Criminology

Crime prevention practices have evolved over the years from the traditional crime control methods and policies. Since mid-twentieth century, crime prevention strategies have seen the return of some of the pre-modern methods of crime control, and it is now a world phenomenon. The rise in crime control strategies has seen a marked decline in the rate of crimes (Gilling, 1997). This has been aided by the conventional criminal justice systems, which has ensured that crimes are controlled as well as taming of fear and concern associated with criminal acts. However, crime prevention has also benefited from the paradigmatic changes that have occurred in between the government and the governed as well as in how state agencies relate. Community has become an integral part of crime prevention because it is the stage where every other institution acts and performs. Institutions such as families, police, schools and even correctional facilities have to face the consequences of the general life in any community. Therefore, the success or failure of any institution hinges heavily on the local context in which they carry out their operation. The challenge to everyone in light of this therefore, is to assist in reshaping the lives within communities especially the most crime infected communities.

Crime prevention involves initiatives as well as policies that work to deter or eliminate the collective tares of victimization and the risk of criminal acts by individuals. The policies or initiatives involves the state as well as community based projects or programs that work in tandem towards reducing factors that contribute to crime or levels of victimization. Crime prevention programs also strive to change communities or individual perceptions of crime and criminal acts. One certain area of concentration between the police and communities in crime prevention has to be community mobilization. Gilling (1997) suggests that Community mobilization has varied meanings from organization of communities to form community based organizations to ensuring that communities are supported by available resources that would solve crime-related problems. As studies have shown, there is much to be achieved under such programs if the past failures are anything to go by. The past failures were mostly attributed to lack of co-ordination between the community leaders and the police and the program implementers. The theories chose by the communities leaders in most cases were never tested nor recognized as workable. But the results have shown that community can work to deter criminal activities within their vicinities through quick response and identification of criminals to be apprehended (Skogan  Hartnett, 1997).

There is much need for law enforcement agencies and the communities to work towards containment of gang memberships and related crimes. Violent crimes have for a long time been associated with gangs. Therefore it would be paramount if police and communities gear their efforts towards containing and deterring gang recruitments. Studies have shown that there is correlation between gang membership and violent and serious crimes committed (Skogan  Hartnett, 1997). The study done by the OJP in USA among juvenile offenders, found that individuals commit more crimes when belonging to a gang group than when they not. It further showed that gang membership do in deed facilitate most crimes. In light of this report, it is therefore more important for the law enforcement agencies to find solutions to gang recruitment of young adults or even how to divert gang members from committing violent crimes. Perhaps the most potent course of action would be to commit much effort on tackling the root cause of gang recruitment through community intervention programs (Welsh  Farrington, 2006).

The law enforcement agencies could work with communities in implementing community-based mentoring initiatives which has proved to deter crime causing factors like drug abuse. The mentoring programs although use by social workers in gang disbandment programs, would be more effective if the adolescents and juveniles are taken on aboard. This is because it is logically easier to prevent than to cure. Gang members are adults and experience criminals who might find it hard to abandon their activities, but young people could be mentored out of such factors that may put them at risk of joining gang groups or committing crimes. Drug use which has been linked to many crimes can be prevented through mentorship programs by the community social workers. The long term effects could be reduced crime rates in the larger community as most youths perception of crime would be negative (Skogan  Hartnett, 1997).

Different Communities, Different Crime Prevention
Every community has got its own crime risk factors. It is therefore very much efficient if these factors are taken into consideration in crime prevention strategies. Factors ranging from community composition to social disorders could contribute to crime risk factors. The community composition for example, highlights the groups of people inhabiting a certain area. Some communities comprise mainly of poor persons or persons with past criminal records and would be at risk of falling victims to violent crimes. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, (2002) reveals in its report that the rates of violent crimes are even higher in such areas in fact they are fond of forming oppositional identity. This would call for a different crime prevention strategy as compared to a suburban community where most youths would be found in mainstream economic and social activities. 

Conclusion
In conclusion it would be worth noting that violent crimes are isolated in specific area or communities but identification of programs that would stifle crimes in such communities has been far from right. Just as every community would need different crime fighting initiatives, the efforts would reach a dead end if the community involved is not taken on board.