether the law of crime concentration applies in the context of sub-Saharan Africa using primary data. A crime victimization survey was used to collect data in the city of Kaduna Nigeria. Using these data, the concentration of crime breaking-and-entering and domestic theft was examined at the household, street segment, and neighborhood levels.
Crime prevention is the attempt to reduce and deter crime and criminals. It is applied specifically to efforts made by governments to reduce crime, enforce the law, and maintain criminal justice. Criminologists , commissions, and research bodies such as the World Health Organization , United Nations , the United States National Research Council , the UK Audit Commission have analyzed their and others' research on what lowers rates of interpersonal crime.
Housing is considered essential human need as it is ranked next to food for obvious reasons like provision of living accommodation, investment opportunities, social and recreation services among others. However, its relevance to humanity is gradually being eroded as a result of the threat from residential neighbourhood crime in the form of burglary and theft, vandalism, incivilities and street crime, robbery and even violent crime. In Nigeria, it was found that the use of penal system use of police, prison and courts for crime control is prevalent which researchers have described to be grossly inadequate.
Urbanisation and Crime in Nigeria
Prevention programs often are designed to enhance "protective factors" and to reduce "risk factors. Risk factors are those that make drug use more likely. Research asserts that for individuals who begin using illicit substances at an early age, several risk factors may increase the likelihood of continued and problematic use in later ages, when substance-related crime becomes much more likely. Research has also demonstrated that many of the same risk and protective factors apply to other behaviors such as youth violence, delinquency, school dropout, risky sexual behaviors, and teen pregnancy. Responding to these risky behaviors before they become problematic can be difficult. Furthermore, it is important to understand that risk factors do not, in and of themselves, determine drug use and abuse. Studies of multiple risk factors have found that risk factors have a cumulative effect — i.
Approximately 40 million people worldwide, including many in the United States, are estimated to be victims of human trafficking — a form of modern-day slavery in which traffickers use force, fraud, or coercion to control both adults and children. Awareness about human trafficking and the factors that make individuals and communities vulnerable has increased, but prevention efforts designed to proactively address known risk factors are lacking. Instead, efforts typically address exploitation after harm occurs. Thus, policies are needed to promote comprehensive primary prevention efforts that address known risk factors for victimization using multi-tiered strategies. Coordinated, community-based approaches that are customized to address a range of vulnerabilities across diverse groups may prevent human trafficking before it begins. It must be used as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy rather than in isolation. The potential for exploitation is influenced by events across the life course, route of victimization, 4 and gender.
Anthony Kayode Oroleye Ph. This study employed both primary and secondary data. Primary data were obtained through the administration of questionnaire on inmates to elicit information on their well-being. The secondary sources of information that were employed included relevant official publications and records from Nigerian Prisons Service, journal articles, periodicals and internet sources. Data collected were tabulated and analyzed using percentage and frequency as descriptive; and Chi-square as inferential statistics.
Позади уже закрывались двери. Беккер понял, что, если его преследователь находится внутри, он в западне. В Севильском соборе единственный вход одновременно является выходом.
Молодой программист приходил когда-то в Нуматек, тогда он только что окончил колледж и искал работу, но Нуматака ему отказал. В том, что этот парень был блестящим программистом, сомнений не возникало, но другие обстоятельства тогда казались более важными. Хотя Япония переживала глубокие перемены, Нуматака оставался человеком старой закалки и жил в соответствии с кодексом менбоко - честь и репутация.