Major Issues on Situational Crime Prevention - Essay Example

Situational Crime Prevention The Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) has been explored as one of the alternative strategies for fighting crime in society based on exploration on how to use it as a single approach or by combining it with other available strategies. SCP approach to crime control was developed based on the belief that certain factors in a given setting potentially allow or encourage individual to commit a criminal act. Perception of crime implies most of individual’s criminal conducts are as a result of opportunistic factors and while majority of risks linked to criminal behaviour are contextual in nature (Wilcox, Land and Hunt, 2003). Therefore, SCP was developed based on the notion that crime is expected reduce considerably if focus shifts to minimizing offense opportunities, improving chances of criminals being caught, reducing rewards for perpetration while justifications for offending are also made less plausible. These perceptions of the ability of SCP to minimize the overall level of crime in the community is what informs a number of visible initiatives such as residential or commercial lighting to reduce dark areas around buildings, increasing the number of bus terminals to increase pedestrian traffic, and development of high density housing which promote interaction therefore reducing anonymity in the neighbourhood (Wortley, 2001). SCP approach takes crime prevention away from being the sole responsibility of law enforcement departments which in most cases focuses on criminals to focusing crime prevention on setting and context of crime. The control in SCP initiatives is not taken by the criminal justice agencies since the implementation can be undertaken through a partnership of all relevant community institutions that might include schools, municipality authorities, health centres, transport stakeholders, private enterprises, communication departments and entertainment facilities. SCP methods make criminal conduct difficult since the targets become inaccessible to criminals through the application of various techniques that are based on the manipulation of different settings. Application of technology is also a strong contributor to the success of SCP since initiatives such as installation of street lighting and alarm systems in and around business and residential areas have greatly lowered crime rates in different areas (Clarke, 2009). What makes SCP approach to crime distinct from other approaches is its theoretical framework is based on a practical focus to handling crime. Since the introduction of SCP, the approach has had wider acceptability due to a number of factors that include the failures of more traditional methods of crime prevention and control. The continued high rate of crime consistently eroded the confidence of citizens in traditional approaches and the styles of performance of criminal justice agencies (Sherman, 2002). This trend provided ground for deliberations centred mostly on how the law enforcement could be made more result oriented and for justice to be presented without lengthy periods of waiting. SCP approaches that provide surveillance mechanisms make these social demands achievable since the focus of crime control is on the opportunity or situation of crime occurrence. Since society crave for approaches whose results are experienced within a short timeframe through instant and visible check on criminal practices, the available mechanisms were never going to offer desired results (Wortley, 2001). However, in recent years, measures put in place to develop situational crime prevention have exhibited great potential to satisfy these expectations. A number of criticisms have been levelled against SCP approach to crime prevention based on the mechanisms that are employed in crime control. The most persistent argument among the critics of SCP is that the approach to crime control has failed since it does not address the root causes of crime. Criticism of the application of SCP especially from liberals is based on their assertion that the approach only interferes with the symptoms and therefore deflects attention from the need to tackle the "root causes" of crime. This group of critics note the relevance of any crime control should be eradicating the causes of crime such as unemployment, racial discrimination, substandard housing schemes, minimal school attendance and inconsistent parenting (Von Hirsch, Garland and Wakefield, 2000). Criminologists perceive their discipline as fostering social change through exposing the root causes of crime. This goal of criminology is not consistent with the perspective held by proponents of SCP that crime is as a result of exploiting available opportunity to commit a criminal offence. Further, the quick fixes offered as solution to crime by SCP divert the attention of crime control initiative from providing solutions to inequalities and discrimination that are important in the fight against crime (Von Hirsch, Garland and Wakefield, 2000). The consequence of SCP not treating the root causes of crime according to critics of the approach can be explained based on the displacement of crime principle. Critics claim that since the criminal tendency is with the offender, SCP fails to prevent crime when the offender chooses the next premises when prevented by the SCP mechanisms. Displacement of crime refers to the response of offenders whereby the offender decides to change the venue, time, or other aspects of the offence they commit, due to the blocking of crime opportunities by various interventions of SCP. Based on displacement of crime argument, the society cannot be protected from offenders through SCP as there are other alternatives for them. Critics of SCP argue that when displacement of crime happens in a burglary situation at night, for instance, the crime moves to a new neighbourhood or changes to daytime meaning SCP neither reduces the frequency of burglary nor does it enhances the security of a new neighbourhood that does not have such blocking mechanisms (Bowers, Johnson, Guerette, Summers and Poynton, 2011). Critics of SCP based on its failure to address the root causes of crime favour methods such as Crime Prevention through Social Development (CPSD) which it is argued approaches crime prevention and victimization from the an analysis of underlying complex social, economic and cultural processes which are perceived as factors that contribute to crime and victimization. It is argued that unlike SCP, CPSD strengthens available links between criminal