Module 8
Tertiary Prevention
A. The Specific Deterrent Effect of Criminal Sanctions
Specific deterrence and incapacitation are two prominent methods for preventing
convicted offenders from committing further crimes. Both methods seek to prevent crime
through intervention with individuals who have already harmed society and shown a
disposition toward deviant activity. The prevention of crime through these approaches
revolves around punishment of the offender. The form of punishment most considered in
evaluations of specific deterrence and incapacitation is incarceration. Despite the
similarity in the punishment, the actual process by which specific deterrence and
incapacitation brings about crime prevention is very different.
Specific deterrence is aimed at the individual offender and their future behavior.
At that time the emphasis was on the ability of the criminal law and its sanctions, whether
de jure or de facto, to deter individuals who have not yet violated the criminal law but
have the potential for so doing in the future. The emphasis shifts in specific deterrence
from the non-offender to the criminal. Concern also shifts to the actual imposition of the
law and its sanctions. Specific deterrence seeks to prevent the offender from further
deviant actions through the imposition of punishments that will negate any pleasure or
advantage gained by participation in criminal activity.
Incapacitation also seeks to prevent future crime on the part of the offender. The
method by which this occurs is the simple control of the individual, which prohibits the
physical possibility of future criminal activity. For example, if the person is locked up
and under total physical control, it is a physical impossibility for the individual to commit
a crime in society. The most commonly discussed form of incapacitation is incarceration.
There is no assumption on the part of incapacitation that the individual will be deterred
from committing further crimes once released from the institution. The only
consideration is the number of offenses that can be prevented by keeping the offender
locked up for a specified period. An alternative form of incapacitation is electronic
monitoring of offenders.
Relatively little research has been devoted to the study of specific deterrence.
Interest in deterrence has focused on the impact of laws and sanctions on the general
population and not just the individuals who are subjected to the actions of the criminal
justice system. Intuitively, specific deterrence should be a logical outcome of system
intervention. Among the goals of bringing an offender to justice is the prevention of
future criminal activity by that individual. Punishments are different for different offenses
due to the type of offense and the assumptions regarding the hedonistic value of the
offense and the punishment. The sanction is meant to offset the amount of pleasure
received through the crime. By so doing, the individual will see no advantage or gain in
future transgressions. As in general deterrence, the individual is assumed to be a rational
person making decisions based on a cost–benefit analysis.
Many evaluations of specific deterrence look to the effect of imprisonment on
subsequent offending. The easiest form of evaluation considers the recidivism rate of
individuals who have spent some time in an institution. This approach presents a bleak
picture for specific deterrence. In one early analysis, Glaser (1964) reported that
approximately one-third of prison releases are eventually reincarcerated. This figure
represents subjects who were not deterred from further offending by their punishment.
While this finding is somewhat disturbing, the specific deterrent effect of imprisonment
is probably even worse. This is due to the fact that Glaser considers only reincarceration,
and many offenses do not result in a prison sentence. Indeed, Langan and Levin (2002)
note that two-thirds of offenders released from prison are rearrested within three years,
almost half are reconvicted, and 25 percent are reincarcerated. Durose et al. (2014) find
that two-thirds of state prison releasees are rearrested within three years and 77 percent
are rearrested within five years.
The simple use of aggregate recidivism data can be misleading. One common
mistake is the lumping together of serious with less serious offenders or offenders with
differing offense careers. Recidivism is typically higher for individuals who have longer
offense histories and those receiving harsher sentences (Gibbs, 1975). Consequently, the
failure to randomly assign individuals to different punishments or to consider comparable
groups of prisoners makes the interpretation of aggregate recidivism figures highly
suspect. Such results, however, are commonly cited as representative of recidivism rates
for institutionalized groups. An alternative method for analyzing specific deterrence
considers the effect of length of imprisonment on parole outcome. This approach usually
compares the recidivism rate for parolees who serve differing amounts of time in an
institution. One study of parole outcome looks at almost 15,000 burglars paroled in 1968
and 1969. Babst et al. (1972) examine the recidivism rate for 22 groups of burglars
categorized by drug use, alcohol use, prior record, and age at release for the study
subjects. Comparing similar groups of subjects with varying lengths of institutional stay
reveals no consistent relationship between the time served and parole outcome after one
year. The few instances in which a difference is accountable to length of stay appears in
subgroups that contain few individuals.
One major problem with most studies is the inability to randomly assign parolees
to varying lengths of time served and then compare the parole outcome figures.
Berecochea and Jaman (1981), however, randomly varied the time served, with one
group serving six additional months in prison. Looking at 12- and 24-month followup
figures, the authors find no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of return
or returns for new complaints. They conclude that the severity of punishment is unrelated
to recidivism (Berecochea and Jaman, 1981). The major problem with this study is that
the six-month difference in length of imprisonment may not be sufficient for a specific
deterrent effect to become viable.
Finally, Weisburd et al. (1995) examine the specific deterrent effect of
imprisonment on white-collar criminals. The authors use data from various jurisdictions
and follow up incarcerated offenders over a 10-year period. Contrary to expectations,
there is no evidence that imprisonment deters the subjects from further offending
(Weisburd et al., 1995). Indeed, there is evidence that those in prison recidivate at a
slightly higher rate than those in the control group. The authors speculate that, for white-
collar criminals, the prison experience adds little to the impact of arrest, prosecution, and
conviction. Thus, the non-prison controls have been equally deterred without the need for
imprisonment.
Several studies of specific deterrence examine the differential impact of police
decisions on subsequent spouse abuse. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment
(Sherman and Berk, 1984) investigates the deterrent effect of arrest, separation, and
police counseling in misdemeanor spouse abuse situations. Officers were instructed to
randomly apply the different responses (randomization determined by the researchers) in
all cases of spouse abuse. The only exceptions to this process include cases in which the
police officer is threatened, there is a demand for arrest by one party, or there is an injury
as a result of the offense. Examining 314 cases over a 17-month period, the authors claim
that arrests result in lower recidivism suggesting a strong specific deterrent effect
(Sherman and Berk, 1984). Unfortunately, a number of problems are inherent in the study
(Binder and Meeker, 1988). First, officers were not always able or willing to impose the
sanction dictated by the experimental procedure. Second, few officers actually
participated in the study. The officers were selfselected and a few of these provided the
vast majority of the cases for study. Third, a self-report follow-up was completed on less
than one-half of the cases. Finally, it is possible that many of the subjects chose not to file
official reports or reply to self-reports concerning subsequent instances of spouse abuse.
