Situational Crime Prevention Techniques - Research Paper Example

Situational Crime Prevention techniques Criminal theories and situational crime: According to the classical crime theories propounded by Beccaria, the propensity to offend is present in all people. The motivation to commit crime is based upon the results of a rational choice that is made by calculating whether the benefits of offending outweigh the costs of doing so. The motivation of offenders to commit crimes is however likely to diminish when the prospect of punishment looms large: “For punishment to attain its end, the evil which it inflicts has only to exceed the advantage derivable from the crime…” (Beccaria, 1764:43) Applying this theory, it will thus be noted that when benefits outweigh costs, the offender’s motivation to commit crime will increase; however the prospect of punishment functions as a deterrent, undermining the offender’s motivation to commit a crime. The underlying proclivity to commit a crime is largely dependent upon the free will of the individual and situational factors are not ascribed as much importance. The underlying assumption of this theory is that the choice to commit crime is a free will choice and will be executed when the offender is motivated by noticing that the benefits outweigh the costs. The rational choice model that was put forward by Cornish and Clarke (1985) proposes that free will does play a role in the motivation to commit crime, however this model also takes into account certain background and situational factors that are likely to play a role in the decision to commit a crime. Background factors that may play a role include the intelligence of the individual, the family background and the kind of neighborhood the person lives in. Situational factors that may play a role would include being persuaded by friends, or consumption of drugs and alcohol which would temporarily loosen a person’s normal moral inhibitions, arguments with a spouse, all of which may lead people who are normally moral, into seizing what appears to be an opportunity to commit a crime and get away with it. Therefore, the rational choice model does ascribe a role to motivation, since the inclination to commit a crime will be determined by situational factors that may work by increasing a person’s motivation to commit a crime on the basis that he or she may be able to get away with it. “Situationalism” views crime as being the illegal actions of “rational, reasonable people” who make internal psychological judgments or calculations arising “in response to specific situations or circumstances” (Hughes, 1998). As a result, a crime is the result of a free will choice made by an individual to engage in criminal activity based upon his/her perception of the advantages vis a vis the risks involved. The motivation of the offender will play a significant role in crimes of choice, since they are likely to engage in criminal activity only if they are motivated to commit the crime because the benefits outweigh the risks. But where situational factors are concerned, such offences are usually unplanned and arise out of situations where opportunity suddenly presents itself. This approach suggests that a criminal is not a special type of human being, rather any individual could potentially sink into crime when presented with situations that present an advantage to be gained through crime. The control theories offered to explain crime suggest that people who do not resort to crime even when opportunity presents itself are those with a stake in the community that allows greater gain to them from conforming to societal norms and less advantage from deviant acts. On this basis Hirschi argues that crimes result when “the individual’s bond to society is weak or broken” (Hirschi, 1969:16). This bond to society is comprised of four elements (a)attachment to others opinions (b) a commitment to conform (c) involvement in conventional activity and (d) a belief in legal rules. Those individuals who have a high degree of self control are unlikely to break this bond easily, but crime is likely to be committed by those who are “impulsive, insensitive, physical……risk-taking, short sighted and non verbal” (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:90). Control theories also do not appear to ascribe much importance to motivation in an individual’s proclivity to crime; rather the factor that appears to be most important is the degree of self control that an individual has. An individual who has a strong bond to society and sees a greater advantage to be gained from conforming to society’s rules is unlikely to commit crime even when presented with the opportunity. However, individuals who have weak self control are the ones who are likely to be swayed by situational factors in arriving at the decision to commit crimes. Psychological theories of crime made connections between mental attributes and criminal behavior. Both psychological and biological positivism find a common ground in so far as assessing the factors that can lead to criminal behavior. Both these theories offer the view that the major motivation to engage in criminal behavior can be found within the offender. (M Sc CD at pp 49). These theories therefore ascribe