U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Curtailing Youth: A Critique of Coercive Crime Prevention (From Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention, 117-137, 1998, Lorraine Green Mazerolle and Jan Roehl, eds. - See NCJ-175510)

NCJ Number
175515
Author(s)
R White
Date Published
1998
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This paper critically reviews crime prevention measures that involve coercive control over the activities, behaviors, and public visibility of youth and argues that the adoption of a developmental crime prevention strategy is both possible and more desirable than reliance on coercive measures.
Abstract
The paper reviews four major areas of coercive intervention in youthful activity: (1) the reconstructing of public space in ways that basically exclude the young, contain the young, or both, in particular ways; (2) extending police powers in regulating the street life of young people; (3) making use of youth curfews; and (4) emphasizing the need for parents to police their offspring. Developmental approaches contrast with coercive crime prevention in that they focus on enhancing the opportunities of young people through encouraging their participation in activities that reflect their interests and needs. The best example of the potential positive ramifications of the creation of youth-friendly public space is a shopping center complex in Perth, Western Australia, where management and a youth organization collaborated to establish a youth worker position who helped develop general policies, train security officers, and talk with young people. This inclusive approach to crime prevention involved the local community, including youth, in decision-making. This examples suggests the benefits of a strategic vision for crime prevention that considers the rights, dignity, and voice of the targets of conventional, coercive crime control measure rather than creating a society that relies on repression rather than liberty as its guiding rationale. Examples from the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and 30 references (Author abstract modified)