(criminology)managing crime part 2 community safety Assignment

(criminology)managing crime part 2 community safety - Assignment Example Under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, there are strategies are implemented for this purpose. Work is achieved with partnerships with several agencies, and other representatives of the business and voluntary communities and local groups. A crime audit is an essential part of this process (What is community safety? 2013). The primary objective of the Act is to â€Å"make provision for preventing crime and disorder† (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1998). This includes the preventing crimes against children or aggressive offences taking place in the society and also bringing in changes in the criminal justice system. With this Act various amendments have been made in the system along with abolition of the death penalty for criminals (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1998). While partnership working has benefitted different regions to deal with crime, mostly after the occurrence of the offence (Berry et al 2009); failure occurred as the concept of community safety was considered too broad ly. Hence it involved so many issues, such as education, housing, social work and others, along with the issue of crime that eventually it failed to bring advanced changes in the system as it planned to do (Helms 2012). The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 â€Å"served to completely restructure the youth justice system in England and Wales by establishing a new national and local infrastructure† (Goldson and Muncie 2006). Youth Offending Team was an agency developed that reflected the shift from the conventional justice system (Goldson and Muncie 2006). Yet, the Act failed to mainstream community safety as several issues had started cropping in regard to the crime audits and in enhancing the sense of community. Crime audits were a lot dependent on data obtained from police that was narrowly focused on crimes. Enhancement of community safety could not be achieved as the projects largely depended upon groups and organizations that were existent in the society and hence failed to address groups that were sidelined. Thus â€Å"community safety projects† under the Act â€Å"could divide communities rather than unite them† (Joyce 2013). Thus it could be concluded from this section that the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 failed to mainstream community safety successfully primarily due to the broad conception of community safety, along with the ineffectiveness of the Act to enhance the sense of community. The groups and the causes behind crimes could not be successfully addressed by the community safety projects thereby not allowing the Act to mainstream community safety and crimes could still occur in the society that were dealt with after the occurrence of the crimes. Section 2: The â€Å"ultimate goal of crime prevention is to reduce the risk of being a victim† (What is Crime Prevention? 2006). In order to achieve this, it is essential that opportunities to criminal minded people are not provided to commit illegal activities (What is Crime Prevention? 2006). This section of the study discusses about the strengths and weaknesses of crime prevention measures in reducing crime and disorder, considering theories associated with crime prevention. Over the years, the police departments have evolved in their ways to handle crime and their methods of prevention. The strengths of the system lie with the measures that are considered by the police departments effectively such as â€Å"