Social and Situational Crime Prevention Strategies - Research Paper Example

Social and Situational Crime Prevention Strategies: An Analysis Abstract Crime prevention is a complex field. It is characterized by multifaceted issues, problems, and challenges. Because of its complexity, crime prevention has been characterized by diverse policies, strategies, and programs. However, the two leading models used to guide crime prevention strategies are the social crime prevention model and the situational crime prevention approach. This paper thoroughly analyzes the strengths, weaknesses, and application of these two major crime prevention models. The discussion also includes an overview of the similarities and differences between these two crime prevention models. Introduction The most widely recognized definition of crime prevention in the latter part of the 20th century refers to the difference between social and situational strategies of crime prevention—social strategies are generally called ‘community crime prevention’ (Stenson, 1991, p. 63). Many argue that the concepts of social and situational prevention are quite contemporary, even though the principles they support are not. This paper analyzes the strengths, weaknesses, and applications of situational and social crime prevention strategies. Social crime prevention focuses mostly on transforming social environments and the impulses of lawbreakers. Social crime prevention strategies hence are likely to place emphasis on the creation of programs, like activity-based courses and youth associations, to discourage existing or possible delinquents from future criminal behavior. Jon Bright claims that one of the main advocates of social crime prevention is the United Kingdom, which “aims to strengthen socialization agencies and community institutions in order to influence those groups that are most at risk of offending” (Stenson, 1991, p. 64). On the other hand, situational crime prevention strategies primarily involve ‘opportunity reduction’, like monitoring of activities in public places (e.g. parking lots, shopping malls, etc.) through surveillance equipment, to lessen opportunities for criminal activities. Both social and situation crime prevention strategies are likely to be ‘multiagency’ in focus, instead of being motivated by a single agency, like law enforcement (Lowman & MacLean, 1992). The top radical criminologist, Jock Young, has identified multiagency crime prevention measures in this way: “Multiagency intervention is the planned, coordinated response of the major social agencies to problems of crime and incivilities” (Lowman & MacLean, 1992, p. 64). Social and situational crime prevention strategies share something in common—the assertion that they are less detrimental than conventional—retributive—crime prevention measures. Another similarity between the two is a limited emphasis on ‘street crime’ and particular groups of lawbreakers—young, working-class men (Lab, 2013). Literature Review Ron Clarke (1992), the top advocate of situational crime prevention measures in the 1980s, defines the strategy as follows (Hughes, 1998, p. 60): Situational crime prevention… refers to a pre-emptive approach that relies, not on improving society or its institutions, but simply on reducing the opportunities for crime… Situational crime prevention comprises opportunity-reducing measures that are, (1) directed at highly specific forms of crime (2) that involve the management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in as specific and permanent a way as possible (3) so as to increase the effort and risks of crime and reduce the rewards as perceived by a wide range of offenders. The major focus of situational crime prevention is on the direct, actual aspects of the situation or environment wherein a crime could be carried out. Similar to classicism, this model sees criminal behavior as those possessed by rational individuals creating psychological opinions or making choices in reaction to given conditions or situations (Lab, 2013). This image of the offender as a reasoning individual also signifies the number of people, not least law enforcers and legislators, who understand the world and reflect on their behavior. The two primary ‘methods’ of this self-aware practical reasoning are ‘surveillance’ and ‘target hardening’; the latter is designed to reduce the opportunity for criminal activities, usually through concrete ‘nitty-gritty’ strategies like reinforcing and further securing the technology of commonplace equipment like telephones or gates (Hughes, 1998, p. 61). In contrast, surveillance denotes regulatory mechanisms, informal and formal, used by individuals in daily living. For instance, attention is paid to the structure of the manmade environment and how this could either impeder or be restructured to assist people in regulating their own environment. This focus on surveillance has been inspired by the early efforts of Newman and Jacobs in the United States and was represented by Coleman’s attempt to reform the design of housing lands in the UK (Hughes, 1998, pp. 61-62). Situational crime prevention examines situations wherein individuals intermingle with one another and with the constructed environment, finds specifically dangerous arrangements, and seeks solutions appropriate to such circumstances. Solutions could involve raising the