B. Incapacitation
While imprisonment may not deter an individual from committing deviant acts
again in the future, it does keep the subject from committing crimes against society while
in the institution. Simply put, incapacitation provides control over the individual, thus
precluding behavior that is harmful to society. Incapacitation does not imply anything
about the individual’s behavior once released from incarceration or control.
Incapacitation can take two different forms—collective and selective. Collective
incapacitation refers to the imposition of sentences upon everyone exhibiting the same
behavior with no concern for the potential of the individual. For example, all burglars
receive the same sentence. No consideration is given to the potential of the different
individuals who commit the offense. The end result is punishment aimed at all similar
Under selective incapacitation the emphasis is on identifying high-risk offenders and
subjecting only that group to intervention. All offenders found guilty of the same crime
are not punished equally. Those who are judged to be greater threats to society may
receive longer, harsher terms of imprisonment.
Others judged to be of little threat are subjected to minimal time in prison or
sentenced to an alternate punishment. The intent is to maximize the incapacitation effect
without subjecting all offenders to long prison terms or control. A good example of
selective incapacitation is three-strikes laws that mandate lengthy imprisonment for those
convicted of a third offense. The evaluation of incapacitation effects rests on a number of
assumptions concerning criminal activity. The most basic assumption is that individuals
commit some base rate of offenses every year. Using this figure, it is possible to estimate
the number of offenses that are averted through the incapacitation of an individual. For
example, if it is assumed that an individual commits 10 crimes per year, the
incapacitative effect of a one-year prison sentence is a reduction of crime by 10 offenses
for every person so incarcerated. This finding must be qualified, however, by other
considerations. with the intent of eliminating subsequent offenses. The basis of collective
incapacitation is the legal finding of a past offense.
The evidence on collective incapacitation from imprisonment offers results
ranging from small to large changes in the level of crime. Clarke (1974), using the
Philadelphia cohort data (Wolfgang et al., 1972), estimates that incarcerating boys prior
to age 18 reduces index offenses by 5 percent for white youths and 15 percent for non-
whites. Adjusting the figures to reflect the contribution of juvenile activity to the overall
crime rate, Clarke (1974) notes that incapacitating juveniles will only result in a modest 1
to 4 percent decrease in the index crime rate. Greenberg (1975), using official records to
estimate the criminal careers of adult offenders, claims that doubling the amount of time
spent in prison would only decrease crime by 0.6 percent to 4.0 percent. Conversely,
reducing the prison population by 50 percent would only increase the number of crimes
by 1.2 percent to 8.0 percent (Greenberg, 1975). Finally, Peterson and Braiker (1980),
using self-report data on the level of offending prior to incarceration and estimates of the
average individual crime rate, find that incarceration reduces the level of burglary by only
6 percent and auto theft by 7 percent (Peterson and Braiker, 1980). They claim a much
larger incapacitation effect for armed robbery, where 22 percent of the offenses are
averted through the imprisonment of offenders.
Differences in criminal justice system policies also may result in varying
incapacitation effects. Petersilia and Greenwood (1978) estimate that a five-year
mandatory sentence imposed on felony offenders would result in a 31 percent decrease in
violent crimes and a 42 percent decrease in burglaries. Withholding the mandatory
sentence until a second felony conviction would reduce the incapacitative effect to 16
percent for violent offenses and 15 percent for burglaries. Van Dine et al. (1979), looking
at data for Columbus, Ohio, claim that a five-year mandatory sentence for a first felony
offense would result in a 17.4 percent decrease in violent index crimes. Incarceration
after a second offense would result in a 6 percent reduction. Cohen (1983) reports that
five-year mandatory sentences for prisoners with prior records would reduce index
crimes by Washington, D.C. arrestees by 13.7 percent.
Incapacitation also involves an increased monetary burden for society. Walker
(1985) presents a number of estimates related to an incapacitation strategy. Using
conservative figures related to the number of people who must be incarcerated (based on
Van Dine et al., 1979), Walker (1985) notes that, nationally, a 25 percent incapacitation
effect necessitates the incarceration of 1,200,000 new prisoners. Each of these new
prisoners will require bed space and upkeep, and these costs can be considerable.
Henrichson and Delaney (2012) compute the yearly costs of imprisonment at $31,286 per
inmate for states. Based on Walker’s projected increase in needed beds, the increased
costs to the states would exceed $375 billion! This does not include the costs of
constructing the space.
Selective incapacitation differs from collective efforts by imposing punishment on
a select few individuals. The emphasis is on the identification of offenders who are high
risk. The individuals who are more likely to display antisocial behavior in the future, and
thus pose a risk to society, are subjected to longer periods of incarceration. Advocates of
selective incapacitation point to the lower cost of incarcerating only a portion of all
offenders along with presumed savings in the number of future offenses. The idea of
selective incapacitation received its greatest boost from a Rand Corporation report
written by Greenwood (1982). In an attempt to identify a group of individuals who
should be incapacitated, Greenwood surveyed almost 2,200 prison inmates in California,
Texas, and Michigan who were serving time for burglary or robbery. Examining self-
report records and official documents concerning past behavior, arrests, convictions, and
incarcerations, the author composed a seven-item scale that purportedly distinguishes
between high-, medium-, and low-rate offender.
Greenwood (1982) suggests that by reducing the time served by low- and
medium-risk inmates and increasing the terms for high-risk offenders, it is possible to
reduce robbery by 15 percent while lowering the California prison population by 5
percent. He compares this to a collective incapacitation approach that would require a 25
percent increase in the prison population to achieve the same 15 percent reduction in
robberies. On the other hand, a 15 percent decrease in burglary requires a 7 percent
increase in the number of prisoners in California, even using a selective incapacitation
approach (Greenwood, 1982). Figures for Texas are not as encouraging, with a 10 percent
decrease in robbery requiring a 30 percent increase in the prison roles. A similar
reduction in burglary requires a 15 percent rise in the prison population. The differences
between California and Texas are due to the much lower offense rates in Texas, which
affect the estimates. Despite the contradictory results, advocates of selective
incapacitation often point to the 15 percent robbery reduction accomplished through an
overall decrease of 5 percent in the prison population.