a more important role to motivation as a factor in criminal behavior. Offenders may have the proclivity to commit crimes when the existing circumstances are such that they weaken the moral inhibitions that generally prevent people from committing crimes. According to Wortley, “Situational factors can help distort moral reasoning processes and so permit individuals to engage in normally proscribed behavior. The human conscience is highly sensitive to the physical and social context in which behavior is performed.” (Wortley 2001:70). He identifies some of these instances, such as for example justifying the commission of an illegal act with the argument that everyone else is doing it; minimizing the extent of one’s personal responsibility for an act by claiming to be drunk for example during the commission of the act; minimizing the negative outcome of the act, such as justifying stealing from stores on the basis that they are insured anyway or minimizing the worth of the victim, such as justifying the beating up of a woman on the grounds that she was a whore anyway. Situational cues that are a repeatedly occurring factor in the environment of an offender may serve to increase the motivation to commit crimes. Some examples of such cues are membership in gangs, repeated exposure to violent television context and conditions for offenders in prisons, all of which may be equivalent to social pressures on human motivation and behavior, since they constitute lifestyles and environments rather than a single exposure to a situational precipitator of crime.(Smith and Cornish, 2003). Poverty was also viewed by Mayhew as a situational factor that provided motivation for crime. According to Williams, “Mayhew…..tended to see crime as an ecological phenomenon, but one which was tied in with the working classes and with social problems…..many people were driven into poverty……these positions might lead to criminality through need.” (Williams, 1991:206). Such a theme is also reiterated in ecological theories that seek to explain crime on the basis of urban growth. The crowded urban areas, coupled with low socio economic status, a hard life and social disorganization produced conditions that often created an atmosphere of disruption within the community that became fertile breeding ground for crime.(Vito and Holmes, 1994). Crime Prevention techniques: Crime prevention is tackled from two different angles and Brantingham and Faust (1976) have categorized it under three separate headings: primary, secondary and tertiary crime prevention. Primary prevention focuses upon reducing the actual opportunities that exist for criminal acts to take place and is therefore concerned with changing the environment such that the incidence of crimes may be reduced (M Sc CD, p 74). Secondary prevention focuses upon the offender rather than the environment and therefore examines the social causes of crime and seeks to modify potential criminal behavior. Tertiary prevention concerns measures that are implemented after the crime has already taken place, such as prisons or correctional facilities. Of the three types of crime prevention, it is primary prevention that falls under the category of situational crimes. Situational crime prevention works by reducing the opportunities for criminals to commit crimes, by creating conditions where it seems harder and riskier to commit a crime, so that criminals change their ideas and decide that it may not be worth it to commit the crime. As pointed out by Clarke and Homel (1997), situational crimes are those that result when there is an opportunity perceived by criminals, therefore the focus of these crime prevention efforts is to make those opportunities seem less attractive by (a) increasing the level of perceived risks of getting caught, (b) making conditions such that higher levels of effort are required to commit the offence(c) reducing the extent of rewards anticipated from the crime and (d) eliminating excuses that can be used as a basis for offending behavior, thereby inducing guilt or shame at the thought of committing offending acts. Clarke and Cornish (2003) have outlined several ways and means by which the situational factors that lead to crime can be prevented on the basis of all the four means identified above. (a) Increasing the effort required to commit a crime: The level of effort required to commit a crime can be increased by hardening the targets, for example by placing immobilizers in cars or using anti robbery screens. Robbery of facilities can be prevented by controlling the access to those facilities, for example by requiring tickets or electronic tags. Another solution is to deflect offenders from a particular area, by providing street closures in red light districts or providing separate toilets for women so that men cannot approach the area. Control can be provided over the use of weapons by toughening beer glasses or requiring photos on credit cards. All of these above methods would increase the effort that is required to commit a crime and may also correspondingly reduce the level of motivation of the offender to commit the crime. Increasing risks associated with the criminal act: A similar damper on the motivation of the individual can be instituted by