difficulty of perpetrating an offense, making it less appealing; raising the probability of being caught; weakening motivations for criminal behavior; decreasing incentives and aggravations; and getting rid of justifications for perpetrating crime (Rosenbaum et al., 1998). Several of these solutions require merging place-based and people-oriented measures that coincide with crime deterrence by means environmental program or social development. The strength of the situational crime prevention strategy does not, though, stems mainly from its theoretical complexity and clarity. In fact much of its strength lies on the declared transition of criminological orientation from theory to practical application. The strength of the strategy is also associated with the key organizational and ideological value which it provides to businesses and the government. It presents a radical view, one that deviates from the cynicism of criminology in the 1970. It promotes the idea that nothing is more sensible and simpler than to believe that most individuals choose rationally their own actions (Lab, 2013). Hence the most reasonable strategy to prevent criminal act is primarily to change the environment, and also to enhance the possibility of being caught. There are concrete proofs that these situational measures have led to concrete successful crime reduction efforts. For instance, Pease (1994) has stressed that the emphasis given to the direct, actual situation of a crime, like what determines direct action, has evidenced to be “remarkably fruitful in generating crime prevention ideas” (p. 664); as further argued by Pease (1997) “primary prevention is often possible and sometimes easy” (p. 987). Another paramount appeal of situational measures to legislators and enforces is that they can assess them and determine if they are effective. One especially remarkable early case of ‘effectiveness’ was the setting up of CCTV cameras in several of the most crime-prone areas on the London Underground. The findings revealed a decrease of 27% for stealing (Hughes, 1998, p. 66). The other areas also had a decrease in stealing, even though less remarkable, possibly because of the preventive ‘halo effect’— is a form of psychological bias wherein our general impression of an individual affects how we perceive that person’s character—of the presence of CCTV in those areas (Hughes, 1998, pp. 66-67). Situational crime prevention measures recognize a major value for the public in target hardening and surveillance. For instance, public police partnership is seen as being vital to raising the effectiveness of law enforcement (Rosenbaum et al., 1998). Informal surveillance techniques are also emphasized occasionally over formal controls as, for instance with the police-based neighborhood watch programs which could be described as “the informal organizations of residents who agree to watch over each other’s property and report suspicious activities to the police” (Hughes, 1998, p. 67). Nevertheless, uncertainties remain regarding the success of these programs in observing or deterring criminal activities. Besides the apparent focus on technical target hardening, the situational crime prevention model also promotes the widely known political belief that the community can in fact resolve crime by itself and must not be entirely reliant on the state (Rosenbaum et al., 1998). To a certain extent this final emphasis additionally verifies the inauthenticity of examining unconnectedly community, multiagency and situational crime prevention strategies in the contemporary period. On the contrary, several criminologists have argued that the situational crime prevention model, with its focus on target-hardening, has supported policies which disregard the circumstances which bring about criminal activities and hence a discrepancy in intervention has ensued. Specifically, situational crime prevention strategies disregard social crime prevention measures based on evolving social situations which could induce crime, like insufficient housing and unemployment (Lab, 2013). It is also important to mention that there are several particular absent ‘objectives’ from the situational model, like corporate crime, state violence, child abuse, and domestic violence. The situational crime prevention model has been typified by a very narrow emphasis on street crime. Specifically, Betsky Stanko (1990) has claimed there has been a major disregard of offenses between prisoners and hence children’s and women’s unseen victimization because of the emphasis in situational perspective on crime prevention strategies directed at street crimes and public areas instead of domestic violence. Threats and crimes that are present at home create just as serious, if not a more serious, danger to women as offenses in the public domain. As argued by Stanko (1990, p. 4-7; Hughes, 1998, p. 68): Crime prevention advice, including much of the advice about avoiding sexual assault, focuses on the public domain. It is easier to give advice about checking the back seat of your car for intruders, or advising against standing in dimly lit bus stops, than finding ways of advising women not to trust so-called ‘trustworthy’ men… The place where people are supposed to find solace from the perils of the outside world should not be presumed to provide a respite from inter-personal violence. For too many, menace