Crime Prevention Theories - Article Example

CRIME PREVENTION THEORIES By Course Instructor Institution Date of Submission Crime prevention involves methods that are used by the security organization in a country to reduce chances of occurrence of crimes. The world is changing very fast in terms of technology and these security organizations are expected to be well equipped with skills to deal with crimes related to modern technologies. The technology can also be used to prevent crimes. Situational and social crime prevention approaches both offer methods that can be adopted to prevent crime. The two approaches rely on different concepts, theories and principles in terms of how best to prevent crime. The aim of this paper is to discuss such theories and concepts, giving clear examples of how the approaches can be applied in enhancing security (Covell,2009). The paper will also criticize each of the theories suggested. At its simplest, situational crime prevention can be seen as an approach that is concerned primarily with reducing the opportunity for crime and with affecting the calculations made by criminals (and potential criminals) about the relative risks and rewards of committing crime (Gilling, 1997)It ensures that the environment of the target objects of crime is maintained in such a way that target is not possible. The situational approach is based on three theories; environmental theory, rational choice and routine activities. The major concepts in situational crime prevention approach include the fact that all people in the society should play a role in preventing crimes (Gilling 1997). There is a need to modify the buildings to reduce chances of crimes, people have to alert police whenever there is danger of a crime and that there is a need to collaborate with various agencies in the society to ensure that criminals do not take advantage of the people in the society. Crime displacement occurs when the efforts by the police in one locality make the criminals to shift to new areas that are better for them. However, crime displacement does not necessarily occur in. The criminals evaluate the benefits and costs associated with their crimes. This means that they cannot shift to new areas unless they are sure that there will be great benefits if they engage in criminal activities in the new locality. It is possible that the associated risks and costs of shifting to new areas are also greater and the criminals end up not shifting. The different theories have facts and concepts from which one can deduce strategies that can be adopted to prevent criminal activities. Looking at the environmental theory, the argument is that time, place, law, offender and object of attack are necessary for a crime to happen. Two factors that can be manipulated from these are time and place. As such, there is a need to manipulate these factors to reduce the chances of occurrence of crimes (O'Malley 1997). In the case of time, people have to study patterns and identify times when crimes occur. In most of the cases, crimes occur at night. If people realize that crimes occur from 11pm, then they are expected to arrive at their houses before this time to avoid being victims of criminals. Using the theory, the police can also ensure that they are available by this time to offer security. Place is another parameter that can be manipulated. People should be aware of their neighbourhoods, the houses and the geographical structures around their residents. Whenever there are places that pose insecurity dangers, efforts can be made to ensure that there is effective lighting. The society can contribute and have street lighting around their residents to avoid crimes from occurring (Gilling 1997). People can also fix CCTV cameras in their buildings as an attempt to ‘target harden’ their properties and to ensure their own security. In the streets of major cities in the world, CCTV cameras have been used to deal with crimes happening there and this can be extended to homes of individuals. Having fences is another recommendation that the theory can have because this adds an extra structure that hinders the criminals from entering into premises. In the modern world, there are electric fences and live fences and people can choose what they can afford to prevent criminals from entering into their buildings Rational ChoiceTheory (RCT) is an ‘opportunity’ theory of crime.RCT is concerned with the calculations and motivations behind the actions of the criminals. According to Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen, criminals engage in reasoning before finally making a decision on whether to engage in the criminal activities or not. They have to evaluate their chances of being caught when engaging in the crime (Fisher2007). If they know that they are not likely to be caught, then they have a greater motivation to engage in the crime. At the same time, they evaluate the costs and benefits of their actions. If they realize that there possible benefits of engaging in crime without being caught are greater than the costs of being caught when stealing, they will have the motivation to engage in a crime. In response to this theory, there is a need to increase the chances of capturing the criminals if they are to be scared away (Kemshall, 2007). In the first place, increasing police patrols, alerting the police and working together as a community to watch suspects and report them creates fear in the criminals, making them realize that the chances of being caught are greater and there is no need of engaging in the act. Another example is where the society has installed CCTVs all over, and this increases the chances of being caught. Criminals will be demoralized in such regions and will never contemplate engaging in the criminal acts. The routine activity theory (RAT) (Hughes, 1998) proposes the idea that crimes occur because three elements come together in time and place, namely a likely offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian. It means that the absence of any of this objects means that crimes never occur. Having a capable guardian is a way of ensuring that the offender stays away from criminal activity and RAT theory recommends having such people. Since there is not possible and reasonable to remove the target of crime in the society, there is a need to have someone watching so that crimes are detected and avoided. This is where security agents can be employed to watch over the people and ensure that any insecurity threats are reported to the police for action (Welsh, 2009). The Capable guardians can also patrol the populated areas and ensure that they are always watching after the people hence eliminating any potential crimes as well as threatening away the criminals. The main idea of situation crime prevention approach is to have people participate in avoiding crimes as well as changing the appearance of a geographical area so that crimes can be made difficult. It discourages the availability of weapons in the society as a method of providing security. The approach ensures that no money is wasted in providing security and at the same time, crimes are not moved from one place to another. Crime displacement occurs when the efforts by the police in one locality make the criminals to shift to new areas that are better for them. However, crime displacement does not necessarily occur in. The criminals evaluate the benefits and costs associated with their crimes. This means that they cannot shift to new areas unless they are sure that there will be great benefits if they engage in criminal activities in the new locality. It is possible that the associated risks and costs of shifting to new areas are also greater and the criminals end up not shifting. In social crime prevention approach, efforts are made to ensure that the potential criminals engage in economic activities and social interactions that make them not engage in