justice policies and programmes and the safe and social support of individuals, families and communities. Such approaches are supported by critics of SCP because it is believed they tackle the factors that lead to crime and victimization. These aspects targeted by crime control approaches that are based on the root causes of crime are prone to change therefore making the approaches more preferred than SCP (Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill and Abbott, 2005). The perception that SCP has failed due to concentration on situational aspects of crime as opposed to the root causes has been challenged by supporters of the approach. Proponents have argued that available criticism of SCP been due to a lack of understanding of how the approach actually works. Among the proponents of SCP there have been those who argue that opportunity should also be perceived among the root causes of crime. Critics argue SCP is not in line with social requirements for fighting crime since it covers temporary solution to crime control which means the likelihood of a criminal offence in the future has not been removed. This is considered as a failure since critics argue approaches such as social development is the most effective since it focuses on removal of the root causes of crime (Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill and Abbott, 2005). Therefore, SCP has been perceived as an approach in crime control that does not reduce overall crime rates (Tilley, 2013). Even as desirable results can be drawn from tackling crime by lowering the number of motivated offenders, social development as an approach to control crime from the root cause face a number of challenges. While social development measures have shown a great potential in controlling crime, the program faces difficult especially in the implementation phase. Implementation of small-scale demonstrations to motivate social adoption is difficult which makes it even more tasking to change organization such as a school system. Most of the arguments that SCP has failed due to the fact that it does not address the root causes of crime stem from the fact that approaches and mechanisms employed in SCP are characterized by radical departure from most of the available criminology in its orientation (Farrell, 2010). It is this shift in focus that has led to criticism of SCP which is a mistake by the modern criminology. This mistake stems from the fact that in an attempt to explain crime, modern criminology has been confused with the problem of explaining the criminal. Apart from the alternative perspective provided by SCP, most criminological theories have narrowed their focus to reasons why certain individuals or groups are exposed to certain psychological or social influences or on reasons why people with certain inherited traits have a higher chance of exhibiting delinquent or criminal behaviour. However, this perception about criminals is not the same as explaining why crime takes place. For an individual to commit crime there is a requirement that goes beyond having a motive for the criminal conduct especially considering that criminal conducts require not only a motivated offender but it is also necessary for an opportunity for crime to exist. Therefore, arguments that SCP has failed based on the view that it does not address the root causes of crime do not present the whole picture of crime as it does not factor the existence of opportunity as part of the reasons why crime is committed. Arguments about the root causes of crime have also been based on the confusion created by the perceptions created by modern criminology which tends to lean towards the view that controlling crime is similar to dealing with the criminal (Cornish and Clarke, 2003). Consequently, those with this view have had the notion that the most effective route to reducing crime is by focusing on the offender or potential offender. Therefore, available literature on crime control has only distinguished two broad measures, formal and informal social control with formal control of crime is the approach that involves the legally constituted bodies and the criminal justice system whose responsibilities include the designing of proper sanctions for offenders through confinement or rehabilitation and deterrence of crime among the population at large. On the other hand, informal social control of crime covers the attempts made by society to encourage conformity through measures such as the socialization of young generation into the norms of society and supervising behaviour of others in the neighbourhood which is mostly reinforced by rule making, reprimanding and censure. Both the formal and informal control mechanisms exclusively focused upon potential and actual offenders (Garland, 2001). The failure of criminology to distinguish the problems of dealing with offenders on one hand and controlling crime on the other has resulted in the diversion of the criminal justice system from its core purpose of administering justice. A further notable failure of modern criminology has been ignoring the third aspect of crime control, routine precaution, which will provide further depth into formal and informal crime control. It is evident that everyday activities that ranges from simple undertaking such as locking doors, securing valuables, counselling children to other more obvious methods such as buy houses in safe neighbourhoods, investing in burglar alarms and avoidance of dangerous locations and people play an important role in crime control. This behaviour exhibited by individuals can also be compared with other measures undertaken by schools, factories, offices, shops among other organizations and agencies whose end is to establish a host of routine precautions to safeguard the property, employees and clients from crime (Cornish and Clarke, 2003). These options to securing people and property belong to the group of crime control measures that fits the functioning of SCP. These measures to make society safe cannot be separated from the role of SCP in prevention of crime since by taking these precautionary steps, society implies that crime results from opportunities presented by situations where property have not been adequately secured. However, arguments on the failure of SCP to tackle root causes of crime has mostly focused on the belief that the essence of precautionary measures undertaken by individuals and institutions is not in reducing overall crime rates, but in shielding them from victimization (Wilsem, 2003). This perception has been encouraged by the fact that situational measures that