A balanced account on the premises of both situational and focused crime deterrence procedures points to the assertion that, the bottom-line of fighting criminal activities lies on how the law enforcers and the members of the community alike relate with the criminals and their groups. Such relationships also encompass the real-time, purposive, positive, and personalized interactions between the criminals themselves.
First and foremost getting an ex-con to speak to an active criminal is a “situational-focused” and a real-time deterrence measure that doubles the efforts of the law enforcers while reducing opportunities for provocation and increasing the risks in engaging in criminal acts by decreasing the rewards for engaging in such criminal acts. Ultimately it clears any excuses to committing criminal acts on the part of the active criminal.
In defense to this argument, deterrence measures that are tailored to suit individual situations and that are focused to specific behavior codes, as well as the environment are not only practical and efficient but they end up refraining potential criminals from engaging in criminal behavior. Furthermore, getting an ex-con to talk to an active criminal is a form of addressing criminal activities from the criminal point of view – sanctions are deterring “as perceived by the victims” (Tiller & Kennedy, 2007, p. 4).
In extension this approach also embraces a collectivity approach that recognizes that crimes occur in dynamic groups, and that using crime “role models” to disseminate deterrence messages has more impacts. After all, this method has been tested and proven to be effective in various states in the United States such as Minneapolis, Minnesota, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Lowell, Massachusetts. References Tiller, M. S. & Kennedy, D. M. (Oct. 15, 2007). Locating focused deterrence approaches within a situational crime prevention framework. Crime Prevention and Community Safety.