increasing the risks associated with the criminal act. Neighborhood robberies and burglaries can be controlled through extending guardianship, for example by instituting a neighborhood watch or patrol or cocooning premises. Natural surveillance can be increased by providing improved street lighting and neighborhood watch hotlines. Yet another means of increasing risks is by reducing anonymity, for instance by requiring taxi drivers to carry IDs or including “how’s my driving?” signs. Utilizing place managers may also increase risks, for instance by supporting whistle blowers or by training employees to prevent crimes. Strengthening formal surveillance also helps to reduce the risks, for example by introducing speed camera or introducing CCTV in town centers. By enhancing surveillance and introducing such protective measures, the level of risk inherent in committing the criminal act is increased and this may correspondingly reduce the motivation for the criminal to commit the act. Reducing the perceived rewards to be gained from the criminal act: Crime prevention can be achieved from another angle, i.e, by reducing the perceived rewards that may be gained from the criminal act. One of these is by concealing targets, so that they cannot become victims of crime, for example by providing gender neutral phone directories and off street parking. Targets can also be made removable, for instance removable car radios or pre paid public phone cards. Identifying property is also useful in reducing the level of reward inherent in committing a crime, for example property marking or vehicle licensing. Disrupting markets is yet another preventive technique aimed to reduce rewards, for example through checks on pawn brokers and licensed street vendors. Benefits of criminal acts can be denied so that the reward becomes negligible, for example by inking merchandise tags and by cleaning up graffiti. All these measures remove or reduce the rewards and thereby correspondingly may reduce the motivation to commit the criminal act. Reduction in the levels of provocation: Yet another angle from which crime prevention can be approached is through reduction in the provocation. Firstly, frustration and stress that leads to the committing of criminal acts can be reduced by efficient queuing or by using soothing lighting. Disputes ca be avoided altogether by instituting measures such as reducing crowding in pubs and requiring fixed cab fares. Control of emotions that lead to violent acts can also be achieved by preventing pedophiles from working with children and by instituting controls on violent porn. Peer pressure that leads to violent acts can also be reduced or prevented altogether by spreading messages such as “don’t drink and drive” to prevent alcohol abuse and “It’s ok to say no” to prevent drug abuse which has often been cited as a factor leading to crime. Lastly, imitation is to be discouraged, with rapid vandalism repair so that other vandalizing elements don’t follow suit and installing V chips in TVs. All of these measures serve as preventive measures that will help to reduce or ameliorate the element of provocation that leads people into crime. Removing the excuses that condone criminal behavior: The last aspect of situational crime prevention is to remove the excuses that perpetrators of crime use in order to avoid responsibility for their actions. Firstly, rules may be set, for instance the existence of rental agreements and hotel registrations introduce an element of accountability, since names must be provided. Secondly specific instructions may be posted to deter criminal activity, such as “private property” “No parking” “No littering” etc all of which serve to establish rules and boundaries which people are encouraged not to cross. Other means to prevent crime include targeting the consciences of potential criminals through roadside speed display signs or signs stating “shoplifting is stealing” which help to jog the consciences of those who could potentially engage in criminal activity. Certain means may also be employed which will ensure compliance with law abiding activity, such as placing dustbins so that no littering takes place or providing pubic lavatories. The use of drugs and alcohol can also be controlled by using breathalysers in pubs or by organizing alcohol free events and popularizing such events in order to ensure compliance. All of these means cited above function as effective aids in crime prevention, largely by eliminating the motivation for committing a crime through various means, including the introduction of an element of guilt or shame in the potential criminal, to ensure compliance with the law rather than breaking it. Motivation and situational Crime: The proponents of situational crime base their assertions on the underlying belief that when opportunity becomes available, it is likely that most normal, mundane individuals are likely to give in to the temptation to engage in a criminal act. Applying this perspective, it appears that motivation does not play a significant role in an individual’s decision to commit a criminal act; rather he or she will engage in such an act as and when an opportunity arises, by giving in to the temptation. According to Professor Garland, “….our