CRIME PREVENTION 8
Sincethe beginning of law, crimes have been taking place everydaythroughout all societies. Although the kinds of crime included haveevolved the strategies utilized to prevent crime have changed too.This essay compares and contrasts three of the common CriminalPrevention methods, which include: socialintervention, situational intervention, and environmental design.Crime prevention generally means preventing crime and anti-socialconduct before it happens. Crime prevention is be defined as “anyprivately or publicly based measures or policies geared towardsreducing or eliminating criminal behaviour, violence and anxietyabout crime or violence in the community” (Armstrong, 2002). Thisessay also aims at showing not only the strengths and weaknesses ofthe three strategies but also to identify the particular CrimeCausation Theory that every strategy is reliant on.
Oneof the main crime prevention strategies used globally is environmentdesign. This strategy is founded on the relationship that may becreated between people and their surroundings. Crime preventionthrough environment design (CPTED) is viewed as a multi-disciplinaryway of deterring criminal behaviour through the use of environmentaldesigns and styles (Wayne, 2007). Environmental designs have formedan inclusive element of many crime prevention pursuits in countriesworldwide. The word environment is inclusive of individuals and theirphysical societal surroundings (Crowe, 2000). Criminal trends willoften be easy to distinguish, when examining environment designs. Forinstance, research has uncovered that a quarter of most “streetcrimes”, such as robbery and bag snatching, occur around ATMs (Holtand Spencer, 2005). Therefore utilizing environmental design to scaleback the number of crimes happening around ATMs could be positioningATMs in areas with more traffic and visibility.
Afew of the main principles associated with environmental design andstyle theory comprise of “surveillance and visibility,territoriality and defensible living space, access and escape tracks,image and aesthetics and target-hardening” (Landman, 2008). OscarNewman’s principle of defensible spaces is reliant on the conceptof territoriality, which he defines to be ‘the capacity on thephysical environment to make perceived specific zones of territorialinfluences’ (Landman, 2008).
Environmentaldesign theory is strongly linked with the routine activity theory.Routine activity theory claims that, for a crime to get committed,three things have to be present, the offender, a target no onewatching the marked (Chainey, 2005). Environmental theory is aimed atremoving two of such mentioned components by sealing off areastowards the public, feasible offenders are eliminated and byemploying things such as natural eyesight or CCTV there`s always thepossibility of someone seeing. According to routine task theorywithout one of these items this crime cannot take place (Chainey,2005).
Anothersuccessful type of crime prevention is Situational .Situational is a lot like the Environmental Design.It aims at taking out the chances of crime taking place (Chainey,2005). Through the removal of features that aid criminal activities,crime is, thereby, greatly decreased. Highlights of SituationalCriminal offenses Prevention include things like modifying thesurroundings of crime hotspots, making the crime itself trickier tospend increasing the prospect of being trapped the lowering in thereturns achieved in the proceeds on the criminal activity and alsothe decreasing the flexibility for offenders to possess excuses, suchas why they were at the venue of the crime (Cherny, 2006).Situational Crime prevention is about identifying each of the presentphysical factors that can result in a crime and eliminating them. Forinstance, there has been various situational prevention measures thathave been implemented to curb crime around ATMs, such as:
• Telephonehotlines to permit customers in whose cards are generally stolen tocancel purchases.
• Improved“natural surveillance”, by locating machines in public areas,with excellent lighting and transparent surfaces on vestibules.
• Surveillancedigital cameras.
• Locatingproducts in police force or security stations.
• Limitingamounts that can be withdrawn at any one time.
• Themachine “withholding” the cards owing to repeated attempts ofusing wrong Personal Identification Numbers
• Bollardswhich prevent or may deter car access.
• Alarmsand tracking devices.
• Dyebombs or smoke bombs which mark or maybe ruin the money and “denybenefits” (Prenzler, 2008).
Situationalprinciple is strongly linked with rational choice theory which stateswhich criminals evaluate their options before committing a crime, andthey will only execute it when they believe the benefits are worththe risks (Cherny, 2006). Situational Prevention is aimed at removingthe huge benefits from this crime and increasing the associated risk.
