The purpose of this conclusion is to compare and contrast information from various sources. We examine the antisocial behavior victimization and the response by government organizations. We will use the article posted in the Guardian: ‘Antisocial behavior ignored by authorities, report claims’ by the Press association posted on their website on 30 April 2019. The author’s authority could not be established. We will compare the information presented here to other journal publications and also the opinion of other victim support organizations. We first set out to summarize the ideas presented by the article, the second part will be to compare and contrast with other sources, the implications of professional practice will be drawn, and lastly, comment on things learned from the assignment.
What does the article present?
The article is written given the then recently released report by the victim’s commissioner for England and wales. The victims’ commissioner works with victims of crime and justice. Their work is to listen to victims and witnesses, promote good practices across criminal justice systems, and review victim codes and campaigns for change. It helps victims through reporting a crime, charging and bail, trial proceedings, post-trial, compensation, restorative justice, and making a complaint. Therefore, the article is written with a bias towards the victims and not the perpetrators.
The article states that the lives of victims of antisocial behavior are blighted in the wake of the downplaying by authorities. There are deficiencies in response by the police, councils, and other agencies involved. The article reports the position of the victims’ commissioner in clarity. It is clear to her that little has changed since 2007 when her husband was murdered as a result of antisocial behavior. Therefore, little has changed for over 12 years. It shortly defines antisocial behavior as conduct that causes harm, harassment, or distress.
The findings of the report are brought forth. Drinking and drunken behavior are the most commonly witnessed antisocial behaviors. Measures taken to protect victims like community triggers are not well known, even among frontline users. Victims are not attended to in time, being passed on from one agency to another. The needs of perpetrators are given more priority than those of the victims. Authorities do not take into account the full scale of the effects of antisocial behavior. Antisocial behavior should not be referred to as low-level crime. A dedicated call line is suggested to improve response to victims of antisocial behavior. The article finishes up by stating the position of the police. The deputy assistant commissioner presents that the national police is working in conjunction with local authorities to combat antisocial behavior and empower victims. Further funding is required. The government spokesman echoes the same by insisting on reform powers handed to police in addressing antisocial behavior.
What do other sources present?
In an article posted in the International Review of Victimology, Heap (2020), presents interesting facts on the effects of antisocial behavior victimization. We discuss related association to the above article. These associations will be compared and contrasted in the next part of this assignment.
First on the definition of antisocial behavior. The article describes that the experiences of antisocial behavior victimization take place under a different albeit similar context to criminal victimization. According to the Antisocial Behavior Crime and Policing act of 2014, in England and Wales, anti-social behavior (ASB) is legally defined as ‘conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Much of ASB is sub-criminal and much of it neither illegal or subject to criminal proceedings. Because of the varied nature of the definition of ASB, characterizing ASB victimization is varied. The graduation between crime and ASB has been a long-standing issue. refereeing to ASB as low-level crime has rubbed many shoulders the wrong way. Referring to ASB as ‘low-level’ gives the impression that ASB victimization is not as serious as criminal victimization. The evident effects show otherwise.
The article presents a clear view of the recent developments in combating antisocial behavior. To understand the responses, we are taken back to the first legislation in 1998. The crime and disorder act (1998), a contested terrain, the motive was to deal with perceived inefficiencies in the criminal justice system. the crucial point to ASB victimization was that these initial powers were focused on providing a range of punitive tools to tackle perpetrators. Later, the Police Reform Act (2002) and Anti-Social Behavior Act (2003) created an unwieldy suite of 19 ASB-related powers, which were criticized for being ineffective and slow to implement. The antisocial behavior act, 2014 was the most recent and impactful legislation. Introduced in part 6, the community trigger was the flagship victim’s measure. it enabled victims of ASB to request a review of their case if they perceive they have not received a satisfactory response to their complaints.
According to Heap 2020, the extent of antisocial behavior is ‘empirically contested’. Most of the data is qualitative and derived from police and crime reports. ASB statistics are not accredited national statistics and do not carry the same authority as published statistics. What therefore mostly comes to light is qualitative and not quantitative information. However, at the end of the study, the article concluded that the long-term effects of ASB victimization are similar to criminal-related victimization and similarly rampant. Antisocial behavior should hence not be considered a low-level crime.
How do the two articles compare?
It must be noted that the Guardian article was a media piece, a product of journalistic work (we could not appreciate the authority writing). The other article was a peer-reviewed article published in a renowned journal. The Guardian article presents a fairly accurate assessment of the situation. we agree that both articles present a similar assessment of the problem. They agree that the impact of ASB victimization is not given adequate attention and is underreported. The inaccurate reference of antisocial behavior as a low-level crime as wring comes out clearly in both articles. The findings of the study that long-term effects of victimization are as grave as those of criminal victimization affirm the fact.
The only critic of the Guardian article is the understatement of the progress made towards proper legislation and combating ASB victimization. The peer-reviewed journal gives a good chronological review of the legislative developments and what has been achieved thus far. When you read the Guardian article, one would think that little has been done for ASB victims. It must be noted that a lot of deficiencies remain in the quest to help the victims though.
Implications for professional practice
Focus has consistently been shifting to helping ASB victims over the apprehension of the perpetrators. These articles present a chance for a consistent balance between the two. Victims must be helped to avert long-term effects. The perpetrators must equally be treated and held to account. Further academic studies must explore qualitative and quantitive reporting on ASB victimization to inform adequate action. Parenting behavior must align to look out for signs of ASB victimization in children. Modalities of reporting must be employed. Children should not be left to suffer at the hands of perpetrators that are rampant in the neighborhoods.
What have we learned from the assignment?
Media articles, which are journalistic work, always have an angle. It always responds to the happenings of the time. The Guardian article for example was speaking to the recently released report on ASB victimization. However, true the information gave is sometimes incomplete. It not only needs to be sieved but also measured against established academic researched based data. However, it does a good job of bringing to light pressing issues.