Incapacitation can also be achieved without the use of incarceration. The advent
of electronic monitoring (EM) introduced a new avenue to incapacitation. Home
confinement using EM has prospered largely due to two things: (1) the growth and
problems encountered by the prison system in the United States, and (2) the great
developments in technology over the past 40 years. Many jurisdictions are under court
orders to reduce the size of their jail or prison populations. The initial response to these
challenges has been the call for additional prisons. The public, however, is reluctant to
pay the costs for new bed space, despite their calls for getting tough on offenders.
The response to overcrowding, legal challenges, rising crime, and public
sentiment has been the development of various alternatives to incarceration. Electronic
monitoring is one possible solution to the call for increased supervision and protection of
society when offenders are released into the community. The idea of keeping track of
individuals using an electronic device dates back to Schwitzgebel et al. (1964), who
described an EM system and discussed its potential uses. Jack Love, a New Mexico
judge, took the idea of monitoring offenders from a 1977 comic strip in which Spiderman
was tracked by means of a wrist transmitter and commissioned the development of a
tracking device. The device, often called a “GOSSlink” after its inventor Michael Goss,
was first used in 1983 on a small group of offenders in New Mexico (Niederberger and
Wagner, 1985). The primary aim of the EM system was to monitor compliance with
curfews and home confinement (Vaughn, 1989). Interest in this novel technique quickly
prompted the development of similar devices by various companies and the adoption or
testing of the technology in jurisdictions across the country.
The initial forms of EM involved the use of radio frequency (RF) transmitters.
These transmitters fall into one of two primary systems or types—active or passive.
Active, or continuous signaling, systems keep track of the offender on a continuous basis.
This system consists of a transmitter, receiver, and a central computer. The transmitter is
a small, tamper-proof device, often smaller than a package of cigarettes, which is
typically strapped to the offender’s ankle. A constant signal is emitted by the transmitter
and is picked up by a receiver. Early receivers were attached to the home phone. Today,
the receiver can be at a remote location and contacted via wireless systems. The receiver
notifies the central computer of a violation if the offender moves out of a specified range.
A probation officer or other individual typically checks on the violation in order to
confirm the information and take appropriate action. The computer system can be
programmed to allow the offender to go to work, attend school, or participate in other
activities. The system simply logs the times the offender leaves and returns home. A
continuous computer printout of the offender’s activity can be evaluated at any time.
The passive system consists of similar equipment, but requires periodic activation
of the system. This system is also referred to as a programmed contact system. A passive
system may randomly call the offender’s home to certify the presence of the individual.
When called, the offender must place the transmitter/encoder into a verifier/receiver. The
individual may also be required to answer questions that are used in a voice verification.
The system can also be activated by a mobile (drive-by) monitor. Passive systems are
often set up with a graduated schedule of contacts in which the system checks on
offenders more often in the early weeks and gradually reduces the number of contacts as
time passes without violations (Gable, 1986; Maxfield and Baumer, 1990). The most
recent innovation has been a coupling of these systems with global positioning system
(GPS) technology (Lilly, 2006). GPS technology uses satellites to locate a person or
monitor their movements. This can be done on either a continuous basis or intermittently.
One major advantage of this technology is there is no need for a home monitoring device
or the use of any telephone lines. GPS technology has been used for many years for
locating stolen vehicles. Adding GPS to EM programs makes it more difficult for
offenders to abscond.
Proponents of electronic monitoring point to a variety of advantages stemming
from its use. First, EM can possibly alleviate the overcrowding of correctional
institutions. Second, the use of electronic monitors enhances the ability to supervise
offenders in the community and can incapacitate offenders better than simple probation
or parole. Third, the system reduces the costs of monitoring offenders in the community.
Fourth, EM provides an “intermediate” level of punishment for offenders who do not
need to be sentenced to an institution, yet may need more than simple probation. Fifth,
advocates see EM as a more humane method for dealing with offenders as compared to
incarceration. Finally, electronic monitors assist reintegration into society by allowing
offenders to remain in the community, maintain family and friendship ties, and support
the family. The discussion that follows focuses primarily on issues of recidivism.
Interestingly, despite the growth in EM forms and the number of individuals
under EM, relatively little research has been conducted on its impact. The evaluations
that have been done on EM generally show favorable results in terms of both technical
violations and further offending. Evaluation of one post-conviction program in Kenton
County, Kentucky, reveals that roughly 8 percent of the offenders placed on EM commit
some technical violation resulting in their removal from the program (Ball et al., 1988;
Lilly et al., 1987). More importantly, slightly more than 5 percent of the offenders
commit new crimes. This recidivistic behavior, however, is significantly less than that of
a pre-program control group of offenders (20 percent recidivism). Evaluation of a Palm
Beach County, Florida, program reveals similar positive results with less than 10 percent
recidivism (Ball et al., 1988; Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department, 1987).
Unfortunately, the Palm Beach program provides no figures for comparable offenders
handled under alternative or traditional methods. This lack of a control group leaves in
doubt the actual impact of the program.
The goal of reducing overcrowding also has not been realized. The fact that most
programs deal with a relatively small number of individuals at any point in time means
that there is little if any relief for overcrowded jails and prisons. The continued growth of
the prison/jail population, despite the growth of EM, is adequate evidence showing that
EM has had no impact on overcrowding. Changing the analysis to an examination of the
number of days spent outside of an institution, however, provides more positive results.
Offenders in Kenton County spent 1,712 days of incarceration at home. The Palm Beach
County offenders completed 10,716 incarceration days in the community (Ball et al.,
1988). Where the number of offenders is not large, each day outside the institution
represents an improvement in the crowding situation.
Despite the great growth and support for EM, a number of problem areas and
concerns are advanced by various writers. One area of concern relates to operational
issues faced by agencies using the technology. Vaughn (1989) notes that EM is a labor-
intensive system that operates 24 hours a day. This round-the-clock monitoring increases
the personnel costs to the administrative agency, especially if the agency is traditionally
oriented to daytime operations (Friel and Vaughn, 1986). In addition, many offenders
spend only a short time on the system before being granted outright release or moving on
to other programs. This great turnover means that the screening process, data entry,
program hook-up, and other tasks must be undertaken on a continuing basis with new
clients.
C. Future Implications
The research on specific deterrence and incapacitation presents a mixed picture.
Studies of specific deterrence present contradictory results concerning the deterrent
effects of punishment. While society calls for stronger sanctions, it may be that these
interventions play an aggravating role in deviant behavior. The offender may view harsh
punishment as a breaking point with conventional society and an opportunity to turn to
further deviant activity. The act of putting an individual behind bars may be more
criminogenic than deterrent. The uncertain knowledge about individual hedonistic values
makes the selection and imposition of punishment for deterrence a difficult, if not
impossible, task.
