Assessment 1 ACR212 PDF

Preview

Summary

Basic assessment for ACR212...

Description

Student Name: Ashley Burk

Student Number: 211307686

Assessment 1: 25% (approximately 1000 words) This assessment addresses the material covered in Module 1. You are requested to reflect on the unit materials to address the following two questions. The first question requires a response of 600 words, and the second question requires a response of 400 words. Please follow the format provided by addressing each question on separate pages. A list of references (in Harvard style) should be provided for each question. References are not included in the word count. Question 1: (600 Words) Define and explain the core components of ‘soft technologies’ and ‘hard technologies’ in law enforcement as discussed by Byrne and Marx (2011). Provide one example of a ‘hard’ technology of surveillance, and one example of a ‘soft’ technology of surveillance. Explain how only one of these examples ('hard' or 'soft') relates to a strategy of ‘pre-emptive’ policing in crime prevention, crime control, or counter-terrorism policy. Question 2: (400 Words) Based on the one example you choose, critically evaluate the 'effectiveness' of the use of the surveillance technology. Does it fulfill the objective that it is being used for? What challenges to privacy does it pose? Please complete this assessment task on this template. When you have answered the questions in the field (below), please upload this document through the Assessment 1 submission process in Cloud Deakin. There are three key assessment criteria: 1) defining and engaging with key concepts; 2) critical analysis and application of these concepts; and 3) appropriate use of research. You are encouraged to use additional sources where they are relevant and only supplementary to the unit reading materials. Feedback will primarily be provided through Cloud Deakin. The assessment is designed to cover two Course Learning Outcomes: Discipline-Specific Knowledge and Critical Thinking.

1

Student Name: Ashley Burk

Student Number: 211307686

Question 1: (600 Words) Define and explain the core components of ‘soft technologies’ and ‘hard technologies’ in law enforcement as discussed by Byrne and Marx (2011). Provide one example of a ‘hard’ technology of surveillance, and one example of a ‘soft’ technology of surveillance. Explain how only one of these examples ('hard' or 'soft') relates to a strategy of ‘pre-emptive’ policing in crime prevention, crime control, or counter-terrorism policy. Science and technology enable the implementation of new surveillance technologies as tools that support police work (Miranda, 2016). ‘Soft technologies’ are referred to as such as they describe technologies used to prevent crime, and improve police performance through the strategic use of information (Byrne and Marx, 2011). Soft technologies can be distinguished from ‘hard technologies’, in that hard technologies have a hard material base (often referred to as ‘material based technologies’). Soft technologies include the development of new software programs, classification systems, crime analysis techniques and data sharing/ system integration techniques (Byrne and Marx, 2011).Hard technology innovations in crime prevention and policing include materials such as devices and equipment that can be used to not only commit crime, but to also prevent it (Byrne and Marx, 2011). An example of a ‘soft technology’ of surveillance is offender risk classification tools, which includes, but is not limited to the sex offender register (Byrne and Marx, 2011). An example of ‘hard technology is the use and placement of Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) in high crime areas 1. These technology innovations have been linked to changes in not only policing, police performance, but also crime prevention. (Byrne and Marx, 2011). According to Byrne and Marx (Byrne and Marx, 2011), crime prevention can be explained in terms of action against crime, such as crime prevention programs, and outcomes as a result of these actions in preventing crime, for example, lower levels of crime and offending(Byrne and Marx, 2011). Both soft and hard technologies can be used in the prevention of crime and an example of this is the Sex Offender Register. Sex offenders are defined as ‘persons who have been convicted of a sexual offence, such as rape, sexual abuse or sodomy’. (Case presentations, 2009) This example of soft technology that monitors the location and movement of convicted sex offenders, through the use of a national sex offender system that has the capability to provide community notification for any sex offender that is arriving in the area as well as law enforcement notification for sex offenders who fail to register or violate location restrictions imposed on them at the time of registering (Byrne and Marx, 2011). Sex offender registers contain the names, locations and photographs of sexual offenders (Agan, 2011), and this information is easily available on the internet to members of the public (Agan, 2011). For those offenders on the registry, it could reduce the rates of reoffending through target hardening or through police monitoring (Agan, 2011). Target hardening is a proponent of situational crime prevention strategies that are aimed at reducing criminal activities that can arise from everyday life (Von Hirsch, Garland and Wakefield, 2000). 1

