1 / 8

Harm and its operationalisation in the UK: constraint or rationalisation? Dr. Michael Levi Professor of Criminology Ca

Harm and its operationalisation in the UK: constraint or rationalisation? Dr. Michael Levi Professor of Criminology Cardiff University Levi@Cardiff.ac.uk 44-29-20874376 Utrecht, May 2010. Framework assumptions .

lorene
Download Presentation

Harm and its operationalisation in the UK: constraint or rationalisation? Dr. Michael Levi Professor of Criminology Ca

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Harm and its operationalisation in the UK: constraint or rationalisation? Dr. Michael Levi Professor of Criminology Cardiff University Levi@Cardiff.ac.uk 44-29-20874376 Utrecht, May 2010

  2. Framework assumptions Organised crimes, frauds and terrorism are shaped by and respond to the environments provided by the licit world: private and public sectors, as well as law enforcement Full law enforcement is impossible and arguably not always ‘productive’ even if it is available Prioritisation of scarce resources should address the more harmful offences rather than less serious ones National boundaries are often unhelpful for problem identification and solution – but do ‘foreigners’ affect harm judgments as well as calculations of efforts and cost of investigation?

  3. Harm and Policing • Harm has become integrated into the core governmental discourse about the goals of policing, especially of serious and organised crime • Extending Our Reach speaks of harms flowing from criminal networks and organised crime groups – but it does not specify those harms or explain why they are worse than the same acts committed by non-oc group members – if the latter is possible • Lack of clarity about whether harm estimates are to be constraints on what public bodies would otherwise do or mainly an intellectual gloss on what the police and other bodies would have done anyway. • How are harm and resource efficiency combined?

  4. Areas of Harm Assessment • UK MPS are developing harm matrices for: • E-crime • Gun crime • Counter-terrorism • Economic crime (fraud) • Sexual offences • Immigration crime • SOCA - overall serious and organised crime • NFA/SFO/police - fraud

  5. The Need for Cyber-Audit • Confusion/struggles over labelling of acts • Identity theft is often duplication rather than simple zero-sum game of theft • Damage, espionage, fraud, play, theft, warfare • Elision of threat and manifest harm • Equal weighting for harm and probability in police e-crime harm judgments • What are our knowledge gaps about different types of cyber-risks & how are they likely to change over time? • How and in what terms do we measure cyber-harms? • How and with what resources are we actually organised (a) to prevent and (b) to deal reactively with cyber-harms? • How do we measure our individual and collective impact on cyber-harms, and can we do this better?

  6. ACPO e-Crime Strategy 2009

  7. Translation into practice? • ACPO – ‘harm can have one or more of the following characteristics: significant profit or loss; significant impact upon community safety; serious violence; corruption; exercise of control’. • MPS ‘disruption’: ‘A disruption has been achieved when a criminal network is unable to operate at its usual level of activity for a significant period of time. A disruption may be achieved by various means and does not have to be in the context of the operation’. The aim is to examine the impact of policing activity on the gang and how much harm is reduced’. • So how do we develop claims and test them?

More Related