criminal activities. This approach is also supported by theories and concepts that are important. A major theory is the developmental theory that emphasizes on the intervention on the early lives of individuals, ensuring that these people grow in the right environment to become responsible people in the society (Sullivan, 2000). In the developmental theory, the major idea is to ensure that children grow being responsible individuals and have no time to learn the criminal activities. An example of a strategy that may be adopted to ensure that there is early intervention in the development is proper schooling. In Australia, there are no programs in schools where children are educated on security related issues from the childhood. However, such lessons can be started to ensure that children learn why they have to avoid criminal activities (Gilling 1997). As people engage in the learning processes, they have great hopes of securing jobs and engaging in helpful economic activities. Since such people can access their basic needs at their adulthood, then they are less likely to engage in criminal activities. The social approach recommends that the children learn from social gatherings where they can interact with friends and relatives. These interactions make the children have a humane relationship with the people and are not likely to attack or cause harm to their fellow human beings. An example of such social gatherings is the church, schools and community service gatherings (Hughes, 1998). In the religious gatherings, the children are taught how to behave and with these teachings, these children grow to be responsible individuals in the society. The social approach also recommends that any act that people engage in that may threaten the security of the society is eliminated. One of the factors that increase criminal activities is the use of drugs. This means that one of the ways of eliminating criminal activities is to fight the use of drugs in the society. The government and the responsible agencies should collaborate to ensure that the use of illegal drugs is eliminated and having more sober people means that they engage in activities after they have evaluated their decisions well (Gilling 1997). Community development is very crucial in the ensuring that crimes in the society are averted. They involve evaluating the people in the society who need to be engaged in economic activities that are to divert them from performing criminal activities. The youths have to be given opportunities in the society that are to ensure that they have no chance of getting involved in the criminal activities. The programs should be designed in a way that support between the members of the society is enhanced bringing about social cohesion. This ensures that the people have no reason to harm their friends in the society. According to the social approach theory, there should be sensitization programs to ensure that people know the need of not engaging in criminal activities. These programs should target the most common criminal activities in the community. An example includes the programs that reach people informing them the dangers of engaging in rape criminal acts. These programs inform people how to respond to such acts, as well as the consequences of the criminal activities. This ensures that the criminals are warned and never engage in the criminal activities (Garland, 2002). Having looked at the social and situation approaches of preventing crimes, it should be noted that none of the approaches is better than the other. Crimes can be better prevented if all the approaches are used concurrently to complement each other. Kirkholt is known to have designed a plan to deal with burglary where the society and capable guardians were involved. The project is an example of how the two theories can be combined together to deal with crimes. Such a move would ensure that there are fewer crimes occurring in the society. The two approaches can be implemented if the government agencies and the people in the society work together. Everyone has to play their role appropriately to ensure that crimes are reduced (Schneider 2013). This method of dealing with crimes makes the police service and the community to collaborate and develop strategies that ensure that crimes do not occur. They have to work hard to ensure that the potential crimes are prevented. They have to arrest the offenders and punish them for their deeds. The disadvantage of this strategy is that it may not be successful because crimes may occur even when there are efforts to prevent the same. It is also a costly method of dealing with crimes because the society should be constantly monitoring the youths who are criminals. A hybrid approach is the best for achieving security in the society. The social approach of dealing with crimes does not tell how crimes can be prevented in situations where criminals are outside the society hence acts such as social development does not deter the people from engaging in crimes. On the other hand, situational approach fails to appreciate the fact that it is not possible to put all measures in place to prevent occurrence of crimes. As such, the benefit from the two theories can be achieved if a hybrid approach is used. An example is where security policing is implemented to involve the capable guardians and society work hand in hand to prevent crimes. Implementing security programs fail because of lack of commitment between involved parties and it is necessary to ensure that the parties involved in community policing are committed and cooperate effectively. In conclusion, social and situational crime prevention approaches are two different approaches that are based on different theories and concepts that all aim at reducing and preventing crimes in the society. The situational approach deals with the physical environment to make it difficult for the criminals to engage in their criminal behaviours. On the other hand, social crime prevention approach aims at early intervention methods that ensure that people develop good behaviours hence do not engage in criminal activities (Gilling 1997). A hybrid situation where the society commits themselves to work with the police to ensure that physical methods are used to prevent crimes and at the same, the cohesion and development of the society is improved is the best solution to criminal related problems. Reference list Covell, K., & Howe, R. B. 2009. Children, families and violence: Challenges for children's rights. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Fisher, B. S., & Sloan, J. J. 2007. Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD. Gilling, D. 1997. Crime Prevention: Theory, Policy and Practice. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Garland, D., Hirsch, A. ., & Wakefield, A. 2002. Ethical and social perspectives on situational crime prevention. Oxford [u.a.: Hart. House of Commons. 2010. The Government's approach to crime prevention: Tenthreport of session 2009-10. London: Stationery Office. Hughes, G. 1998. Understanding crime prevention: Social control, risk, and late modernity. Buckingham [u.a.: Open University Press. Kemshall, H. (2007). Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd. Mythen and Walklate, S. (2006). Beyond the risk society: Critical reflections on risk and human security. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press.11 O'Malley, P., and Sutton, A. (1997). Crime prevention in Australia: Issues in policy and research. Annandale, NSW, Australia: Federation Press. Schneider, S. 2013. Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis Group. Sullivan, R. R. (2000). Liberalism and crime: The British experience. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Lexington Books. Welsh, B., and Farrington, D. P. 2009. Making public places safer: Surveillance and crime prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More