The lack of attention paid to specific deterrence and the inability to separate
rehabilitation from punishment in research impedes the evaluation of this approach.
Incapacitation, whether collective or selective, has great intuitive appeal for society. The
idea of punishing an individual for the harm he caused is an accepted method for dealing
with deviant behavior. Extending that period of punishment in order to keep an individual
from committing another offense is an easily acceptable modification.
The costs of such a policy, however, may be high. The number of persons who
must be housed in order to achieve even a small decrease in crime is staggering even
using the most conservative figures. Translating these bodies into dollars leads to budgets
that the public has not been willing to accept. As with specific deterrence, the research
literature holds little promise for an acceptable incapacitation strategy at this time.
Another possible alternative is incapacitating offenders in the community through
the use of EM. Electronic monitoring offers a cost-effective means for releasing
offenders into the community while providing a degree of control over them. The
evaluation research suggests that the level of both technical violations and new offending
is relatively low. Despite problems and concerns with EM programs, they appear to be a
viable alternative to incapacitation through incarceration.
D. Evaluations of Rehabilitation Programs
No one truly interested in the study of rehabilitation can be unaware of the eulogy
placed on treatment that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that
have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism” (Martinson,
1974). With this single statement, the very basis of correctional intervention was shaken.
The foundation for this assessment was an examination of literature on rehabilitation
appearing between 1945 and 1967 (Lipton et al., 1975). The authors considered 231
studies in which there was a treatment evaluation with a control group, an outcome
measure attributable to the treatment, sufficient information about the intervention and
evaluation for making a judgment, a sufficiently large sample size to make inferences,
and, in general, a sound research methodology. The authors examined a wide range of
intervention techniques, including counseling, educational and vocational training,
medical treatment, psychological therapy, probation, parole, and community programs.
As already noted, the effect of these various programs on recidivism was negligible
(Martinson, 1974). Other outcome variables, such as adjustment to prison, attitude
adjustment, and educational improvement, show some positive effects on offenders.
These changes, however, are relatively unimportant given the major goal of preventing
further criminal behavior.
The finding of little or no effect of rehabilitation on recidivism appears in a
variety of other reports since the work of Martinson (1974) and Lipton et al. (1975).
Wright and Dixon (1977), reviewing 96 studies from 1965 to 1974, report that treatment
has little impact on recidivism. The authors further note that most of the evaluations
employ poor research design, fail to use random assignment, and do not present adequate
information for subsequent analysis. Another examination of 18 rehabilitation programs
in New York City, comparing both pre- and post-program levels of deviance and program
participants with a control group, arrives at the same conclusion (Fishman, 1977).
Fishman reports higher recidivism for participants under age 18, no difference for those
ages 19 and 20, lower recidivism for young adult participants (ages 21 to 39), and no
difference for subjects aged 40 and over. Comparison of recidivism rates for the various
projects does not uncover any significant differences among the rehabilitative techniques.
A reanalysis of the Lipton et al. (1975) findings undertaken by the National
Academy of Sciences concludes that the original authors “were reasonably accurate and
fair in their appraisal of the rehabilitation literature” (Sechrest et al., 1979). The only
major point of departure in the reanalysis involves the feeling that the earlier analysis
overstates the effectiveness of the reviewed programs. Sechrest et al. (1979) claim that
the earlier report falls short in its criticism of the studies. The original review appears to
have overlooked a variety of critical problems within the research reports, particularly
concerning the methodological shortcomings and the results of the evaluations. Other
reviews of the literature also fail to find strong support for rehabilitation. Gensheimer et
al. (1986) report that, of 44 studies spanning 1967 to 1983, there is no evidence of a
rehabilitative effect accruing from the interventions. Finally, Lab and Whitehead (1988),
presenting data from 55 research reports from 1975 to 1984, reveal 33 comparisons with
no difference or worse recidivism by experimentals and only 15 with positive results.
Based on these literature reviews, which span a variety of decades and rehabilitative
strategies, it is possible to conclude that rehabilitation is not very effective at reducing
recidivism.
The traditional measure of success in rehabilitation has been the elimination of
deviant behavior. Usually this means lowering recidivism. Measuring recidivism,
however, can be very difficult. Recidivism has been defined in many ways—ranging
from reincarceration (a very strict criterion) to simple referral of the individual to any
source of help (a very lax definition). Each of the definitions is problematic. For example,
reincarceration is a relatively rare event for some types of offenders and, therefore, the
levels of recidivism may be quite low. Alternatively, recidivism measured as simple
contact with the police can greatly inflate the outcome. The varied choice of recidivism
measure is a major problem in attempts to review and consolidate the results of different
reports.
The debate between critics and proponents of rehabilitation often rests on the
appropriate level of evaluation to be employed in the analysis. Studies that report
negative findings for rehabilitation usually rely on aggregate evaluation. Aggregate-level
evaluation looks for changes across large groups of subjects. Changes in rates of
offending or recidivism are the common metric by which programs are to be judged. A
small or nonexistent change in the overall rate of crime is indicative of a failed
intervention. In essence, aggregate evaluation searches for quantitative changes in
behavior. The reviews cited earlier, which indicated minimal impact (e.g., Gensheimer et
al., 1986; Lab and Whitehead, 1988; Lipton et al., 1975; Martinson, 1974; Sechrest et al.,
1979; Whitehead and Lab, 1989; Wright and Dixon, 1977) all rely heavily on the failure
of rehabilitation to shift recidivism rates.
Proponents of rehabilitation favor individual-level evaluations. The individual
level focuses on qualitative changes rather than quantitative shifts in offending. These
qualitative movements may appear as simple adjustments in the type of offending. For
example, an offender may shift from robbery, which involves a physical confrontation, to
property offenses, such as burglary or larceny. This would affect the rate for specific
offenses but do little for the overall crime rate. Individual-level analysis also is able to
focus on other, noncrime-related measures of change. Attitudinal shifts, psychological
adjustment, ability to relate to others, and increased life skills are examples of alternate
outcomes that can be found when looking at individual progress. Virtually any program
can point to at least a few successes when the criteria for success is movement along one
of these qualitative dimensions. It is this individual level of evaluation that prompts
Palmer (1975, 1983), Martinson (1979), Garrett (1985), and others to claim that some
rehabilitation works for some clients.
