Police and Crime Prevention Essay 2 Final PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay on situational crime prevention ...

Description

CRITICALLY DISCUSS SITUATIONAL CRIME. Renee Wells (16945227), Police and Crime Prevention (CRIM780) WORD COUNT EXCLUDING REFERENCE LIST: 2209

Lecturer: Kirsten Hanna Due Date: 8 May 2019, 12pm

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

Situational crime prevention is a crime prevention technique used to reduce opportunities to specific crimes. As it is a strategy incorporating the opportunity perspective, both the routine activity and rational choice theories underpin its workings.

This essay will be discussing the statement: “situational crime

prevention does not reduce crime; it merely displaces it. It is therefore not an effective approach to crime reduction.” In order to comprehensively discuss the effectiveness of situational crime prevention as an approach to reducing crime, it is crucial to first understand the underlying theories to the crime prevention strategy. Situational crime prevention is a technique which targets the opportunity of crime and thus its principles and application is based on existing theories which entail the ‘opportunity crime perspective’ [ CITATION Pam18 \l 5129 ]. The opportunity crime perspective strays from traditional criminology to argue that the structuring of the environment, physically and socially, affects the opportunities present to commit criminal behaviours [ CITATION Ant07 \l 5129 ]. The theories that will be discussed are the routine activity and rational choice perspectives. The routine activity perspective arose in 1979 as a response to the rising crime rates despite positive societal changes in the USA after World War Two which saw education levels increase, unemployment decrease and the median family income increase for both black and white people [ CITATION Law79 \l 5129 ]. However, in spite of the changes, between 1960 and 1975, reported robbery rates had increased by 288% and burglary by 200% in the USA [ CITATION Law79 \l 5129 ]. It is also important to note that these statistics do not incorporate the dark figure of crime and thus the true numbers of crime were likely to be far higher. This paradox demanded an explanation, one that saw the birth of the routine activities perspective. The theory developed to incorporate both a macro and micro level approach [ CITATION Sha10 \l 5129 ]. The micro-level theory explains that crime will occur when three elements are presented at the same time and place: a driven offender, an appropriate target and the lack of a guardian. On the other hand, the macro level theory produced a response to the paradox that existed in the USA at the time – the increase in crime levels was caused by larger scale changes in society, thus creating

1

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

changes in community life and the routines of those in society [ CITATION Sha10 \l 5129 ]. Routine activities are defined as everyday activities that are participated in by people such as working, going to school or another place of education, shopping and interacting with others [ CITATION Bra19 \l 5129 ]. During the 1960’s, change in routine activities saw people away from their household more – women entering the workforce became more common, people had more money to spend shopping, on holidays and the number of people, both women and men studying post-secondary education had risen [ CITATION Sha10 \l 5129 ]. Each of these factors contributed to the change in routine. In turn, this explains the micro level theory. As people are away from their homes more and spending more money on goods there are more appropriate targets for crime and less guardianship – both to homes, goods and potential victims. When a motivated offender is brought into this equation, according to the routine activities theory, this is what causes crime [ CITATION Law79 \l 5129 ]. Simplistically, it is argued that by taking away any one of the factors of the crime equation, the crime will not occur. This is what forms the basis for theory regarding situational crime prevention, as by reducing these opportunities that the routine theory perspective explains, it is said that crime rates can also reduce [ CITATION Sha10 \l 5129 ]. However, it is important to understand that the routine activity theory assumes that it is natural and a part of human nature to have a drive to commit crime; and is often criticized for not looking into the deeper-rooted reasons people commit crime, for example upbringing and socioeconomic status [ CITATION Pam18 \l 5129 ]. The rational choice perspective is another opportunity-based theory which underpins situational crime prevention. It again strays from traditional criminological theory which focusses on psychological aspects of a criminal and instead looks at the decisions made by the offender and the goals they are trying to achieve which take into account existing opportunities for crime [CITATION Ric16 \l 5129 ]. The rational choice perspective proposes the idea that people commit crime purposively and that there are a series of rational decisions made when a crime is committed [ CITATION Auz17 \l 5129 ]. Thus, according to the rational choice perspective, choice plays a critical role in crime 2