lurks there as well. On the other hand, social crime prevention strategies recognize the fundamental intricate cultural, economic, and social factors that influence criminal activities and victimization. Social crime prevention strategies try to resolve the discrepancy between social support for communities, families, and individuals and criminal justice programs. It accomplishes such by addressing the aspects that influence criminal behavior and victimization and are open to change (Lab, 2013). This model focuses on secondary deterrence strategies. This includes placing emphasis on numerous risk factors that influence participation in crime. Several basic examples are family aspects—parental drug addiction, poor parenting, and family poverty; poor housing; behavioral and individual factors—deficient self-control, development of aggressive behavior; peer relationship—association with those who exhibit criminal behavior; educational factors—exclusionary rules, low educational attainment; community ties; and insufficient employment opportunities (Rosenbaum et al., 1998). Social crime prevention strategies are greatly dependent on policies related to social services, like employment, health, education, housing, etc. that serve a vital function in deterring crime. These strategies place emphasis on the social development spectrum of the crime prevention field; hence it may require a long duration of time for the crime prevention successes to ensue. Consequently, short-term projects with irregular subsidy are not expected to generate determinable outcomes (Rosenbaum et al., 1998). Critics claim that because social crime prevention strategies are very ‘changeable’, they are prone to become either highly dispersed or quite overriding in social policy (Hughes, 1998). This issue underlines the need to identify its range of effect and shed light on the ties, similarities, and boundaries between social policies and crime prevention programs. In order to work with reliability, social crime prevention programs have to possess sufficient resources to carry out what they aim to accomplish and to guarantee that there is transparency and answerability for outcomes. Discussion Crime prevention is the evaluation, identification, and anticipation of a crime possibility and the instigation of some measures to decrease or eliminate it. This description fulfills the requirements of the contemporary model of security, also referred to as situational crime prevention, and distinguishes it from the social development model of crime prevention. Social crime prevention strategies can be classified within the domain of government and involve aspects like vocational training, welfare, unemployment protection, and religious associations. The objective of traditional criminology and social crime prevention strategies is to be criminal-oriented and to help create a system for the people to prevent resorting to unlawful act for survival. In contrast, situational crime prevention is target-based and the targets are the information, property, individuals, and resources of an organization. Situational crime prevention could be evaluated against traditional criminology which place emphasis on the criminal and could be also referred to as alternative criminology, since its focus is on the assets. This form of crime prevention focuses on the spot where the assets of an organization are situated and what aspects at that area influence chances of asset loss and what methods could be exercised to avoid loss (Rosenbaum et al., 1998). In other words, situational crime prevention strategies are more macro than micro. Its objectives differentiate it from social crime prevention strategies. Conclusion It is apparent from the discussion that there are numerous various catchwords in current political, professional, and academic discourse on crime prevention. Particular candidates in the struggle to discover what could be effective involve those of multiagency, community, social and situational crime prevention. All these concepts are interlocked into the same unified, but continuously changing and confined ‘diversity’ which comprises the leading dialogue on crime prevention. References Clarke, R. (1992) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York: Harrow & Heston. Hughes, G. (1998) Understanding Crime Prevention: Social Control, Risk, and Late Modernity. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Lab, S. (2013) Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations. New York: Newnes. Lowman, J. & MacLean, B. (1992) Realist Criminology: Crime Control and Policing in the 1990s. Canada: University of Toronto Press. Pease, K. (1994) ‘Crime Prevention’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), Oxford Handbook of Criminology (1st edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pease, K. (1997) ‘Crime Prevention’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rosenbaum, D. et al. (1998) The Prevention of Crime: Social and Situational Strategies. New York: Wadsworth Inc. Fulfillment. Stanko, E. (1990) ‘When Precaution is Normal: A Feminist Critique of Crime Prevention’, in L. Gelsthorpe and A. Morris (eds), Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. Buckingham: Open University Press. Stenson, K. (1991) The Politics of Crime Control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Read More