Applied criminology research

Applied criminology research

Street-level control of urban crimes and violations: from bias to regulation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
jafar sarvi 1
hesam seyd esfahani 2
1 PhD student in criminal law and criminology Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran. Email: Jafarsarvi776@gmail.com
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Moncton, Moncton, Canada. Email: hesam.esfahani@umoncton.ca
10.22034/aqcr.2025.2058036.1067
Abstract
Field and Aims: The officers responsible for establishing urban order and discipline make decisions that are appropriate to the context of their work, which, from the perspective of observers, are discriminatory and, in general, suggest abuse among citizens. Several strategies have been implemented with the aim of limiting this authority, but the results are considered unsuccessful compared to the costs. In Iran, the activities of street-level officers controlling urban crimes and violations do not have a specific and theoretical framework, and cannot be considered subject to a specific pattern, which has caused the few measures designed to limit them to be mistakenly focused on methods that limit the authority of these individuals and expand the discourse of power and be unsuccessful. Studies also indicate that no scientific studies have been conducted in this regard in the country, so it is feared that in the absence of these studies, the tendency of managers to expand coercive approaches will increase and lead to a decrease in citizen compliance.
Method: This article, which was written using a descriptive-analytical method and based on library studies, seeks to answer the question: What are the characteristics of the officers involved in controlling urban crimes and violations? What factors affect their bias when controlling urban crimes and violations? What type of strategy is capable of addressing concerns arising from their bias?
Findings and Conclusions: It seems that, considering the situation in the country, the existence of authority is a privilege and what has created bias in control is the bias resulting from other factors, which must be addressed in order to reduce its impact, which is discussed in this article.
Keywords
Urban crimes and violations
authority
street-level bureaucrats
responsive regulation
bias
- حسین پور، داود؛ الوانی، مهدی؛ اصلی پور، حسین و قربانی پاجی، عقیل. (1403). راهبردهای بوروکرات‌های سطح خیابان در اجرای سیاست‌های زیست‌محیطی. مجله مطالعات مدیریت استراتژیک، 15 (58)، 1-22.
 https://www.smsjournal.ir/article_198449.html
-سروی، جعفر؛ فرجی‌ها، محمد و شیخ الاسلامی، عباس. (1403). رویکرد تنظیم‌گری پاسخگو به کنترل جرائم و تخلفات شهری؛ پیشنهاد الگوی اجرائی. پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری، 15(2)، 109-95.
https://jol.guilan.ac.ir/article_8168.html
-سیاهکالی مرادی، جواد؛ طهماسبی، رضا و حمیدی زاده، علی. (1398). فهم نقش‌آفرینی بوروکرات‌های سطح خیابان در تفسیر و اجرای خط‌مشی‌های عمومی: مطالعه قوانین منتخب راهنمایی و رانندگی ایران. سیاستگذاری عمومی، 5 (2)، 142-119.
https://jppolicy.ut.ac.ir/article_72275.html
-پوستچی، امیر و دارابی، شهرداد . (1403). نظارت سامانه‌های الکترونیکی در نظام عدالت کیفری ایران. پژوهش‌های جرم‌شناسی کاربردی، 2 (4)، 126-101.
https://qacr.ir/article_721707.html
 
- André Busch Peter (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion, February, Information Polity 23(1):3-28.
DOI:10.3233/IP-170050
-Benson, B. L. (1998). Crime Control Through Private Enterprise. The Independent Review, 2(3), 341–371.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24561016
-Bovens  Mark (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2002), pp. 174-184 (11 pages).
-Brathwaite john (2021). Street-Level Meta-Strategies: Evidence on Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 17, pp. 205-225.
-Gershgoren Sagi (2023). Street-Level Bias: Examining Factors Related to Street-Level Bureaucrats’ State or Citizen Favoritism, The American Review of Public Administration, Volume 53, Issue 3-4/1-19.
-Lum, C. et al, (2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know, Criminology & Public Policy, pp. 93 – 118, March 24.
-Maynard-Moody, S. Musheno, M. & Palumbo, D. (1990). Street-Wise Social Policy: Resolving the Dilemma of Street-Level Influence and Successful Implementation. Western Political Quarterly, 43(4), 833-848.
https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300409 (Original work published 1990).
-Pokharel, G. Das, S. & Fowler, P. J. (2024). Discretionary Trees: Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy via Machine Learning. 38, 22303–22312.
https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i20.30236
-Proudfoot, J., & McCann, E. J. (2008). At Street Level: Bureaucratic Practice in the Management of Urban Neighborhood Change. Urban Geography, 29(4), 348–370.
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.29.4.348
-Soares, C., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2024). Screen-level bureaucrats in the age of algorithms: An ethnographic study of algorithmically supported public service workers in the Netherlands Police. Information Polity, 29(3), 277-292.
https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-220070
-Trinkner, R. & Tyler, T. R (2016). Legal socialization: Coercion vs. consent in an era of mistrust. Annual Review of Law and Social Scienc, October, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 12(1).
DOI:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085141.
-Van Eyghen H (2022). "Cognitive Bias. Philogenesis or Ontogenesis". Frontiers in Psychology. 13.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.892829. PMC 9364952. PMID 35967732

  • Receive Date 16 April 2025
  • Revise Date 15 June 2025
  • Accept Date 21 June 2025
  • First Publish Date 21 June 2025
  • Publish Date 21 December 2024