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

as offenders will weigh the risk, effort and potential benefit of a crime. If the risks and efforts are too high, the crime will be less likely to occur and therefore if the situation and environment is controlled it could decrease the desirability of a crime [ CITATION Auz17 \l 5129 ]. The rational choice perspective can help to form the basis for situational crime prevention. By explaining that crime is a rational decision, weighing the risks, benefits and effort, made to fulfil the needs of the offender, it would mean that by either: increasing the risks of a crime, decreasing the benefits or increasing the efforts, any one of these could decrease the chance of the crime occurring and deter the offender from committing crime in the situation (Tibbetts & Gibson, 2016). However, the rational choice theory receives some criticism as it is argued that not all crimes are rational, for example vandalism. It is also argued that it is a very simple theory and that as with the routine activity theory, it does not incorporate the sociological and psychological aspect of crime. Thus, it merely describes criminal motivation rather than explaining it [ CITATION Ric16 \l 5129 ]. Both the routine activities and rational choice perspective help to explain the reasoning behind situational crime prevention by analysing the role of opportunity in crime prevention and how changing environmental factors can deter offenders and prevent crime, in the same way that the environmental factors can promote and encourage crime. Situational crime prevention is a unique technique as it focusses on the setting in which crime occurs, rather than the individual offender. Using the roots of the routine activity and rational choice perspective, situational crime prevention attempts to reduce criminal behaviour by looking at how an offender commits a crime and then using techniques to intervene with the criminal opportunities present [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. To reduce the opportunities, the risks and efforts of committing the crime are increased and the benefits are decreased. Situational crime prevention entails five main principles which explain its implementation. Firstly, the crime or disorder must be very specifically focused on. This is important as it allows the intervention to be finetuned specifically for the crime and the offender, their skills and motivations which increases 3

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

efficiency in crime prevention [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. Secondly, crime concentrations should be focussed on. This can mean focussing on an area, a target or a product – anything that is subject to crime in higher concentrations. The next step is to understand how the crime is committed. Rather than understanding why a crime is committed, situational crime prevention places emphasis on how as this is essential to the next step, which is using an actionresearch model. Without understanding how the crime is committed, the appropriate solutions cannot be developed as situational crime prevention focusses on preventing existing crime rather than stopping anticipated crime from occurring [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ].

An action-research model

incorporates a hypothesis, identification of possible solutions to the crime issue, implementation of solutions and then evaluation. This leads to the final principle of situational crime prevention which is looking at a wide range of solutions [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. Each principle is important in using situational crime prevention effectively. The consideration of a range of solutions has led to the development of what is known as the 25 techniques to reduce opportunity crime. These techniques have been grouped into 5 overarching strategies: increase the effort, increase the risks, reduce the rewards, reduce provocations and remove the excuses [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. Under each of these main solutions there are 5 techniques to assist with reducing crime which are heavily influenced by the opportunity crime perspective [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. Whilst this is not a complete list of crime reduction techniques, it forms a starting point for implementation. It allows users to work with a number of different solutions to find the most effective technique for reducing crime using situational crime prevention [CITATION And04 \l 5129 ]. The implementation of situational crime prevention produces intriguing phenomena. Displacement, diffusion and anticipation are the main effects seen when using situational crime prevention. Displacement is one of the main critiques of situational crime prevention and argues that, crime is simply displaced or shifted in some way rather than being prevented or solved [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. There are many forms of displacement, the most common being spatial displacement, meaning that the place a crime is 4

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

committed shifts to another location following an intervention [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. Other types of displacement include temporal, target, tactical, offence and offender [ CITATION Sha14 \l 5129 ]. However, many researchers have found that displacement is in fact not as common or likely as made out to be by critics [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. The rational choice theory would argue that displacement is not necessarily inevitable and because offenders will weigh the risks, benefits and effort, it is less likely that the crime will be displaced unless the offender is highly motivated or if there is an easy opportunity for crime available [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. Many meta-analyses of data also reflect this statement. One researcher found that out of 55 studies, 33 of these noted displacements. The displacement in those 33 studies was not complete displacement and appeared to be limited by size and scope [ CITATION Ren94 \l 5129 ]. Another study found that implementation of situational crime prevention techniques in fact had a positive outcome and was more likely to create diffusion of benefits than displacement of crime (Bowers, et al., 2011). It seems that situational crime prevention often results in positive phenomena. Diffusion of benefit is when the technique is implemented in an a specific area, but the benefits are also seen in areas nearby that have not been a target of the intervention [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. It is believed that the reason diffusion is observed is because offenders are aware of new crime prevention techniques targeting a specific crime, area etc. Wary of this, offenders do not know the exact extent of the intervention and the calculation of the rational choice – benefits, risks and effort become more widespread than anticipated. This in turn has a positive effect on crime reduction to both the target and surrounding areas [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. Anticipation is another example of phenomena resulting from situational crime prevention. Prior to the solution being implemented, offenders find out about the intervention and are either unsure of whether it is already in place or think it is in place before its implementation [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. Thus, in the same way diffusion of benefits occurs, offenders will draw back on committing crime in that area and crime rates will reduce before the strategy has actually