Student Name: Ashley Burk

Student Number: 211307686

The strategy of ‘hardening’ of the potential victim for sex offenders includes police monitoring of the offender themselves, but also for any potential victim of a sex offence increasing security, and taking increased measures with personal security (Agan, 2011). Through target hardening, enabled through the use of the sex offender register, pre-emptive policing and crime prevention are enabled as police monitoring of a sexual offender can notify communities of a newly arriving offender so that any potential victims in the area can increase their safety, can alert law enforcement to a location violation, allowing police officers to track down an offender in a location they have been restricted from, and prevent them from having contact with potential victims through arrest (Byrne and Marx, 2011). This is an example of soft technology – the use of the offender’s information allowing law enforcement to prepare and ‘pre-empt’ a possible offence before it has occurred (Von Hirsch, Garland and Wakefield, 2000). Through target hardening of the potential victim, offenders are less likely to attempt to commit an offence if they perceive the ‘target’ as too difficult to subdue, or that the likelihood of getting caught is higher, due to the increased security measures potential victims have put in place to protect themselves from potential sex offenders (Von Hirsch, Garland and Wakefield, 2000).

Student Name: Ashley Burk

Student Number: 211307686

Question 2: (400 Words) Based on the one example you choose, critically evaluate the 'effectiveness' of the use of the surveillance technology. Does it fulfill the objective that it is being used for? What challenges to privacy does it pose? Since the year 2000, state and territories in Australia has amended or introduced legislation pertaining to the registration of sex offenders (Vess et al., 2011) . The purpose of this legislation from the legislator’s laws is to monitor sexual offenders in a way that prevents further offences, and seen as a way to investigate any new crimes that are committed, but ultimately to improve public safety from the risk posed by sexual offenders (Vess et al., 2011). Upon examination of offences covered by the various sex offender statutes in Australia it is apparent that there is a large number of offences subject to the legislation, including non-sexual violent crimes (Vess et al., 2011). This can make evaluating the effectiveness of the sex offender registry difficult. In one study, by J.J. Prescott and J.Rockoff (Prescott and Rockoff, n.d.), they found that legislation that requires sex offenders to register with police may significantly reduce the chances that they will re-offend substantially due to police monitoring and apprehension of reoffenders. They also found, in contrast, that making that same registry information available to the broader public may lead to higher rates of sex crime (Prescott and Rockoff, n.d.). They concluded that although the threat of being subjected to the notification of the public deters first time offenders, whereas released offenders are more likely to reoffend (Prescott and Rockoff, n.d.). In another study, conducted by A. Argan, it was found that there was no strong evidence that locations with sex offender registry legislation also had lower sex offence rates (Agan, 2011). The findings of the study do not demonstrate a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest for other sexual offences after the implementation of a registry, or access to the registry via the internet (Agan, 2011). As the sex offender registry contains information pertaining to the offender such as name and location, it challenges the privacy of the offender as the wider public gains access and notifications of the whereabouts of the offender, it can place the offender in danger of retribution and retaliation from the wider public. In conclusion, it is difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of sex offender registries, however, research has shown that in some cases of first time offending, the registry acts as a deterrent to commit a sexual offence. It is important however , that further research into understanding whether sex offender registries work as they set precedent for other types of criminal registries (Agan, 2011).

Student Name: Ashley Burk

Student Number: 211307686

References:

 

  

 



 

Agan, A, "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?". in The Journal of Law and Economics, 54, 2011, 207-239, [accessed 21 November 2016]. Byrne, J & G Marx, "Technological Innovations in Crime Prevention and Policing. A Review of the Research on Implementation and Impact". in Cahiers Politiestudies, 20, 2011, 17-40, [accessed 20 November 2016]. "Case presentations". in , 80, 2009, e2-e2, [accessed 21 November 2016]. Dadashi, N, A Stedmon, & T Pridmore, "Semi-automated CCTV surveillance: The effects of system confidence, system accuracy and task complexity on operator vigilance, reliance and workload". in Applied Ergonomics, 44, 2013, 730-738. Miranda, D, "Criminal Investigation Through the Eye of the Detective: Technological Innovation and Tradition". in Surveillance and Society, 3, 2016, 423-436,

[accessed 20 November 2016]. Prescott, J & J Rockoff, "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". in SSRN Electronic Journal, [accessed 24 November 2016]. Vess, J, A Day, M Powell, & J Graffam, "International sex offender registration laws: research and evaluation issues based on a review of current scientific literature". in Police Practice and Research, 15, 2011, 322-335, [accessed 22 November 2016]. Vess, J, B Langskaill, A Day, M Powell, & J Graffam, "A comparative analysis of Australian sex offender legislation for sex offender registries". in Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 2011, 404-424,

[accessed 23 November 2016]. Von Hirsch, A, D Garland, & A Wakefield, Ethical and social perspectives on situational crime prevention. in , Oxford, Hart, 2000....