Examine the Theory of Change From the Bottom Up
The theory attributes that crime can be curbed to greater extent if there is a mobilization in societies to avert from getting influenced by their desires and pleasures in taking an action course. Crime can be contained by ensuring that punishment outweighs the pleasures derived from the crime committed. This concept therefore, is a framework that tries to understand the behavior of people, the reasons that drives them in committing crime and various approaches to prevent a person in making choices that leads to crime.
Programs based on restorative and community justice principles have proliferated in the United States over the past decade simultaneously with tough-on-crime initiatives like three-strikes, truth-in-sentencing, and mandatory minimum laws. Restorative justice and community justice represent new ways of thinking about crime. The theories underlying restorative justice suggest that government should surrender its monopoly over responses to crime to those most directly affected—the victim, the offender, and the community. Community justice redefines the roles and goals of criminal justice agencies to include a broader mission—to prevent crime, address local social problems and conflicts, and involve neighborhood residents in planning and decisionmaking. Both restorative and community justice are based on the premise that communities will be strengthened if local citizens participate in responding to crime, and both envision responses tailored to the preferences and needs of victims, communities, and offenders.
Bottom-up approaches are said to be closely connected to poverty reduction efforts. UNDP for example writes: “Access to justice is closely linked to poverty reduction since being poor and marginalized means being deprived of choices, opportunities, access to basic resources and a voice in decision-making.” Anderson similarly holds that especially the poor have limited access to legal institutions and that a state of “lawlessness” adversely influences the poor. (Anderson, "Access to justice and legal process : making legal institutions responsive to poor people in LDCs) Furthermore Golub and the ADB argue that legal empowerment has helped advance poverty alleviation.Bottom-up approaches have first of all analyzed the obstacles the poor meet when seeking justice or what legal obstacles keep the poor out of power, either in the formal legal system, and for some also in other non-state normative systems. Different studies have had different analyses, however with a large overlap. When combined and structured, the main obstacles that the poor have when seeking justice, can largely be grouped in two.
Altogether, a bottom-up approach which starts with small details and creates the big picture. No initial assumptions are made about the offender and the approach relies heavily on computer databases. It can be the little details that are often overlooked that can be crucial to the success of a case. Bottom up has wider applications; it can be applied to other crimes, not just sexually motivated serial killers like top-down.
Anderson, Michael R. "Access to justice and legal process : making legal institutions responsive to poor people in LDCs " IDS Working Paper, no. 178 (2003).
Davis, Kevin E., and Michael J. Trebilcock. "Legal Reforms and Development." Third World Quarterly 22, no. 1 (2001): 21-36.
De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital, Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere else. London: Black Swan, 2000.
Garth, B.G. "Rethinking the Processes and Criteria for Success." In Comprehensive Legal and Judicial Development, edited by Rudolph V. Van Puymbroeck, 11-31. Washington: World Bank, 2001.