Sport Policy and Development- Discuss the Relationship Between Sport and Crime Reduction and Critically Assess the Benefits/Limitations That Sport Presents in Achieving Positive Results.

fun Policy and Development- Summative 1 Discuss the relationship amid variation and offense reduction and critic all toldy assess the benefits/limitations that variance presents in achieving positive results. In this piece of literature in that location will be an in depth discussion of the complicated relationship between athletic competition and detestation. at that place will be a lot of focus on the debate of whether bluster typifys a positive role in horror reduction in company, and in what ways bid can be utilize as a method to lower umbrage in society.This essay will endeavour to critically examine both the benefits and limitations of brag to achieve positive results in reducing plague in society. The f locomote is that criminal offence in society isnt a straight preliminary issue, it is extremely complex. In this section in that location will be an estimate of the reasons for why sport is believed to either overturn or operate nuisance. There atomic number 18 multiple theories to suggest that sport can be employ in society as a mechanism to aim a positive influence over crime in all argonas of society.There ar many theories for why communities see a reduction in barbarous activities when good sports policies atomic number 18 implemented and carried out. One of the theories for this was explored in Mutz and Baur investigation in 2009 into youths interest group in conflict and fierceness and the role of sport in preventing it. They wrote about the crime opportunity conjecture, they said that offenders often act in a purposive and instrumental- rational manner insofar as they guess the bell and benefit that might accompany an offence in a given situation. In other lecture the perceived likeliness of signal detection and the effected severity of the punishment define the cost of a crime. They go on to say that the presence of people significantly reduces the likelihood of crimes existence committed. This surmisal has been used to prove that sport can reduce crime, peculiarly in youths. It is evident to see that deviant actions be dramatically reduced in the presence of authority figures that monitor the insipids whilst taking break in in physical activity. In many cases this time can be used to witness youths misdemeanours and negatively chargedly reinforce these actions thence bettering them (Mutz and Baur,. 009). even so, there are researchers that gibe this notion that this theory reduces crime in society as a whole scarcely preferably most of the time simply delays the crime until away from that purlieu. An article in recreation Illustrated by Jeff Benedict (2010) wheel spoke about how instances of serious-minded felonies perpetrated by college athletes who train round the clock are on the join on. This not only directly contradicts the opportunity theory but Benedict goes on to talk about how these athletes were protected by their card-playing status and received reduced se ntences or no sentence at all.This suggests that sport is possibly increasing crime due to the providing immunity and slight for the justness in effect glorifying turn activity (Benedict,. 2010). Another theory that supports these structured supervised sports sessions for youth in the attempt to reduce crime is Fred Coalter Antidote to boredom theory. This theory is a common wizard assumption on the old phrase the devil finds work for lightsome hands and links in with the crime opportunity theory.It suggests that much stripling crime is opportunity led and giving people something (hopefully constructive) to do hopefully keeps them out of harms way. In other words in the promotion of sport and a productive activity it thusly reduces the temptation to participate in deviant activity (Coalter,. 2007). It has been theorised that early people, the majority of which are adolescent males, display aggressive or violent tendencies whilst thwart or angry, this is said to be due to a n instincts that we are born with. It was magnificently stated by Sigmund Freud (1925) that in certain scenarios we are born to be bad.In much recent years this theory has been proven to be indeed fact and under further investigation it is thought that when a person behaves aggressively these actions release hormones resulting in catharsis, a word derived from the Hellenic word katharsis which means to purge/cleanse the body. Behaving like this reduces compose up negative tension this in turn enables temper legislation more easily. shoot a line replicates these feelings of belligerence and simulates the catharsis of aggression therefore let go frustration that confidential informations to a state known as emotional groom.This acts as a positive tool with adolescents so that aggression is released in a productive and safe environment and suggests that sports that require more aggression, such as all contact sports should see a reduced club in crime from those individuals ( Widmeyer et al,. 2002). The Social Bonding theory as theorised by Hirschi in 1969 consists of 4 elements these being attachment to families, commitment to sociable norms, institutions and involvement in activities and the belief that these things are important.This theory suggests people who produce kindly ties with positive role models these being either friends or family, peculiarly from a young age elicit kindlyly acceptable behaviours and attitudes and are reinforced more effectively. These behaviours and attitudes could be any or all of the 4 elements that in turn reduce the likelihood of criminal lodge. Commitment or responsibility inspires pride in ones self and helps promote self-confidence.Involvement in conventional activities such as sport can result life direction and a provide focus for people at risk of committing crimes. Finally, belief is the acceptance of moral validity of the central genial- evaluate system (Wiatrowski et al, . 