Criminology from a Situational Crime Perspective - Essay Example

Introduction In recent decades, situational crime perspective (SCP) has been gaining prominence over conventional crime prevention methods. SCP comprises “opportunity-reducing measures directed at highly specific forms of crime; involve management, design or manipulation of immediate environment in a systematic and permanent way as possible; and make crime more difficult and riskier, or less rewarding and excusable for offenders” (Clarke, 1997, p.4). It considers everyone a potential criminal if only given an opportunity, motive and easy target. The solution to reduce crime and deviance thus is to change the environment (social & physical) that encourages crime. This essay will discuss criminology from a situational crime perspective. SCP focuses on victimology especially on why particular persons or places are targeted by offenders. Crime victim refers to “person who has been physically, financially, or emotionally injured and /or had their property taken or damaged by someone committing a crime” (Dussich, 2015, p. 118). Benjamin Mendelsohn is regarded as the “father of victimology” as he came up with the term in 1947. After examining victim-offender interactions, he found that victims are partly to blame for their victimisation hence came up with six typologies of victims: completely innocent, minor guilt, voluntary victim, guiltier than offender, guilty victim and imaginary victims (Mendelsohn, 1956). For example, women could provoke rape through provocative dressing. By systematically investigating the actions of victims, the source of victimisation could be identified and risk-reduction strategies developed to curb crime. SCP is underpinned by rational choice theory which views offenders as rational thinkers making rational choices (Clarke, 1995). Offenders thus evaluate the benefits and costs of committing a crime and choose targets that offer high reward with little effort and risk. This means crime is high in areas that offer such an opportunity. For example, Cohen and Felson (1979) attribute increased burglary in the 1970s to increase in light weight electronic goods such as TV’s and VCRs. In this case, techniques such as target hardening or surveillance are crucial. The lifestyle or routine activities theory posits that daily activities create convergence in time and space of three elements conducive for crime: motivated offenders, suitable targets and absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Clarke added “crime facilitators” or presence of essential tools to commit crime such as weapons, cars and disinhibitors like alcohol (Clarke, 1997, p. 11) while Felson (2006) added “intimate handler” to show that victims knew offenders. The interplay of these elements is apparent in Wolfgang’s seminal study of 588 homicides in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952. The study revealed that most homicides (150), were victim precipitated (VPH) meaning the victim “was the first one in the homicide drama to use physical force directed at slayer” (1958, p. 252). The offender killed victim in retaliation or revenge. This was the case for wives who killed their husbands. Alcohol use and presence of a weapon facilitated the homicides (Wolfgang, p. 256-257). The results were replicated by Von and Hepburn (1968, pp 503-507) in Chicago. This implies that changing the environment of targets for example by weapon prohibition could reduce opportunity for crime and consequently crime and deviance. SCP techniques derive from utilitarian theories of punishment which focus on the community, not the individual. Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argued that actions rightness or wrongness depends on whether they lead to individual happiness or unhappiness and mutual benefit of society even if it means restraint. Effectiveness of SCP also depends on whether measures are applied equally and for common good of society (Duff & Marshall, 2000, p. 22). For example, if employer decides to search employees as they leave work, all employees should be searched. Same case applies to screening of passengers and baggage at airports. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) in Beccaria’s foosteps argued ethical behaviour is determined by consequences of the act. An act (punishment) should produce greatest social good or the least social harm, even if it causes discomfort or according to the utilitarian principle “greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Bentham, 1970, p. 11). Duff and Marshall (2000, p. 26) like Bentham argue that as long as the SCP measure produces greatest overall reduction in relevant type of crime at the lowest cost, it is acceptable. But since punishment is in itself evil, Bentham advocated rehabilitation (e.g. offer educational opprtunities) to shape behaviour of criminal so that they no longer want to commit the crime. In the same manner, SCP advocates change in environment to deter offenders from committing crime through opportunity-reducing measures based on four objectives from rational choice theory: increasing percieved effort, increasing perceived risk, reducing anticipated rewards (Clarke, 1997, p. 16) and removing excuses (Clarke & Homel, 1997). Removal of excuses is based on Syke and Matza (1957) Techniques of Neutralisation and Drift. They believed offenders justify their actions to avoid guilt through five neutralisation techniques: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victims, condemnation of condemners and appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes & Matza, 1957, pp. 664-670). For example, organisational offenders may deny responsibility by arguing they were forced in return for keeping their jobs. Such excuses offer offenders drift or episodic relief from moral constraint (Marza, 1964, p. 29). Neutralising these neutralisations by rule setting is vital in reducing crime. A good example of crime control through opportunity-reduction is Disney World. At this park, potential trouble is anticipated and prevented through physical barriers (fountains and flower gardens), constant instructions, and surveillance by omnipresent employees (Shearing & Stenning, 1997). This is similar to Bentham’s idea of panopticon prison. Panopticon is a rounded multi-tiered open structure with guard tower at the center to allow visual access of all cells and prisoners. This was to make prison control safer, effective and efficient through surveillance or controlled environment (Crimmins, 2015). SCP is criticised for displacing crime to other targets, time, areas, and types (Barr & Pease, 1990). It is also criticised for not tackling root psychological and social causes such as unemployment; infringing freedom and privacy and neglecting moral culpability and punishment (Clarke, 1995). Clarke responds by arguing that some displacement is necessary for the common good of society. Furthermore, these techniques may result in ‘diffusion of benefits’ or benefits beyond targeted settings (Clarke, 1997, p. 2). Wortley (2001, pp. 63-82) criticises SCP for overrelying on opportunity variables and neglecting precipitators such as prompts, pressures, permissions and provocations that motivate offenders in situation prevention. In response, Cornish and Clarke (2003, p. 89) added a new column (reduce provocation) to the existing four culminating into 25 techniques of crime reduction. Conclusion Conventional crime control prevalent in criminal justice system is ineffective in dealing with crime as it concentrates on criminal behaviour and social reforms while neglecting environmental factors which are crucial in offender decision making processes. Studies have shown that situational factors such as location, life-style or routine activities offer an opportunity to offenders to commit crime. Crime is thus a combination of motivated offender, presence of a suitable target and absence of capable guardian. As such, the situational crime perspective aims at controlling crime by reducing opportunity for crime through five measures: increasing risk and effort, reducing rewards, reducing provocation and removing excuses. References Barr, R and Pease, K (1990). Crime Placement, Displacement and Deflection. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (eds). Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol 12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beccaria, C (1995). On Crimes and Punishment. In R. Bellamy (ed). (R.Davies Trans). On Crimes and Punishment and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Original work published 1764). Bentham, J (1970). The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham (J.H Burns & H.L.A Hart, eds). London: University of London-Athlone Press. Clarke, R. V.(1995). Situational Crime Prevention. In M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (eds). Building A Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, Crime and Justice 19: 91-150. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clarke, R. V (ed). (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (Second Edition). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston. Clarke, V.R and Homel, R (1997). A Revised Classification of Situational Crime Prevention Techniques. In: S.P Lab (ed).Crime Prevenntion at a Crossroads. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Cohen, L E. and Marcus F. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, Vol, 44, pp. 588-608. Cornish, D.B and Clarke, R.V (2003). Opportunities, Precipitators and Criminal Decisions; A Reply to Wortley’s Critique of Situational Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol 16, pp. 41-96. Crimmins, J.E (2015). Jeremy Bentham. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/ Duff, R.A and Marshall, S.E (2000). Benefits, Burdens and Responsibility: Some Ethical Dimensions of Situational Crime Prevention. In A. Von Hirsch., D. Garland & A. Wakefield (eds). Ethical and Social Perspectives on Situational Crime Prevention. Oxford & Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Felson, M. (2006). Crime and Nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Martza, D (1964). Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley. Mendelsohn, B (1956). A New Branch of Bio-Psycho-Social Science, Victimilogy. In J.P.J Dussich. Victimology Past, Present and Future. Retrieved May 12, 2015 from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS-No70/No70-12VE-Dussich.pdf Shearing, C.D and Stenning, P (1997). From Panopticon to Disney World: TheDevelopment of Discipline. Australia: Federation Press. Sykes, G.M and Matza, D (1957) Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review 22(6), pp. 664 - 670. Von , H.L and Hepburn, J.R (1968). Patterns of Criminal Homicide in Chicago. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol 59, pp. 499-508. Wolfgang, M.E (1958). Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wortley, R (2001). Classification of Techniques for Controlling Situational Precipitators of Crime. Security Journal. Vol14, pp. 63-82. Read More