Current community centered policing and crime prevention initiatives continue to operate under the guise of the decentralisation of police and state power. Crawford (1995) explains, “embodied in the appeals to community…are unresolved decentralising and re-centralising tendencies” (p. 119). Community based programs of governance through crime have failed to be realized in any meaningful way. Rather, community based crime initiatives are inherently and fundamentally flawed. In what is to follow, the notion of re-centralisation through decentralisation will be discussed in relation to: naming or definitional problems and power imbalances. Issues of naming and defining are central to the shortcomings of community based policing and crime prevention.
…show more content…
Like crime, the notion of community is contested and varied. Nevertheless, as vague and unclear as the term community is, it is rich in symbolic power and significance (Cohen 1985 as cited in Crawford, 1995, p. 98). The community is important to crime prevention, as it becomes a powerful site of social order. The community is the central most target of the state for halting moral decline (Crawford, 1995, p. 104). This conception of community assumes two inter-reliant definitions: a shared locality and a shared concern or interest (Crawford, 1995, p. 104). This is a troubling notion for practitioners tasked with implementing community policing and crime prevention initiatives, as it is difficult to find a group of people who share a universal …show more content…
112). However, as was exemplified in Stewart (2011), relationships between community members and agency professionals are structured by power differentials (Crawford, 1995, p. 114). Current community policing in contemporary society does not situate police and communities as co-equal partners. The government has sought to mobilise the community and active citizen, while also avoiding devolving the central government of any substantial responsibility and power (Crawford, 1995, p. 120). Through the lens of crime prevention, the community can reproduce the power structures of the state. Community policing practices that seek the consent of the majority (or vocal minority) can result in majoritarian legitimation (Crawford, 1995, p. 116). The process of legitimation through community unity can exclude certain interests and certain people. Along with this comes a shift in the burden of critique and failure (Crawford, 1995, p. 111). Consequently, the community generally, and community members specifically, become the problem, the victim and the
Like crime, the notion of community is contested and varied. Nevertheless, as vague and unclear as the term community is, it is rich in symbolic power and significance (Cohen 1985 as cited in Crawford, 1995, p. 98). The community is important to crime prevention, as it becomes a powerful site of social order. The community is the central most target of the state for halting moral decline (Crawford, 1995, p. 104). This conception of community assumes two inter-reliant definitions: a shared locality and a shared concern or interest (Crawford, 1995, p. 104). This is a troubling notion for practitioners tasked with implementing community policing and crime prevention initiatives, as it is difficult to find a group of people who share a universal …show more content…
112). However, as was exemplified in Stewart (2011), relationships between community members and agency professionals are structured by power differentials (Crawford, 1995, p. 114). Current community policing in contemporary society does not situate police and communities as co-equal partners. The government has sought to mobilise the community and active citizen, while also avoiding devolving the central government of any substantial responsibility and power (Crawford, 1995, p. 120). Through the lens of crime prevention, the community can reproduce the power structures of the state. Community policing practices that seek the consent of the majority (or vocal minority) can result in majoritarian legitimation (Crawford, 1995, p. 116). The process of legitimation through community unity can exclude certain interests and certain people. Along with this comes a shift in the burden of critique and failure (Crawford, 1995, p. 111). Consequently, the community generally, and community members specifically, become the problem, the victim and the