Rehabilitation efforts persist despite the many criticisms of rehabilitation. A
variety of intervention programs continue to be tried and some present encouraging
results. Several programs attempt to adhere to the basic premises of risk, need, and
responsivity as proposed by Andrews et al. (1990). Other programs are the outgrowth of
existing correctional programs, such as intensive supervision probation (ISP) (an
enhanced form of probation). The following presentations are not meant to be all-
inclusive nor representative of all types of intervention. It should briefly acquaint the
reader with a few interesting approaches of the recent past.
The results of meta-analyses of treatment programs and the debate about the
effectiveness of correctional treatment have led to several suggestions about appropriate
treatment. Cullen and Gendreau (2000) outline several general principles that appear to
underlie effective programs. First, interventions should target known predictors of
deviant behavior and recidivism. Second, interventions should be behavioral and address
the cognitive processes that lead to antisocial activity. Such interventions would seek to
alter the decision-making processes of individuals, help offenders to identify prosocial
responses to challenges, and develop skills and techniques for avoiding problem
behavior. Third, successful programs will target high-risk offenders in community
settings using well-trained staff and interventions matched to the needs of offenders.
These programs generally fall under the heading of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).
Cullen and Gendreau (2000) claim that interventions that follow these guidelines will
achieve positive results.
Various programs appear under the CBT heading. Multi-Systemic Therapy and
the Cognitive Thinking Skills Program are two examples. The idea that behavior is
affected by a wide array of social and environmental factors underlies Multi-Systemic
Therapy (MST) (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). Multi-Systemic Therapy is a community-
based intervention that attempts to address family, peer, school, community, and other
influences that may prompt or lead to deviant behavior. The actual intervention will vary
based on the needs of the individual, and it is dynamic and changes according to the
needs and progress of the client. Each client receives intensive services, in the
community, from a team of therapists who are held accountable for the successes or
failures of the program (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). Evaluations of MST reveal reduced
delinquency and improvements in risk-related behaviors.
The Cognitive Thinking Skills Program (CTSP) is also a multi-modal intervention
that utilizes a range of techniques targeting cognitive-behavioral problems (Gaes et al.,
1999). The CTSP focuses on identifying cognitive deficits and inappropriate decision
making by individuals. Typical problems are impulsive behavior, egocentric activity,
selfishness, and an inability to express oneself (Gaes et al., 1999). Highly trained
program staff offer 70 hours of skills training to clients. CTSP has been adopted across
Canada, as well as in several U.S. states and the United Kingdom. Gaes et al. (1999),
reviewing evidence on CTSP, report that fewer treatment subjects recidivate than non-
treatment control clients. While the differences tend to be statistically significant, many
of the differences are small. The most positive findings emerge from CTSP
implementation in community settings.
Many proponents of rehabilitation point to the intensive supervision of
probationers and parolees as a tool in reducing subsequent deviant activity. Intensive
supervision (ISP) programs exist in every state. Typical features of ISP are team
supervision, a high number of contacts between the client and officer, curfew and/or
house arrest, restitution, employment or school attendance, drug testing, community
service, counseling, and treatment (Byrne, 1990; Petersilia and Turner, 1993). The New
Jersey ISP program is a good example of such interventions. The program deals with
relatively low-risk, non-violent offenders who have spent a short time in prison. The
average caseload for the probation officer is 16, with the expectation that the officer will
have almost daily contact with each client (either in person or by phone) (Pearson, 1985).
The number of contacts is lessened as the client is found to be reliable and no infractions
are detected. Evaluation of the New Jersey program shows that ISP clients have a lower
recidivism rate (measured as new arrests) than individuals who remain in prison
(Pearson, 1988; Pearson and Harper, 1990). The lower recidivism rate, however, may be
due to the fact that ISP clients are not randomly selected and may be at lower risk for
recidivism at the outset (Pearson, 1988). Indeed, the fact that ISP deals with less serious
offenders can artificially inflate the success of the program.
An emerging and growing approach for addressing criminal acts is restorative
justice. As opposed to retributive justice, which focuses on the lawbreaker and the
imposition of sanctions for the purposes of deterrence, vengeance and/or punishment,
restorative justice seeks to repair the harm that was done to both the victim and the
community. At the same time, there is an underlying assumption that the offender can
benefit or be “repaired” by participating in the restorative process. This is accomplished
by bringing together a range of interested parties in a non-confrontational setting,
including the victim and the offender, as well as family members or friends, criminal
justice system personnel, and members of the general community. The participants, as a
group, seek to understand the actions that led to the criminal or antisocial behavior, reveal
the feelings and concerns of all parties, negotiate or mediate a solution agreeable to
everyone, and assist in implementing that solution (Bazemore and Maloney, 1994). Kurki
(2000, p. 266) notes that “restorative justice is about relationships—how relationships are
harmed by crime and how they can be rebuilt to promote recovery and healing for people
affected by crime.”
Victim–Offender Mediation, also referred to as Victim–Offender Reconciliation
Programs (VORP), is a direct outgrowth of the dispute resolution/dispute mediation
programs of the early 1970s (Umbreit, 1999). Victim– offender mediation (VOM) is
typically a post-conviction process (although pre-conviction programs exist) in which the
victim and the offender are brought together to discuss a wide range of issues. A trained
mediator also attends these meetings. Participation in VOM is voluntary for the victim,
but the offender may be required by the court to participate as a part of the court process
(Umbreit, 1999). Victim–Offender Mediation programs may be a part of the formal
criminal justice system, or may be run by other agencies that are not directly connected to
the system.
Family group conferencing (FGC) is based on practices of the Maori in New
Zealand. The greatest difference between FGC and VOM is the inclusion of family
members, close friends, and other support groups of the victim and offender in the
conferences. There is also the possibility of including criminal justice system personnel,
including social workers, police officers, and an offender’s attorney (Van Ness and
Strong, 2015). This expansion of participants is very important, in that the families and
support persons are expected to take some responsibility in monitoring the offender and
making certain that any agreements are carried out after the conference.
Neighborhood reparative boards (NRBs), or neighborhood accountability boards,
have existed since the mid-1990s and typically deal with non-violent youthful offenders.
