Crime prevention and control: Right solution

Situational crime prevention (SCP)

Right realist solutions focus on controlling, containing, and punishing offenders rather than tackling deeper social causes (like poverty or inequality)

Three features of SCP measures

• Clarke (1992) describes SCP as a way of reducing opportunities for crime because it:

  • is directed at specific crimes

  • involves managing or altering the immediate environment of the crime

  • aims at increasing the effort and risks of committing a crime and reducing the rewards

• Measures involve:

  • target hardening, e.g., locks, CCTV, security guards, increases the likelihood of shoplifters being caught

  • designing out crime e.g., well-lit streets and gated communities, makes crime less attractive

SCP key ideas

• SCP is based on rational choice theory, where criminals weigh up costs and benefits of a crime opportunity before acting

• Clarke argues that prevention works best when focusing on the immediate crime situation, not deep-rooted causes

• Since much crime is opportunistic, reducing opportunities means reducing crime

strengths of situational crime prevention - effective in reducing some crimes

• According to Felson (2002), the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City provided opportunities for deviant behaviour, e.g., theft, drug dealing and rough sleeping

• Redesign greatly reduced deviancy; e.g., large sinks where homeless people were bathing were replaced by small hand basins

strengths of situational crime prevention - reduction in suicides by gassing

• When toxic coal gas was replaced by natural gas in the 1960s, suicides by gassing fell sharply

• Importantly, people did not simply switch to other methods so there was little displacement

weaknesses of situational crime prevention - risk of displacement

• Crime might not be reduced, only moved elsewhere (different place, time, target, or method). If offenders are acting rationally, they’ll simply seek softer targets

• Chaiken et al. (1974) found that subway robbery crackdowns in New York displaced robberies onto nearby streets

weaknesses of situational crime prevention - doesn’t deal with the cause of crime

• SCP ignores root causes such as poverty, inequality, and poor socialisation

• This makes it difficult to design long-term strategies for reducing crime overall

weaknesses of situational crime prevention - not all criminals are rational

• SCP assumes offenders carefully weigh up risks vs rewards

• Many crimes (e.g., violent attacks, offences committed under the influence of drugs/alcohol) are impulsive, emotional, or irrational, so opportunity reduction may not work

Environmental crime prevention (ECP)

• This approach to crime prevention is linked to Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows theory

• Visible disorder, such as graffiti, vandalism, and litter, signals that no one cares, encouraging further disorder and crime

how ECP works

• In disorderly neighbourhoods:

  • formal control is weak, as police ignore petty crime

  • informal control is weak, as residents feel powerless/intimidated

• Without action, the area falls into a spiral of decline:

  • Respectable residents leave

  • Deviants move in

ECP solutions

• Environmental improvement: repair vandalism, clean streets, and tow abandoned cars quickly

• Zero tolerance policing: proactive action against even minor disorder reinforces control

• Community engagement: build local pride to strengthen informal social control

strengths of environmental crime prevention - evidence from New York

• Clean Car Programme: graffiti-covered subway cars were removed until cleaned, which saw graffiti virtually eliminated

• Follow-up crackdowns on fare dodging, drug dealing, and begging contributed to crime rates falling between 1993 and 1996

strengths of environmental crime prevention - wider influence

• Zero-tolerance policing became a model worldwide

• It influenced UK anti-social behaviour policies and similar approaches in other countries

weaknesses of environmental crime prevention - causation is unclear

• Crime decline may not have been caused by zero-tolerance policing but due to 7000 extra NYPD officers and economic recovery after the 1994 recession, which saw new jobs being created

• Young (2011) claimed NYC’s zero-tolerance success was a myth, as crime had already been falling since the mid-1980s

weaknesses of environmental crime prevention - risk of displacement

• Cracking down on disorder may simply push crime elsewhere

• It does not guarantee overall crime reduction

weaknesses of environmental crime prevention - problems with fairness

• Right realist solutions focus on petty offences (e.g., graffiti, begging) while ignoring serious harms like corporate crime

• Gives police wide discretion, leading to accusations of discrimination (e.g., disproportionate stop-and-search of minorities, youth, and homeless people)