ABSTRACT
In the last few decades, criminology has strongly revealed the characteris tics of an empirical and cognitive science. Never as much as now, however, has there been need for a deeper consideration of its normative dimension. In fact, until now, criminology has tended to adapt to situations which have occurred, and thus has found it difficult to conduct an important theoretical discussion. This is due in part to a crisis regarding the two interrelated options upon which criminology was founded: aetiology and resocialization. A situation of uneasiness has arisen within this discipline because it is deprived of an interpretive model upon which it has previously found sup port. The increase in criminal behaviour recorded in all countries, in concomi
tance with improvements in those indexes which have been identified as factors leading to delinquency, has in fact contributed to the failure of the model affirmed by the ‘positive school’ and developed through the ‘new social defence’. The apparent paradox of an improvement in living condi tions and an increase in crime rates has been interpreted, particularly in the United States, in terms of labelling theory, relative deprivation and social disorganization. These interpretations have established the fulcrum of the ‘new deviancy theory’ and are a first attempt at creating a new interpretive paradigm which has successfully flowed into radical criminology and criti cal criminology. It was at the end of the 1960s that a new approach in the field of crime
prevention began to emerge in Great Britain and the United States. This
approach was oriented towards efficient control of crime rather than re searching the causes of crime or the rehabilitation of offenders, and is now known as situational crime prevention. It is based on the assumption that crime is the result of convergences of offenders and victims in certain times and places. By intervening in the situational factors which encourage these types of convergences, and which consequently increase the risk of victimi zation, it is possible to reduce the amount of certain forms of crime. The innovation of this approach is not so much its focus on the situational
factors of crime: criminology has always considered these factors. For ex ample, at the beginning of the 20th century, Ferri had already suggested increasing street lighting to reduce the crime rate (Bandini et al., 1991). Rather, the innovation is the systematic development of a prevention model aimed solely at producing concrete results. Left aside is any consideration of the exact causes contributing to criminal behaviour. In Italy, nevertheless, this rich theoretical debate in criminology during
the 1960s and 1970s was not reflected in penal policy, which was based primarily on the principles of clinical criminology, which of course follow from the aetiological paradigm. In 1975, penal law still reflected these principles, supporting a model of prevention that, leaving aside questions of guilt and responsibility, seemed to concentrate more on the rehabilitation of the offender, who was considered a victim of personal and social depriva tion. Consequently, the aim of any intervention was the improvement of society. In terms of values, this model is connected to a deep cultural tension that has pervaded the western world since the 1950s. Political de bates surrounding this tension result in a call, not for law and order, but for a change in society. This desire for fundamental change reflected the sense that each citizen should have the opportunity to live within a system of safety and welfare. During the 1970s and a good part of the 1980s, it is significant that in
Italy repressive penal policies were kept in check. The incarceration rate was among the lowest in Europe (Direzione Generale degli Istituti di Prevenzione e Pena, 1990). This tends to confirm that criminal policy in those years was in synchrony with the belief of society that resocialization could address the root causes of crime. Criminality was regarded as a correctable problem, and society’s demands for safety were met through the use of tools which were perceived as capable of changing and improving society. The situation radically changed towards the end of the 1980s with the
crisis surrounding the welfare model. Community awareness of the dangers posed by organized crime emerged, and trust in the possibility of change in society through new social policies declined. Consequently, society’s de mand for safety began to focus on the need for greater levels of repression.
