Situational Crime Prevention and Its Limitations

Introduction:

Crime prevention has been one of the most forgotten issues about crime throughout the XVIII and XIX centuries, during which politics and criminology have focused on finding why they commit crimes and proposing solutions in a way of punishment and rehabilitation to prevent recidivism. At the end of the XIX century, the idea of crime prevention began to emerge, focusing on police and government activity; which contrasts with the current vision of prevention-focused on preventive association after the idea of nothing works of Martinson (1974). Crawford and Evans: defined prevention as: “Crime prevention includes all pre-emptive interventions into the social and physical world with the intention, at least in part, of altering behaviour or the flow of events in a way that reduces the likelihood of crime or its harmful consequences ”(p. 769).

The rise of such prevention occurs at the end of the XX century, after the increase in crime rates and the discontent of the population with the action of the judicial system. Wilson (1975) was a great influence at the time of the change in actions, in his view, criminology should be more focused on attainable goals, which could reduce opportunities and increase the probability of detention. All this made the vision of prevention more a situational approach, focusing on the environment and the victim. This approach was defined by Clarke as: “Comprising measures directed at highly specific forms of crime that involve the management, seeing, or manipulation of the immediate environment in a systematic and permanent away as possible so as to reduce the opportunities of crime and increase its risks as perceived by a wide range of offenders ”(Clarke 1983, p. 225). This was the greatest exponent of the situational approach in the UK, which defended the belief that it was easier to manipulate the opportunities of crime than the thoughts of humans, through changes in the design of imperceptible cities.

In 1993 Circular 8/84 was published, which established the convergence of situations and social approaches emphasizing the police exercise and introducing the idea of collaboration with other agencies. Clarke, on the other hand, criticized this circular and affirmed that it was more important to advance in prevention having short-term results. After the circular, new initiatives were taken, such as the five towns and safer cities programs. In the UK, programs stand out with the situational approach as governments expect short-term results. Therefore, throughout this text, we will develop the theories on which this approach is based, the limitations it has and the social implications. Some examples of programs established in the UK and their consequences will be given, as well as variations that can be made to make prevention more effective.

The situational approach to crime and associated theories: Clarke, who was the first head of the research and planning unit of the interior ministry, understood that prevention should be based on reducing crime opportunities through targeted measures in highly specific forms of crime, including changing the environment, increasing the effort and the risks of crime and decrease rewards. Therefore, situational crime prevention is based on reducing opportunities focusing on: (a) the crime (not the offender), (b) the potential victims, (c) the community and citizens (informal social control) and (d) the design of the medium. Within the situational approach, we can highlight three types of prevention: (a) primary: environmental design, (b) secondary: increased surveillance, etc., and (c) tertiary: improved safety, etc. It is also based on three theories: the rational choice model, routine activity theory and crime pattern theory. We must add Newman's ecological theory, 'Defensible Space.'

The rational option model, whose prominent authors are Wilson, Herrnstein, Clarke and Cornish, is based on the idea of reward-punishment, that is, the offender makes decisions based on the loss and gains that the criminal act may have by committing the criminal act. At the time of committing the crime two elements influence: the degree of immediacy or delay and the certainty of uncertainty. The idea to prevent crime is that if we reduce the uncertainty and delay of the rewards associated with the non-criminal act, the probability of committing crimes will be reduced.

The theory of routine activities, whose most important authors are Cohen and Felson, is based on the idea that criminal acts are connected with non-criminal activities that are done routinely. For a crime to be committed, three factors must coincide temporo-spatially: (a) a motivated criminal, (b) an auspicious victim and (c) absence of guardians.

This theory is closely linked to the theory of the criminal pattern of Brantingham, whose fundamental idea is that the physical environment interacts with the motivation or predisposition of the criminal potential. Thus, in this theory, three factors must be given: (a) presence of an individual motivated for the commission of the crime, (b) routine activities carried out by the potential offender and (c) appearance of a triggering event.

Finally, we must mention Clarence R. Jeffery and Oscar Newman. Both presented a theory based on the physical environment. The first was based on the theory of environmental design in which he mentioned that the most effective way to combat crime was to manipulate the environment in which it occurred and thus prevent it before it occurred. On the other hand, Newman published the theory of 'defensible space' that based crime prevention through the impact on the architectural design of urban space, causing anonymity and depersonalization to be replaced by a sense of community and neighbourhood that hold all the inhabitants of an area responsible for what happens in it. It was necessary to take into account four variables: (1) Territoriality, (2) surveillance, (3) image and (4) safe areas. Most relevant actions based on this approach: In the UK, all the previous theories have been included by applying them within society, resulting in three main programs: CCTV, Kirkholt burglary project and improved lighting.