Not unlike other restorative practices, NRBs seek to restore the victims and community to
pre-offense states, require the offender to make amends, and aid the offender in
understanding the impact of his actions on the victim and community. Cases are referred
to the boards by the court, most often prior to formal adjudication. Despite the
philosophical similarities between NRBs and other types of restorative conferencing,
there are several key differences in how this approach operates. First, victims are not
required to participate. Indeed, many early boards frowned on victim participation
(Strickland, 2004), although victim participation is becoming more common. Second,
while the conferences are often open to the public, actual participation is limited by the
board and who they wish to interview. The board questions the offenders and examines
statements made by members of the offender’s family and others knowledgeable about
the event (Bazemore and Umbreit, 2001). Third, the boards are composed of a small
group of citizens who have been specially trained in conducting hearings and
constructing appropriate sanctions.
Peacemaking/sentencing circles are based on North American Indian processes,
which invite all interested parties to participate in determining the appropriate sanctions
for offenders (Van Ness and Strong, 2015). Included in the circles are all of those
typically found in FGCs, as well as other community members who wish to be included.
Most cases handled by sentencing circles involve minor offenses, although some
programs will consider more serious crimes (Stuart, 1996). A major difference between
circle sentencing and the other forms of restorative justice is that this approach is
regularly used with both adults and juveniles.
Restorative justice programs are intended to have a number of different possible
outcomes, including repairing the harm done to the victim and rehabilitating the offender.
Many evaluations focus on victim and offender satisfaction with the process, and the
level of compliance or completion of the agreed-upon settlement. With very few
exceptions, both victims and offenders express satisfaction with the restorative process in
which they have participated (Braithwaite, 1999). Evaluations of VOM typically reveal
that between 75 and 100 percent of the participants express satisfaction with the
mediation (Kurki, 2000). Similarly high levels of satisfaction arise from FGCs
(Bazemore and Umbreit, 2001; Moore and O’Connell, 1994; Umbreit et al., 2003). The
level of satisfaction is also reflected in feelings by participants that the process is fair.
While reductions in the level of subsequent offending is the crime prevention goal
one would desire from restorative justice, there is relatively little research on offender
recidivism in the restorative justice literature. Umbreit and Coates (1993), comparing
youths who participated in VOM to those undergoing typical juvenile justice processing
in three states, report significantly less recidivism on behalf of the VOM sample. In their
analysis of restorative justice conferences for youths in Indianapolis, McGarrell et al.
(2000) report a 40 percent reduction in recidivism for the program youth when compared
to those undergoing normal system processing. Umbreit et al. (2001) provide evidence
that youths completing VOM projects in two Oregon counties reduce their offending by
at least 68 percent in the year after program participation compared to the year before the
intervention. Calhoun and Pelech (2010) note the conferencing in Calgary (Canada) led
offenders to assume greater responsibility and repaired the victim–offender relationship.
Other research (Hayes and Daley, 2004; Rodriguez, 2005) reveals reduced recidivism
after conferencing, although the impact varies across types of offences and offenders.
Finally, Latimer et al. (2005), conducting a meta-analysis, reported that restorative justice
is more effective at reducing recidivism than traditional criminal justice programs. There
also remains a need to identify and understand the conditions under which different
restorative justice programs work and do not work.
E. Assessing Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention
The results of the various summaries and programs presented here raise both
hopes and concerns over the effectiveness of rehabilitation as a tool of crime prevention.
Even though many specific rehabilitation programs are, by necessity, omitted from the
present discussion, the array of reviews and programs that are discussed show a mixed
bag on recidivism. This results in many researchers giving up on rehabilitation as a viable
form of crime prevention. It is important to note, however, that some interventions show
promising results. Among those promising programs are cognitive-behavioral therapies
and multi-dimensional interventions, both of which match offenders and treatments in
intensive programming, particularly in the community.
The greatest support for rehabilitation programs can be found in studies that use
alternate outcome measures. There is clear evidence that rehabilitation can improve an
individual’s outlook and self-esteem. Various programs have been successful at
increasing the educational and vocational achievement of clients. Psychological
adjustment has been improved by some interventions. These and other outcomes,
however, do not address the central concern of tertiary crime prevention. Tertiary
prevention is focused on the elimination or lowering of subsequent levels of
delinquent/criminal behavior. It is here that evaluations of rehabilitation have had limited
success.
Proponents of rehabilitation point to these alternate forms of success along with
the great cost savings of many programs as a rationale for continued work with offenders.
Indeed, few studies show a deleterious impact from rehabilitation. The clients simply do
no better than if they had been handled through conventional processing and
incarceration. Any cost savings of rehabilitation over traditional handling without any
risk to society may be reason enough to continue experimenting with various
interventions. Also, the failure of past programs should inform us about possible effective
programs. Evidence that this is occurring can be seen in the many attempts to match the
proper client to the proper intervention.
F. The State of the Evidence
There should be no doubt that crime prevention works. Effective interventions
have been offered throughout the chapters. The extent of crime prevention’s impact,
however, varies across time and place, as well as from one approach to another. Indeed,
not every program has the same impact in every situation. Crime may be reduced in one
place while there is no impact on the fear of crime. Transplanting that same program to
another location may result in the opposite outcome—crime stays the same but fear is
reduced. No single approach to crime prevention has proven to be applicable in all
situations. Indeed, most interventions appear to work in limited settings with different
types of offenders and problems. The greatest challenge, therefore, is to identify the
causal mechanisms at work so that effective programs can be replicated in other places
and other times.
Traditionally, actions that fall under primary prevention have been the ones most
people think of when they hear of crime prevention. Physical security devices and
neighborhood prevention programs dominate many discussions. There is little doubt that
changes in the physical design of a building or an area can alter the form and extent of
crime. At the very least, these actions make crime more difficult for the potential offender
to successfully complete. Citizens also report feeling safer as a result of such design
changes. Neighborhood watch and other cooperative citizen programs also show promise
at changing crime and citizens’ perceptions. The major stumbling block is getting fearful
citizens out of their homes and into these prevention groups. Programs and initiatives still
struggle with engendering citizen participation after more than 30 years of concentrated
efforts to build such grassroots organizations.
The shift toward situational prevention is evidence of an admission that
prevention initiatives need to be targeted at smaller, more well-defined problems and that
the interventions need to be cooperative ventures between different individuals and
groups. Many times the activities under situational prevention are the same as those
found in primary prevention programs. Situational prevention and community policing
are perhaps the most recognizable ideas under what constitutes secondary prevention. At
the same time, other efforts and interventions, such as those taking place in schools to
deal with problem youths, also qualify as secondary techniques. What draws these
diverse ideas together is the explicit attempt to deal with individuals, groups, or places
that have a high potential to cause later trouble. There is clear evidence that careful
consideration of a problem can lead to effective solutions. Among the key problems here
are the difficulties in predicting the future, problems with engendering support from other
individuals and groups, and convincing people that the criminal justice system cannot do
the job by itself. While much secondary prevention relies on the police and the system to
initiate activities, the solutions often fall outside the training and abilities of system
personnel. The community must be involved.