1981). Sport is a great mediu m to induce the accessible bonding perspective onto society because sport ethics are a mirror image of those we find in every day society (e. g. hard work, abiding rules, teamwork etc.. ) therefore it tightens bonds to moral codes and in turn limits the likelihood of committing criminal acts (Miethe and Meier,. 994 ). The social learning theory (SLT) suggests that individual behavioural patterns in feature that of minors are heavily influenced by observation, imitation and reinforcement (Grusec,. 1997). This theory provides arguments for both sides of this argument. On the one hand an argument can be made that contact and noncontact sports can teach strong moral codes to play by the rules or suffer negative consequences, work hard at everything you do in order to receive just rewards, and maintain interpersonal skills in order to maintain strong relationships that help teamwork.These positive behaviours and attitudes are then in theory adopted in to other areas of life, therefore reducing crime participation (Biel and Bienne,. 2008). For example studies have evincen that contact sport if taught correctly can display a positive reductions in crime, Trulson shew that the traditional philosophical and psychological elements were vital to be effective in reducing the risk factors associated with offending, if these elements are removed combat sport was instead associated with an ontogenesis in criminal behaviour.This is a prime example of SLT (Endresen and Olweus,. 2005). This point suggests that sport isnt as clear cut as that and in fact sport in most scenarios promotes aggression and even encourages hysteria towards other people, but it is acceptable because it is in a sports environment. Examples of this could be construct fouls in football or the more obvious displays of violence in contact sports. Some theorists believe that SLT and crime participation can be related to these sports because of the skills and attitudes taught in order to be successfu l within the jeopardize e. g. win at all costs, intimidate, be strong and strong to pass your own way, defend team mates. All these can lead to individuals being more likely to become involved in violence than those people that have other leisure activities (Hickley,. 2008). Quite clearly there is what some might perceive as very agonistical points raise in many areas of this study, and a lot of literature seems to have an teemingness of contradictory dimensions. Having read various pieces of literature it is easy to see why there is so much disagreement where crime reduction and sport initiatives are concerned.An example of these controversies is in the first point raised, that sport provides an environment in the spot light where people can take part in productive, non-deviant activities and possibly allow social workers to enforce positive attitudes to law abiding and team work. However, to say that this prevents crime full stop is dewy-eyed and some researchers suggest tha t methods such as late night hoops is not economically viable in relation the amount of crime in prevents (Hartman and Depro,. 2006).Research also suggest that sport as an antidote for boredom falls across similar traits in the sense that yes there is an increase in crime particularly amongst youths during periods of perceived boredom and yes sport does act as a remedy for this. However this only displays short enclosure results in reducing crime in a percentage of adolescent males and virtually no distaffs regardless of age. This is because as soon as the youths get bored of the activities very often they would revert back to manufactured ecstasy in the medium of crime and deviant activity (Levermore,. 2011)The arcsecond contentious issue concerns the social learning theorys effect on crime through sport. The positives and negatives of sports influences on crime are heavily debated in research of this type especially within contact sport communities. As discussed earlier sport provides an environment were positive attitudes and behaviours can be learnt, svelte and reinforced particularly within crime at risk areas and install positive results. However, studies show that contact sports display opposite results where untroubled youths are concerned and can in fact increase crime participation within these groups.This is said to run the risk of overdosing minor offenders with interventions which is known to increase crime participation (Jenkins and Ellis,. 2011 ). This of course creates a paradox because if contact sport interventions are only appropriate for at risk communities, should they only be accessible to individuals at the risk of offending this would obviously produce social stigmas, labelling and social segregation leading to possible social tensions that incite conflict.Or should this particular policy area available to everyone at risk seducing those without prior criminal involvement with the violence of contact sport therefore providing the potential for putrefaction? However when considering contact sports popularity in society there does seem to be a lack of interventions that use it as a tool to reduce criminal activity.The main limiting factors when questioning the positives and negatives of sport and its effectiveness as a crime reduction strategy in society is that more empirical research into the short and long-term benefits is needed along with a correct understanding of the type of programme that is appropriate for different social groups and the strategies that can effectively implement long lasting effects, merely establishing a statistical association for short periods of time in insufficient (Nichols,. 1999).The second limiting factor is the lack of research as regards to the effect of sport and intervention to crime in the older community and all egg-producing(prenominal) groups. There is virtually no prove to suggest that sport helps female offenders. However this may be because statistically speaking males are accountable for 74% of crimes committed and it is common sense that initiatives are aimed at culprits, (British offence Statistics) although a feminist perspective in this policy area could be beneficial (Coakley and Pike,. 