efforts to control crime should focus upon reducing the occasions and opportunities for crime events rather than trying to change criminal dispositions…”(von Hirsch et al, 2000:3). The inference that may be drawn from Garland’s views is that crime control and/or prevention measures must be focused upon introducing changes in the environment to reduce the opportunity for crime, rather than focusing upon the motivation of individuals that lead them into crime. The situational approach views the act of committing a crime purely as a result of opportunity that is noted and seized upon by a person who commits a crime. Applying the situational approach, the inference that must be drawn is that individual propensity to commit a crime can be reduced only by changing environmental factors in such a manner that the element of temptation is reduced, since any individual would fall prey to the temptation if circumstances in the environment provide opportunity. Situation crime prevention has also changed somewhat in its outlook over the years. As pointed out by Smith and Cornish (2004:56) situational crime prevention techniques have been changing and developing over the years in order to deal with an ever increasing range of problems. Some of the newer techniques that have developed have refined and changed the original basis on which situational crime prevention techniques were formulated. The earliest attempts at classifying situational crime prevention were based on aspects such as testing the impact of steering column locks on the incidence of car theft and other high volume offenses such as burglary, robbery and vandalism. This gave rise to the inference that there was an interaction between the motivated offender and the facilitating environment. Rational choice models were the ones most widely applied to situational crimes, thereby generating assumptions about the kind of offenders who were likely to engage in crimes for which situational prevention measures would be appropriate. While earlier analyses of crime in the situational context were mainly centered around the environment that could generate a crime rather than paying attention to the nature and type of offender, the focus has been recently shifting into identifying the typology of the offenders as well. Situational crime analysis has traditionally applied its techniques to unidentified offenders, however in recent decades the focus of situational crime prevention has been shifting to clarifying and redefining the potential of situational crime prevention techniques such that they could target different types of offenders. Since situational analysis is focused upon the crimes rather than upon the offenders themselves, there is very little scope for examining the motivation of offenders. The underlying premise of situational analysis is that it is the existence of opportunity that provides the necessary motivation, hence opportunity is the primary reason why a crime takes place irrespective of other reasons the offender may have for engaging in the crime. Motivation for Burglary: Maguire(1982) identified three different categories of burglars. The first type of burglar was the professional one, who mostly targeted high income properties and stole non cash items. The second type was the mid range burglar who was not connected to specialist receivers and therefore limited himself/herself to stealing from middle income properties. The last kind of burglar was the one who committed situational crime, and was the impulsive kind of burglar who committed burglary on the spur of the moment to impress peers. The motivation for burglary as revealed in Maguire’s study (1982) was the economic principles of demand and supply – burglars steal because they can make money and they believe that those they steal from don’t lose anything either, because their valuables are insured and they are able to recover what they invested in them. Therefore, high level burglars appear to be motivated by economic gain. But where lower level burglaries are concerned, they operate more upon impulse and seek expressive rewards for their actions. His findings suggest that the major motivation for burglaries is to make money for a variety of needs, while in the case of situational crimes, the motive is excitement and the desire to impress one’s peers. Bennett and Wright conducted semi structured interviews with 128 convicted burglars in order to try and determine what their motives were, in committing a burglary. Based upon the responses that were received, they categorized reasons into two categories: (a) main reasons – which were the reasons for engaging in the act of burglary and (b) incidental advantages – which were the additional benefits that accrued from the act of burglary and added to the desire to engage in the act, although these incidental reasons were not adequate on their own to provide sufficient motivation to engage in a robbery.(Bennett and Wright, 1984: 139-140). The major motivation pushing people into burglary appears to be the need to get money for a variety of needs. But seeking to prevent this tendency to burgle by providing would-be burglars with jobs to earn that money is not likely to achieve the desired result, since some burglars are likely to choose a criminal lifestyle even when there are jobs available which they can take to make the money they need.