5

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

been introduced [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. A meta-analysis of anticipatory benefits found that around 40% of 52 studies saw anticipatory benefits as a result of situational crime prevention [ CITATION Mar02 \l 5129 ]. It is evident that both diffusion of benefits and anticipation are beneficial spill over effects that occur with the implementation of situational crime prevention [ CITATION Jos17 \l 5129 ]. It cannot be said that situational crime prevention does not reduce crime and merely displaces it as it is clear through research that displacement is not necessarily an inevitable product of situational crime prevention [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. Furthermore, displacement may occur in some cases of implementation but positive outcomes such as diffusion of benefits and anticipation have productive effects on crime levels (Bowers, et al., 2011). However, although situational crime prevention may reduce crime and be effective at doing so, this technique may not necessarily be the most effective approach to crime reduction and does have evident gaps which create issues in long term crime reduction. As situational crime prevention looks at how crime is committed rather than why, it fails to take into consideration the psychological aspects of crime. Social and ethical issues are also present and thus the underlying causes of crime in society are not effectively managed [ CITATION RAD04 \l 5129 ]. Situational crime prevention can be intrusive, unfair and discriminative when implemented. More can and, needs to be done to help offenders restoratively and understand the underlying causes of why the crime is being committed [ CITATION Ron09 \l 5129 ]. Situational crime prevention is a strategy which is inspired by opportunity perspectives on crime such as the routine activities and rational choice perspective. Like all crime prevention techniques, situational crime prevention has positive effects such as diffusion of benefits and anticipation, but also weaknesses such as potential displacement of crime and lack of concern for ethical and social issues that result. Further research would need to be undertaken in order to gather more data about the effects of displacement, diffusion and other phenomena that is seen when situational crime prevention

6

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

techniques are used. Thus, it cannot necessarily be said that it is an ineffective technique merely because of crime displacement.

Reference List Bottoms, A. E. (2007). Place, space, crime, and disorder. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 528575). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., Guerette, R. T., Summers, L., & Poynton, S. (2011). Spatial displacement and diffusion of benefits among geographically focused policing initiatives: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 347-374. Chamard, S. (2010). Routine activities . In E. McLaughlin, & T. Newburn, The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory (pp. 210-225). New York: SAGE Publications. Clarke, R. V. (2009). Situational Crime Prevention: Theoretical Background and Current Practice. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, & G. P. Hall, Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 259-276). New York: Springer. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach . American Sociological Review , 588-608. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2016). Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. In R. Wortley, & L. A. Mazerolle, The rational choice perspective (pp. 30-115). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Cullen, P. W. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 123-148. Duff, R. A., & Marshall, S. E. (2004). Benefits, Burdens and Responsibilities: Some Ethical Dimensions of Situational Crime Prevention. In A. v. Hirsch, D. Garl, & A. Wakefield, Ethical and Social Perspectives on Situational Crime Prevention (pp. 17-35). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Freilich, J. D., & Newman, G. R. (2017, March). Situational Crime Prevention. Retrieved from Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology : https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079. 001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-3?print=pdf

7

Renee Wells

16945227

CRIM780

Garland, D. (2004). Ideas, Institutions and Situational Crime Prevention. In A. v. Hirsch, D. Garland, & A. Wakefield, Ethical and Social Perspectives on Situational Crime Prevention (pp. 1-23). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Hesseling, R. (1994). Displacement: A review of the empirical literature. Den Haag: Ministry of Justice. Johnson, S. D., Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. (2014). Crime displacement: what we know, what we don’t know, and what it means for crime reduction. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 549-571. Reyns, B. W., & Scherer, H. (2019). Disability type and risk of sexual and stalking type victimization in a national sample. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 628-647. Shariati, A., & Guerette, R. T. (2017). Situational Crime Prevention. In B. Teasdale, & M. S. Bradley-Engen, Preventing Crime and Violence (pp. 261-268). Cham: Springer. Smith, M. J., Clarke, R. V., & Pease, K. (2002). Anticipatory benefits in crime prevention . Crime Prevention Studies, 71-88. Tibbetts, S. G., & Gibson, C. L. (2016). Individual Prosperities and Rational Decision Making. In R. Wortley, & L. Mazerolle, Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (pp. 3-25). London: Taylor & Francis .

8...