TheSocial intervention theory is probably the hardest strategies to beimplement in a community. “Social prevention is founded on theconclusion that successful crime prevention strategies must handlesocial will cause and early preventions” (McMillan & Murray,2002). Social intervention works about the concepts regarding howmorals and communities work together to safeguard their localcommunity. This causes it to be quiet tough in analyzing theeffectiveness of the principle after many experts have implementedit. The strategy aims at providing societal educative pursuits,projects and programs, that wish to educate individuals into stayingmore crime aware.
Contraryto Situational Prevention and Layout Prevention, Social Interventionis aimed at avoiding the underlying causes of crime. The primaryfactor to successful Social Intervention is synergy between allorganisations and individuals who have influential effects onreducing instances of crime, the results of violations, and raise therisk of individuals becoming persons of crime” (Justice, 2003).Social crime prevention methods allows venture between formalgovernment companies and district based agencies such as justice,health and education, youth extramarital affairs and district bodies(Armstrong, 2002).
Thesupreme goal, when applying social input theory is always to creategroup efficacy inside community (Halpern, 2005). Collectiveusefulness is measured in the neighbours chance to manage actionswhich maintain order within their own group. (Halpern, 2005). Someclaim that group efficacy will not cause visitors to intervene in aserious kinds of crime however will be effective from interveningwith smaller incidents that can cause crime, such as youngindividuals loitering (Halpern, 2005). Collective usefulness reducescrime by bringing individuals within a community together thus makingthem more potent in “eliciting companies, support and interventionsin the statutory services” (Halpern, 2005). Studies show that oncethis really is achieved crime rates fall in the area, the onlyproblem using this type of is that folks within these types ofcommunities will only take control when they have the “mutual relyon relationships” and “shared expectations” of each one other(Halpern, 2005). That is the reason why it is very importantimplement societal intervention programs to create communities incontext, so they can ultimately create the relationships needed toprevent crime.
Allthe three approaches offer derived principles the problem is theirproper application at identification of problems. CPTED, SituationalPrevention and Cultural Prevention are all strong hypotheses in crimeprevention. As proven CPTED and Situational Prevention theoryemphasize on the reduction of the circumstances where crime isprobable to occur, and become successful. Social Prevention Theoryeven though aims to take out what may cause crime and as aconsequence would seem the best in eliminating crime. However, asvindicated, the costs of bringing the global community into consensusabout a common strategy to employ globally just as it is difficultto explain that all criminal activities occur in the same manner. Itis therefore, recommendable to employ the three approachesconcurrently and crime prevention will be effective.
Anstey,W. (2007). CrimePrevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)Committeeof the Whole Information Report
Blakely,E. & Snyder, M. G. (1998). Forting up: Gated communities in theUnited States. Journalof Architectural and Planning Research15(1):61-82
Chainey,S., & Ratcliffe, J ,(2005). SpatialTheories of Crime, in GIS and Crime Mappings, Wiley and Sons Chester
Chaskin,R.J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional frameworkand case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. UrbanAffairs Review, 36(3), pp. 699-717.CSRI. 2003 – CSIR Building andConstruction Technology,http://www.cpted.co.za/
Clarke,R. V. (2005). Sevenmisconceptions of situational crime prevention. In Tilley N(ed)Handbookof crime prevention and community safety.Cullompton:Willan: 39-70
Crowe,T. (2000). CrimePrevention ThroughEnvironmental Design,2nd Edition, (Butterworth-Heinemann)
Garland,O., Von Hirsch, A., & Wakefield, A. (2000). Ethicaland social perspectives on situational crime prevention.Oxford:Hart
Holt,T. and Spencer, J. (2005), “Little yellow box: the targeting ofautomatic teller machines as a strategy in reducing street robbery”, and Community Safety: AnInternational Journal,Vol. 7, pp. 15-28.
Landman,K. (2008). Gatedneighbourhoods in South Africa: an appropriate urban design approach?
Lurigio,A. J., Rosenbaum, D. P., & Davis, R. C. (1998). Theprevention of crime: Social and situational strategies.Toronto: Wadsworth Canada
McMillan,E., & Murray, J. (2002). Planningfor Partnerships and Success in and Community Safety- for Local Government in Victoria.Melbourne: Department of Justice, Victoria.
Prenzler,T. (2008). StrikeForce Piccadilly: a public-private partnership to stop ATM ram raids,Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing andSecurity,Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Rutter,A., & Anona A. (2002). Evaluatingthe success of a crime prevention strategy targeting communitycapacity and participation