CCTV:

Video surveillance cameras are the main measure of formal situational prevention in the United Kingdom. Although it seems that CCTV can reduce crime by fearing the offender to be recorded, according to a study conducted by Brandon, Welsh and Farrington, surveillance cameras are useful as long as other control factors are involved. Thus, according to this study, surveillance cameras are more effective in public parking lots than in the city center or in public transport, reducing crime by 19%. In addition, although CCTVs were designed to reduce crime, they have also been used for other purposes such as: identifying the offender, improving police service or improving traffic. On the other hand are the social costs, not only the great economic investment but the lack of privacy or even the vulnerability of the right to the image. This can also lead to social exclusion in some way, making those people who are most vulnerable not go out, decreasing informal social control and increasing crime.

Improved Lighting:

The improvement of public lighting has positive points when it comes to fighting crime since, according to the report by the College of Policing, it would decrease by 21%, although this would be more in robberies, etc. and less in violent crimes. According to this report, lighting motivates people to go outside their homes after certain hours, thus increasing informal social control and reducing crime opportunities.

Another report on public lighting, by Crime Prevention Unit Papers in the London district of Wandsworth, states that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis that improving street lighting will reduce crime but it does reduce the fear of crime. This study sees the need for a larger survey regarding this topic. Thus, we can determine that lighting does not necessarily have to reduce crime but it is an influential factor in fear of crime. In addition, keeping the areas well lit, especially at night, can favour police work, make people leave their homes after certain hours, etc. In short, increase informal social control.

Anti-theft program: The program carried out in the Kirlkhot district, wants to establish, after circular 8/84, ties between the different agencies to consolidate the prevention of long-term crime. After an exhaustive investigation into domestic crimes, they formed an action plan that involved: (a) prepaid fuel mediators, (b) improvement in the security of windows and doors based on new technologies, (c) support team community, (d) surveillance of the Cocoon neighborhood and (e) monitoring and evaluation system. Uniting all these factors and creating a union between the different agencies resulted in a decrease in domestic theft in that neighbourhood although there was an increase in the damage rate.

Limitations

After reviewing the previous programs we can highlight two facts: the first, the programs are limited to a specific type of crime such as theft, finding, etc. And forget other crimes such as violent crimes, drugs, business, etc. This makes such an approach only serve to protect a part of society in certain circumstances. On the other hand, the implementation of these measures has served other purposes, such as reducing fear in victims or being able to locate the offender more easily. It cannot be said that such measures are 100% effective in reducing crime.

In each of the programs, the problem of displacement of a crime stands out, which means that, by 'protecting' one area, the offender instead of giving up will move to another area. Cornish and Clarke (1987) suggest that displacement depends on the belief that different crimes can serve functional equivalence for criminals. All this makes the United Kingdom look like a city wall, in which people live protected by doors, walls and other security mechanisms (Webster 2001).

Situational approaches also raise ethical issues regarding civil liberties and human rights. Mechanisms such as CCTV and some identity-based security systems, such as airport systems, cause privacy to be invaded. We can also talk about social exclusion since there are prohibition orders and private surveillance strategies (Crawford 2011), which are based on the use of “profile-based exclusions” that are often aimed at young people (von Hirsch and Shearing 2000). Finally, we must talk about victimization, given that the community must protect itself from potential criminals and that makes them responsible for their safety when who should be more responsible is the means of formal social control.

Conclusion:

The need for an interdisciplinary approach based on various theories, techniques and multi-agency support can be concluded to address the various factors of crime. As we have seen, situational approaches do take effect about one part of the crime, but in turn, another part is neglected. This makes us think of the need to create programs that can cover all factors, such as NACRO programs or community prevention. As Weatheritt has said, 'from this point of view, it is not the physical environment that needs to be manipulated, but the social conditions and psychological dispositions that create criminals in the first place... What is needed, therefore, they are programs of action that will help change people's attitudes towards crimes, encourage respect for the law and reduce the desire to commit crimes' (1986: 57).