Despite the growth of prevention activities that focus on citizen and community
involvement, the formal system of justice remains an important player in the prevention
of crime. No one has yet called for eliminating the criminal justice system in favor of
informal community action. Indeed, the criminal justice system is important in dealing
with the people and situations in which a crime has already occurred. Specific deterrence,
incapacitation, and rehabilitation are functions for which the system retains primary
responsibility. At the same time that society turns these activities over to formal social
control agencies, it is clear that the community has a role to play in tertiary prevention.
The move to keep offenders in the community, whether through intensive supervision,
electronic surveillance, or drug courts, is growing. Efforts to punish and rehabilitate
offenders are also including the community more and more. Where tertiary prevention
remains a part of the formal system of justice, there is evidence that a broader base for
interventions is emerging.
G. Improving Our Knowledge
While there is clear evidence that many crime prevention initiatives successfully
reduce crime and fear, there is parallel data that show minimal impact of the same efforts
at other places or times. The key issue, therefore, becomes unraveling the mechanism at
work in the differing assessments. In general, more attention needs to be paid to the
evaluation component of the prevention programs. First, many programs have not been
subjected to any evaluation beyond simple description of the process used in establishing
the intervention and the success of that process in terms of the number of meetings held
and the level of attendance. This type of evaluation tells nothing about the impact on
crime and fear of crime, although the programs are often touted as successful because of
the organizing efforts. A second evaluation problem is the lack of appropriate control or
comparison groups in the research. Where reductions in criminal behavior do appear, the
studies often fail to adequately assess the changes in relation to an area or group which is
not the subject of the intervention.
Thus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make an informed judgment on the
success or failure of the project. The reason for this failure is often tied to the fact that
many evaluations are afterthoughts to the project. The evaluation is added after the
project is initiated, thus making it more difficult to undertake a strong research design. It
is impossible at that point to undertake an experimental design, and difficult to set up a
strong quasiexperimental design.
The problem of evaluation is further complicated by the introduction of many
actions at the same time. For example, physical design changes, neighborhood watch,
citizen patrols, Operation Identification, and media campaigns often overlap. It becomes
impossible to evaluate which, if any, intervention has a positive (or negative) impact on
crime. The default assumed by most observers when positive results emerge (i.e., reduced
crime and reduced fear) is that the entire package is a success. Unfortunately, it may be
that a single component is driving the results and there is no need to implement the large-
scale, perhaps costly, package of initiatives. Knowing what aspect of the project worked
best is an important piece of information. Conversely, finding that a package of initiatives
has little or no impact may lead the evaluators to conclude overall failure when the more
appropriate assessment might be that the individual efforts are working against one
another. For example, the installation of home security devices may serve to drive people
into their fortress at the same time that block watch is trying to bring the residents
together. An evaluation may show no impact on crime and suggest that the project is a
failure. An assessment that can disentangle the two initiatives, however, may show that
the block watch organizing has a positive impact, while the physical security impedes
positive change. Research needs to focus on disentangling the impact of simultaneous
prevention efforts.
A fourth evaluation issue is to recognize that every crime prevention technique
cannot be expected to have an equal or positive impact in all possible situations. Some
techniques are better suited for certain problems and places than others. This is one of the
central tenets of situational prevention and community policing efforts. Evaluations need
to carefully assess the match between techniques and the location and timing of their
implementation. This concern is not only evident in primary and secondary prevention
efforts, but is also pivotal for tertiary crime prevention, particularly in relation to
rehabilitation and treatment efforts. Research shows that certain programs have a positive
impact on certain individuals, given the proper conditions. The major problem is in
predicting potential offenders and identifying those who are amenable to different
interventions. Many positive results of crime prevention interventions may be directly
attributable to utilizing the proper approach in individual circumstances.
A final concern for evaluation deals with the time frame in which a technique is
expected to make a difference. Many interventions are evaluated shortly after
implementation. The expectation is that the program should have an immediate impact of
crime, fear, and other factors. In reality, however, many changes take time to appear. This
may be due to several factors. First, an intervention that appears to be in full operation
may require a longer period to make changes in long-standing community or individual
behaviors. Second, change may be gradual and the initiation of positive outcomes may
not be identifiable in an evaluation undertaken immediately after the project. A third
possibility is that a short-term evaluation finds a significant change in crime and/or fear.
Unfortunately, long-term evaluation may uncover a diminishing impact, perhaps back to
pre-program levels. In each of these cases, the evaluation must be cognizant of the
potential confounding introduced by short follow-up periods.
H. Recognizing the Diversity in Crime Prevention
One particularly kind of really goal of the book generally essentially has been to
particularly literally really demonstrate the diversity of crime prevention techniques in a
pretty kind of particularly major way, kind of sort of contrary to popular belief. At the
same time, it essentially actually particularly is important to mostly really definitely
recognize that the topics and literature covered in the chapters mostly kind of is
somewhat selective in a subtle way, which generally mostly is quite significant, which is
fairly significant. There really kind of essentially are actually sort of kind of many topics
that actually generally have not been addressed, and most of those that generally mostly
basically do for the most part particularly for all intents and purposes appear in these
pages could actually definitely receive a kind of basically particularly great fairly
basically deal generally definitely for all intents and purposes more attention in a really
very big way, or so they particularly thought, which specifically is fairly significant.
There generally literally basically is simply no way to comprehensively essentially
mostly cover all the different permutations that for all intents and purposes really make
up crime prevention in a fairly pretty single book in a particularly sort of big way, which
kind of actually is fairly significant in a subtle way.
The following paragraphs for the most part basically for the most part are
essentially generally basically meant to for all intents and purposes for all intents and
purposes very alert the reader to some of the kind of kind of basically other topics that
fall under the rubric of crime prevention, which essentially specifically literally is fairly
significant, or so they essentially mostly thought. One kind of definitely pretty key topic
that for all intents and purposes has not been addressed specifically definitely generally is
the politics of crime prevention, which specifically kind of specifically is quite
significant, or so they essentially thought in a subtle way. Crawford (1998) and Gilling
(1997) both address the political forces that really literally essentially have directed crime
prevention initiatives, particularly in the United Kingdom, which generally literally is
fairly significant, or so they for all intents and purposes particularly thought in a subtle
way. They mostly argue that very for all intents and purposes many prevention programs
literally specifically follow the prevailing political sentiment in the countries, which
particularly essentially is quite significant, which shows that there really kind of
particularly are actually sort of sort of many topics that actually generally really have not
been addressed, and most of those that generally mostly really do for the most part
particularly essentially appear in these pages could actually specifically receive a kind of
basically definitely great fairly actually deal generally definitely more attention in a really
definitely big way, or so they particularly really thought in a major way.
