In the dissertation the theoretical generalization and the solved scientific problem, which consists in a thorough criminological research of the role of the public in crime preventing in Ukraine, was made. The study of the process of involving the public in crime prevention, the forms and methods of its participation in the Soviet period showed that the core of the institute at that time was the party members, the Komsomol, another public asset whose activities were coordinated by the Communist Party.
There have been determined the peculiar characteristics of the public sphere as a crime prevention subject and its concept provided. Publicly involved in the prevention of crime, it is necessary be understood to mean a community-minded of the society (citizens and associations) interested in the involvement in crime prevention activities and voluntarily focusing on the protection of the interests of the state, society and any member of the community from crimes and other offenses, as well as strictly adhering to the applicable legislation and morality. There have been separated the blocks of statutory regulation of activity of the public sphere in the field of crime prevention.
It has been proven that modern tendencies of social and political development of the country, state authority effective functioning, social and economic satisfaction, legislative regulation of crucial aspects of life of Ukrainians, and involvement in the process of state creation are all the basis for the formation of social and psychological state of the society.
The study has found out the factors of the poor involvement of citizens in crime prevention: indifference of citizens and their poor selfconsciousness; lack of trust in law enforcement authorities; corruption; fear; unemployment, low quality of life; vulnerability and lack of confidence in justice; low crime detection; failure of law enforcement authorities to tackle crime; inadequate legislation making it possible to escape from punishment; poor promotion of such activities and population awareness; lack of financial incentives; inadequate state structure; busyness.
It is established that the public carries out its preventive activities in direct and indirect forms. The direct form of participation is the physical involvement in the protection of public order, namely the activities of members of the public formations of the law-enforcement orientation. In turn, such a form of participation is carried out both in legal forms and in forms not regulated by law. Indirect forms of public participation include: informing (reporting on the facts of the crimes that are being prepared, committed and already committed); implementation of a complex of educational and educational measures aimed at creating the proper conditions for citizens to acquire their rights and freedoms, as well as fulfill their obligations; ensuring a certain balance in society by creating an atmosphere of stability. Such tasks are completed by non-specialized crime prevention subjects.
It is argued that the need for interaction of the public with state authorities in the field of crime prevention is conditioned by the fact that the activities of the majority of public organizations are carried out on an amateur non-professional basis, deprived of centralization and of a local nature. The main subjects of cooperation with the public in the field of crime prevention are law enforcement agencies, the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, executive bodies and local self-government bodies. Public participation in crime preventing is hampered by the reluctance of citizens to participate in such activities; lack of awareness of such activities; the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework, an appropriate organizational and legal structure, and material incentives.
It is revealed that various forms of public participation in preventing crime in the leading countries of the world are as follows: a) patrolling; b) provision of information about offenders or facts of committed crimes; c) participation in anti-corruption measures; d) assistance in the re-socialization of offenders; e) assistance to victims of crime; f) enhancement of the security of own property; g) participation in information anti-crime activities.
It is concluded that in practice the effectiveness of preventive activities of the public almost does not correlate with the positive changes made in preventing crime. This is due to the fact that the quantitative indicators of the effectiveness of public formations include the number of their members, the measures taken with their participation, the perpetrators found and detained, and not the favorable changes in the moral and legal consciousness of the citizens, which have been achieved through public influence. Based on an analysis of the organization and activities of the public in crime prevention, criteria are proposed for assessing its effectiveness and measures to increase the latter.