(CD, page 151). The apprehension and risk involved in the act also works to create an adrenalin rush which becomes addictive. This appears to suggest that techniques devised for situational crime prevention may actually be functioning as a lure for burglars to try and overcome the protective and restrictive anti-crime measures that seek to arrest crime. It is likely that most acts of burglary result from the availability of opportunity for commission of the act. Burglary can be explained on the basis that even relatively poor households own items that can be readily exchanged in the market for cash. According to Scarr (1973) there are three major aspects that serve as motivating factors for burglars – needs, means and opportunities, each of which yields a burglar with a differential level of skill. For instance those who are motivated by their needs engage in burglary to make money while those who are motivated by opportunity tend to burgle on a random basis, as and when the opportunity arises. While some burglars committed the act on a one time basis simply in response to a dare by a peer, others were life long burglars, committed to the act as a career, moving with and interacting with other burglars and maintaining a high flying lifestyle. The excitement and risk appears to be a challenge that motivates some burglars, the general motivating factor appears to be the need to make money. In applying these findings to the situational crime approach, it must be noted that it is only the impulsive kind of burglary that fits into this category. A situational analysis examines the crime rather than the offender. From this perspective, there is room to draw an inference that the very existence of crime prevention techniques such as security locks or security patrols etc may introduce an element of risk that serves to fuel the excitement of burglars. Applying the situational approach would negate the importance of motivation as a factor in burglary, especially in the burglars at the higher end who carefully plan and coordinate their acts of burglary. The situational approach would only examine the extent of opportunity that exists in a particular situation and whether it could lead to criminal activity and would not examine the motivation of the offender. Most situational analysis applies the rational model where it is assumed that an offender’s choice to engage in criminal activity is conditioned by external factors in the environment as well as the background of the offender, which leads him or her to make the choice to burgle. Where shoplifting is concerned, the profile of shoplifters shows that while women are primarily suspected as being shoplifters, the reality is that there may be more shoplifters who are male, while among the older age groups, there are a larger number of shoplifters. There are also young people who are shoplifters and in such criminal activities, it appears that such criminal activity is not peculiar to any particular age group (CD, page 181). In some instances, the motivation may be money , however in most cases, an individual may choose to shoplift because he or she sees an opportunity and grabs it. The control theory has been applied as the most likely explanation for shoplifting, where those who do not offend are those who are likely to have a stronger bond with society, so that they do not seize an opportunity to shop lift even when it presents itself. The importance of motivation in situational crime prevention: As noted above, the focus of the situational approach is the scene of the crime rather than the typology of the offender. The major premise underlying the situational approach is that it is the availability of opportunity that motivates the offender. Therefore, the situational crime prevention strategy is targeted at protecting the premises and the environment, irrespective of whatever the motivation of the offender is in carrying out a crime. The motivation of the offender would therefore appear to be irrelevant. As detailed above, the primary motivation in most kinds of thefts is the lure of money and being able to exchange stolen goods or property for hard cash. However, attacking the problem from the offender’s point of view and attempting to solve it through the creation of job opportunities for example, have not really proved to be effective in terms of crime prevention. In a store for example, shop lifters may have planned their attack rather than seizing upon random opportunity as it becomes available, primarily because they need to make money. However, from the perspective of situational crime prevention techniques, the motive of the thieves – whether for money or for a random thrill or in response to a dare, does not change the fact that their goods are in danger of being stolen and must therefore be protected. Irrespective of whatever the motivation of an offender may be, the bottom line where situational crime prevention is concerned, is to prevent the occurrence of a crime. The situational approach seeks to achieve this in various ways – by protecting the premises better so that it becomes more difficult for thieves to steal