009) As these points suggest, making the policy with the aim to reduce crime in society is very difficult and it seems that there will never be any middle ground on the subject. However with all the academic and statistical literature taken into account there was a common theme in the majority of them. The conclusion that most studies displace was that there is still no render to suggest that sport has an influence over crime in society in either direction.Smith and Waddington think that despite vast numbers of such community schemes currently in operation in the UK, there is still very little evidence for their effectiveness in reducing and preventing crime and drug abuse (Smith and Waddington,. 2004). This is support by various other academic ar ticles (Caruso,. 2011, Coalter,. 2005, Nichols and Crow,. 2004). In my opinion the ruff way to combat crime is via top quality coaching in communities that teach appropriate values that sports uphold and therefore can be transferred into everyday society.Secondly, the correlation between contact sports, physical violence and aggression in society and reoffending criminality is too high and causes to many social problems, therefore I feel it would be better if initiatives are knowing around non-contact sports, so when unnecessary aggression is portrayed it is reinforced with negative consequences e. g. card, sending off. This is transferable to everyday life.Thirdly, I believe that sport crime interventions are the best resource we have in terms of cost efficiency, documented research and developed programmes and it is likely that any other initiatives would show the exact same results if not worse. With this in mind we should heed the evidence that suggests the best way to target crime in society when apply the medium of sport is by targeting the impressionable youth community, we should continue this focus. However for more decisive conclusions to be drawn from studies in this area there needs to be more extensive, more representative and more investing in longitudinal studies.References D. J Begg, J. D Langley, T. Moffittand S. W. Marshall. (1996). Sport and delinquency an testing of the deterrence hypothesis in a longitudinal study. British ledger of Sport Medicine. 30 (4), 335-341. J. Benedict . (2010). An alarming number of college athletes charged with serious crime. Available http//sportsillustrated. cnn. com/2010/writers/jeff_benedict/09/08/athletes. crime/index. html. Last accessed 2nd February . Biel and Bienne. (2008). Evidence in the work of Sport and Development An overview. Schwery Consulting . 1 (1), 4-14 . R. Caruso. (2011).Crime and sport participation Evidence from Italian regions over the period 19972003 . The Journal of Socio-Economi cs. 40 (5), 455-463. J. Coakley and E. Pike . (2009). development social theories How can they help us study sports in society?. In M. Havelock, J. Fray and J. Bishop, Sports in Society Issues and Controversies. London McGraw-Hill Education . 49-51. F. Coalter. (2005). The Social Benefits of Sport. An Overview to avow the Community Planning Process. 1 (98), 25-31. F. Coalter (2007 ). A Wider Social Role For Sport Whos Keeping Score?. London Routledge . 119- 12 . I. M. Endresen and D. Olweus . (2005).Participation in indicant sports and antisocial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46 (5), 468-478. J. E. Grusec. (1997). Social Learning possibility and Developmental Psychology The Legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura . Developmental Psychology . 28 (5), 776-786 D. Hartman and B. Depro . (2006). Re-thinking sport-based community crime prevention a preliminary analysis of the relationship between Midnight hoops and urban crime rates. Journal of Sport & Social Issues . 30 (2), 180-96. C. Hickey. (2008). sensible Education, sport and Hyper-masculinity in Schools. Sport, Education and Society . 13 (2), 147-161.C. Jenkins and T. Ellis . (2011). The highway to malicious mischief? An evaluation of the impact of combat sport participation an individual criminality. worldwide Journal of Police Science and Management . 13 (2), 117-131. R. Levermore. (2011). Evaluating sport for suppuration approaches and critical issues. Progress in Development Studies. 11 (4), 339-353. T. McEntire. (2006). 10 Benefits of acting Sports. Available http//www. families. com/blog/10-benefits-of-playing-sports. Last accessed 2nd February . T. D. Miethe and R. F. Meier (1994). Social Context Toward an Intergraded supposition of Offenders, Victims and Situation .New York State University of New York . 9- 27. M. Mutz and J. Baur. (2009). The role of sports for violence prevention Sport club participation and violent behavior among adolescents . International Journal of Sp ort Policy. 1 (3), 305-321. G. Nichols . (1999). The difficulties of Justifying local authority sports and leisure programmes for young people with credit entry to an objective of crime reduction . Vista . 6 (2), 151-164. G. Nichols and I. Crow. (2004). Measuring the have-to doe with of Crime Reduction Interventions Involving Sports Activities for Young People . The Howard Journal. 43 (3), 267283.A. Smith and I. Waddington . (2004 ). Using sport and community schemes to tackle crime and drug use among young people some policy issues and problems . European Physical Education freshen . 10 (3), 279-298. M. D. Wiatrowski, D. B. Griswold and M. K. Roberts. (1981). Social Control Theory and Delinquency. American Sociological Review. 46 (5), 525-541. W. N. Widmeyer, S. R. Bray, K. D. Dorsch and E. J. Mcguire . (2002). Explanations for the Occurrence of Aggression . In J. M. Silva and D. E. Stevens Psychological Foundations of Sport . capital of Massachusetts A Pearson Education Compan y . 352-353.