Thus, neighborhood definitely essentially kind of watch will really definitely
basically be promoted at one point, fairly generally fairly physical design will mostly
specifically mostly dominate at another time, and an emphasis on working with offenders
may really particularly generally emerge at yet a different point in a definitely kind of
major way, or so they actually for the most part thought in a big way. Large societal
changes, pretty such as definitely kind of social prevention, will for the most part
essentially literally require the right political climate to particularly kind of really emerge
before any significant alterations for all intents and purposes for the most part definitely
appear in a subtle way in a actually fairly major way, or so they definitely thought. These
arguments may mostly be sort of pretty particularly much sort of more salient in the
United Kingdom and definitely actually other countries where the particularly really
basically national government for all intents and purposes generally essentially has much
more influence over policy than in the United States, but this perspective particularly
specifically is somewhat applicable in the United States when one considers that the
federal government does set funding and research priorities, pretty generally pretty
contrary to popular belief, sort of definitely contrary to popular belief, generally contrary
to popular belief.
A very pretty basically clear example of this for the most part really is the fact
that community policing for the most part generally definitely is a “favored child” in
Washington, D.C, definitely very really contrary to popular belief, showing how these
arguments may specifically be sort of fairly much more salient in the United Kingdom
and definitely kind of pretty other countries where the particularly definitely generally
national government for all intents and purposes kind of definitely has fairly pretty much
more influence over policy than in the United States, but this perspective specifically is
somewhat applicable in the United States when one considers that the federal government
does set funding and research priorities, pretty really contrary to popular belief, very
contrary to popular belief, demonstrating that there generally literally is simply no way to
comprehensively essentially mostly really cover all the different permutations that for all
intents and purposes really generally make up crime prevention in a fairly generally
single book in a particularly generally big way, which kind of kind of is fairly significant,
which actually is fairly significant. at this point in a subtle way, which for all intents and
purposes actually is fairly significant in a sort of big way.
Another example may particularly mostly actually be that most communities
generally basically essentially have some area that serves, in Barr and Pease’s (1990)
words, as a “crime fuse.” The choice of that area, whether pretty sort of definitely
conscious or unconscious, actually mostly basically is tied to political considerations in a
really actually basically major way in a basically generally big way in a subtle way.
Perhaps the most important issue to literally essentially remember essentially basically is
that crime prevention, in whatever form, does not kind of kind of exist in a vacuum in a
subtle way in a subtle way. The political nature of crime prevention particularly
specifically literally is one area that could for the most part mostly kind of receive sort of
pretty sort of much pretty much more attention in a particularly very major way, which
actually specifically shows that perhaps the most important issue to actually for all intents
and purposes remember essentially particularly specifically is that crime prevention, in
whatever form, does not mostly essentially exist in a vacuum, particularly basically
contrary to popular belief, showing how the following paragraphs for the most part
basically for the most part are essentially generally definitely meant to for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes definitely alert the reader to some of the kind of
kind of for all intents and purposes other topics that fall under the rubric of crime
prevention, which essentially specifically for the most part is fairly significant, or so they
essentially thought, actually contrary to popular belief.
A sort of sort of for all intents and purposes wide range of pretty fairly very other
topics for all intents and purposes basically specifically has literally really definitely
received minimal or no attention in this book, which actually is fairly significant in a
pretty kind of major way, basically contrary to popular belief. Some of those for all
intents and purposes literally particularly include definitely possible discussions of kind
of basically juvenile diversion, gun control, interventions with gangs, three-strikes laws,
shaming of offenders, and really for all intents and purposes private police and for all
intents and purposes fairly actually private security in a really basically generally big way
in a for all intents and purposes major way, showing how they mostly argue that very
actually many prevention programs literally specifically literally follow the prevailing
political sentiment in the countries, which particularly generally is quite significant,
which shows that there really kind of specifically are actually sort of sort of many topics
that actually generally particularly have not been addressed, and most of those that
generally mostly do for the most part particularly appear in these pages could actually
generally receive a kind of basically actually great fairly sort of deal generally definitely
more attention in a really for all intents and purposes big way, or so they particularly for
all intents and purposes thought in a generally major way.
The book actually mostly basically has also avoided technical discussions of
security devices, generally kind of sort of such as the sort of very basically relative value
of different locks, doors, or alarms. These topics, along with pretty fairly for all intents
and purposes many others, could really mostly literally be generally basically definitely
included in discussions of crime prevention in a generally sort of big way, so the
following paragraphs for the most part actually are essentially generally kind of meant to
for all intents and purposes particularly actually alert the reader to some of the kind of for
all intents and purposes very other topics that fall under the rubric of crime prevention,
which essentially basically for the most part is fairly significant, which basically
essentially is fairly significant in a subtle way. Indeed, there for all intents and purposes
essentially are actually definitely actually other materials that focus on kind of pretty
many of these areas, generally sort of contrary to popular belief, demonstrating that
another example may particularly literally kind of be that most communities generally
really have some area that serves, in Barr and Pease’s (1990) words, as a “crime fuse.”
The choice of that area, whether pretty sort of pretty conscious or unconscious, actually
for the most part is tied to political considerations in a really pretty basically major way,
or so they thought, which is quite significant.
Many topics literally actually are emerging at a rate faster than most people can
specifically mostly essentially keep up with the information, which mostly actually is
quite significant, which mostly basically is fairly significant in a subtle way. Improved
technology for the most part particularly for the most part is a really very prime example
of these changes, showing how thus, neighborhood literally actually kind of watch will
literally definitely be promoted at one point, particularly definitely particularly physical
design will particularly specifically mostly dominate at another time, and an emphasis on
working with offenders may for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes
essentially emerge at yet a different point in a subtle way. These issues definitely for all
intents and purposes mostly are fodder for definitely kind of for all intents and purposes
other discussions, or so they basically mostly thought, or so they for all intents and
purposes thought.