focus crime control on particular places or highly specific categories of crime does not generate desired results in overall reduction of criminal conducts. Opponents of SCP have argued that this mechanism only replaces a criminal opportunity since when faced with impediments offenders, will merely identify a new target which means there is no net reduction in crime. However, a number of reach in this area has shown that decreasing chances for crime can actually bring considerable net declines in crime. The view that SCP does not contribute to overall reduction in net crime is based on the assumption from the dispositional error of present criminology. However, a number of researchers have also conducted studies on the likelihood of displacement of crime with results indicating minimal levels of displacement. This is because offenders make their decisions to commit crime based on a cost analysis that might include the benefit of engaging in other activities that are not necessarily criminal in nature (Tilley, 2013). The above qualifications of the role played by SCP in crime control have argued that opportunity can also be considered as part of the root causes of crime. However, a different approach in handling the notion that SCP had failed because it does not address the root causes of crime can shift can be adopted by accepting the fact that it actually does not. It is true that the theoretical framework on which SCP is based does not include factors such as poverty, inequality, discrimination, poor parenting among others that part of the root causes of crime. This means that SCP actually focuses on criminal behaviour by handling symptoms and not the underlying, systemic causes and therefore lacks the capacity to effectively prevent crime. However, such arguments are based on the fallacy that one must understand and change the historical causes of behaviour in order to transform the present behaviour. There is evidence to suggest SCP approaches can be effective based on research for instance where random breath testing of drivers led to considerable reduction in drink-driving offences independent of the psychosocial dynamics of alcohol abuse (Wortley, 2010). Without eliminating all the root causes of crime, SCP can still play a major part in prevention of criminal conducts. It is difficult to remove individual and social root causes of criminality due to lack of extensive knowledge on criminal psychology. Crime prevention policies that are focused on criminals also needs long-term implementation and results take long to be achieved. This is in contrast to results of SCP which can be experienced as soon as its mechanisms are implemented. However, arguments for SCP are not based on presenting views against other methods of crime prevention but on the role that the approach plays in making the community safe (Tilley, 2009). Conclusion From the foregoing discussion of the role played by SCP in crime control, it is apparent that the role played by approach has been underestimated by modern criminology. The presumed failures of SCP which are thought to be due to failure of the approach to address the root causes of crime does not present the real picture of contributions made the approach has made in crime control. Those who hold this line of thought claim any effective crime control measure cannot ignore the treatment of potential or actual offender as part of the efforts to lower crime rate. Among the failures of SCP has been explained based on the belief about displacement of crime perspective which asserts that when an offender is blocked from accessing one scene, they will go for the next. The displacement of crime aspect of offender behaviour therefore implies SCP does not have a net effect in overall crime reduction efforts. Critics of SCP therefore present other alternative approaches such as Crime Prevention through Social Development which they argue is an all-round approach that will tackle the root causes of crime. Proponents of SCP as an effective approach in crime control have argued that when opportunity is perceived as part of the causes of crime, it becomes easy to understand how the approach can be adopted into formal crime control initiatives. The failure to tackle crime should not be perceived as a failure of SCP but should be seen the context of the whole criminal justice system. The criminal justice system has failed to focus crime control on both the offender and the situations that motivate them to commit crime. SCP provides the criminal justice system with an avenue to fight crime from both these angel therefore increasing the chance that the overall rate of crime will be lowered. In conclusion, SCP still has a role to play in crime control as it improves the available approach by focusing on reduction of opportunity to offend. References 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, 7(4), 347-374. Clarke, R. V. (2009) Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 259-276). New York: Springer. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003) Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortleys critique of situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, 16, 41-96. Farrell, G. (2010) Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice and harm reduction versus ‘cultural criminology’. Social Policy & Administration, 44(1), 40-66. Garland, D. (2001) The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2005) Promoting positive adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood: Long-term effects from the Seattle Social Development Project. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(1), 25-31. Sherman, L. W. (2002) Trust and confidence in criminal justice. National Institute of Justice Journal, 248, 22-31. Tilley, N. (2009) Crime prevention. London: Routledge. Tilley, N. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of Crime Prevention Community Safety. London: Routledge. Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2003) Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multi-contextual criminal opportunity theory. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Wortley, R. (2001) A Classification of Techniques for Controlling Situational Precipitators of Crime. Security Journal 14:63-82. Von Hirsch, A., Garland, D., & Wakefield, A. (Eds.). (2000) Ethical and social perspectives on situational crime prevention. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Wortley, R. (2010). Critiques of situational crime prevention. In B. Fisher & S. Lab (eds) Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Read More