property, or by reducing the rewards that can be accrued from the crime, or enhancing the offender’s sense of shame to prevent the impulse to engage in an illegal act. The focus of situational crime techniques is the environment where the crime can occur and the measures that are implemented are centered around reducing crime by reducing the facility for committing the crime through a variety of measures, as detailed earlier in this work. From a situational perspective therefore, it is the environment of the crime that is important, it is the possibility of a crime being committed that is important, but motivation of the offender may not be a factor that must mandatorily be taken into account. There are several theories that have been used to explain the incidence of crime from the situational perspective and the one most commonly applied is the rational choice theory, where situational factors play a role in the decision of the offender to commit a crime. On this basis therefore, there is no need to examine the deeper underlying motivation that may lead a person to commit a crime. There is an assumption made under the situational crime approach that it is the availability of opportunity and the circumstances that lead a person to commit a crime. Under the situational perspective, there is no particular typology for the offender. The underlying assumption is that any person could end up committing a crime if the opportunity exists, and the decision to commit a crime may be largely an impulsive one that is made on the spur of the moment. For example, a person may choose to commit a crime because of a dare or simply to experience the adrenalin rush of engaging in an illegal act, hence anyone may be subject to temptation when an opportunity is presented. As a result, the situational crime prevention approach is mainly centered upon ensuring that the opportunity is removed and that individuals who are tempted to engage in a criminal act are forestalled through an appeal to their conscience, or by making it more difficult and dangerous to attempt to commit a crime. From a situational crime prevention approach therefore, the motivation of the offender is less important, since it is assumed that most individuals would have the motivation to commit a crime if subjected to the temptation to do it. It does not really matter what the motivation of the offender is in committing a crime. The important factor that will play a role in the situational crime approach is that there is the possibility of a crime being committed and in most instances, this is solely dependent upon the availability of opportunity. Therefore, the premises which could be robbed will be secured, attempts will be made to dissuade individuals from committing the crime, but motivation will not be an important factor in this approach. Irrespective of what the motivation of the offender may be in committing a crime, the situational crime prevention approach seeks to prevent crime by focusing on the crime location rather than on the offender. While offender motivation is an important aspect in general crime prevention, it is not as important in a situational crime approach where crime prevention efforts are centered upon the location rather than the offender. References: * Beccaria, Caesare, 1764. “Dei delitti e delle pene” Translated as “On Crimes and punishments”, by H. Paolucci (1963) Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill * Brantingham, P.J. and Faust, F.L., 1976. “A conceptual model of crime prevention”, Crime and Delinquency, 22: 130-146 * Clarke, R and Homel, R, 1997. “A Revised classification of situational crime prevention Techniques” IN S Lab (edn) “Crime Prevention at a crossroads”, Cincinnati: Anderson * Cornish, D and Clarke, R, 1986. “The Reasoning Criminal”, New York: Springer-Verlag * Cornish, R.V. and Eck, J, 2003. “Become a problem solving crime analyst”, London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College, London. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from: http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/publications/other_publications/55steps * Hirschi, T, 1969. “Causes of Delinquency”, Berkeley: University of California Press * Hughes, G, 1998. “Understanding Crime Prevention: Social Control, Risk and late modernity”, Buckingham: Open University Press * Gottfredson, M and Hirschi, T, 1990. “A General Theory of Crime”, Stanford: Stanford University Press * Maguire, M, 1982. “Burglary in a dwelling: The offence, the offender and the victim”, In “Cambridge studies in criminology”, London: Heinemann * Scarr, H.A., 1973. “Patterns of burglary”, Washington DC: US Government Printing office * Smith, Martha J and Cornish, Derek B, 2004. “Theory for practice in situational crime prevention”, Criminal Justice Press. * Vito, G.F. and Holmes, R.L., 1994. “Criminology, theory, Research and Policy”, California: Wadsworth. * von Hirsch, Andrew, Garland, David and Wakefield, Alison, 2000. “Ethical and Social perspectives on Situational crime prevention”, Oxford: Hart Publishing * Williams, K.S., 1991. “Textbook on Criminology”, London: Blackstone Press * Wortley, R, 2001. “A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime”, Security Journal, 14: 63-82 Read More