Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Crime Prevention (Social) - Coggle Diagram
Crime Prevention (Social)
How features of neighbourhoods and a zero tolerance policy can influence crime
Features of a neighbourhood - Newman's theory
Newman argued that when residential areas have little to no defensive space, residents less satisfied with neighbourhood
4 factors create defensible space:
Territoriality: creating zones where residents have sense of ownership
Natural surveillance: Residents are able to see what is happening in their neighbourhood
Image: refers to physical attributes of housing developments that make them defendable
Milieu (surroundings): making the most of a development's location close to heavily communal areas
How defensible space influences crime:
Difference between two NY housing projects, Van Dyke and Brownsville
Van Dyke -> high rise flats, Brownsville -> walk-up buildings with courtyards
Van Dyke higher crime rate
Better surveillance in Brownsville
Communal areas meant children could play outside
Broken windows theory
Zimbardo (1969) -> abandoned cars in two different neighbourhoods, one in the heart of the Bronx and other in Palo Alto, California
Bronx car -> parts stolen within 10 mins, fully stripped in 3 days, the destroyed for fun afterwards
Palo Alto car -> left for a week and left untouched, Zimbardo smashed a part of the car and this led to the rest of the car being destroyed within a couple hours
Developing an explanation:
Wilson and Kelling (1982) -> 'broken windows' theory of crime -> if broken window remains unrepaired, vandals will break the remaining windows
Broken window shows no one in charge, so no cost/consequences
Once people begin disregarding prosocial norms, crime increases (Petersen 2004)
Zero tolerance policy and crime
Policing strategy to prevent development of antisocial norms
Involves maintaining aggressive law enforcement even for small crimes such as littering, graffiti, etc
Research evidence for zero tolerance:
Kelling and Sousa (2001) -> 'broken windows and zero tolerance' policies had positive impact on violence and crime in NYC
1989-98 -> every 28 misdemeanour arrests, one violent crime
Prevented over 60,000 violent crimes or 5% reduction
Zimring (2011) -> between 1990-2009, murder rate reduced by 82%in NYC and 25% arrest increase in 1992
Other evidence for zero tolerance:
Bratton (1998) -> fall in crime due to organisational goals and plans for NYPD to reduce crime
7000 extra police officers recruited 1990-4
Challenges to zero tolerance:
Harcourt and Ludwig (2006) -> NY had large violent crime increase during 80s due to crack cocaine use, use decreased in 90s as did crime
Wilson and Kelling (1982) on Broken Windows
Safe neighbourhoods
Question posed, 'How can a neighbourhood be considered safer when the crime rate has not gone down but in fact, may have gone up?'
Answer lies in understanding what frightens people in public places
People scared of violent attackers but fear of being bothered by disorderly people overlooked
Foot patrol officers:
People in run down areas were 'regulars' and 'strangers' -> officer kept eye on strangers
Rules enforced -> drunks could sit on steps but not lie down, teenagers told to be kept quiet
Made people of Newark feel reassured and reduced fear of crime
Broken windows:
Neglected property becomes fair target for disorder as there is breakdown of community controls
Makes residents think crime will rise and move away
Areas vulnerable to crime invasion -> connection between disorderliness and fear is further substantiated by (e.g.) people crossing roads when group of rude teenagers are there
Community controls:
Believed that cases of disorderliness weaken interaction between people and community controls
Police role in maintaining order is to reinforce informal control mechanisms of community itself
The changing role of the police
New developments in policing:
In 20 years up to 1980s -> belief that entirely new development in role of policing in US
Society decided what undesirable person is and behaviours to be criminalised
Believed that decriminalising disreputable behaviour that 'harms no one' is unstable
Decision not to arrest single drunk doesn't take into account broken windows
Ensuring police treat people fairly:
Selection, training, supervision of police is important
Should try variations of Newark experiment
Employ citizen patrols
Maintaining order
Police are main key to maintaining order
Suffering officer cuts for duty, so neighbourhoods are so crime-ridden that foot patrol useless
Few PDs identify areas that need assigned officers
To allocate officers, looks at neighbourhoods that officers will make most difference in
Suggestions:
Private security guards
Patrol officers on public transport to enforce rules on drinking and disorderly conduct
Conclusions
We should return to view that police should protect communities as well as individuals
Police should focus on value of maintaining intact communities without broken windows
Strategies for crime prevention
Neighbourhood watch schemes
First neighbourhood watch scheme set up in NY after murder of Kitty Genovese
Started in UK in Cheshire (1982)
Work under guidance of neighbourhood and home watch network (NHWN)
Aim to reduce crime by involving communities
Setting up a neighbourhood watch scheme (NHW):
To set up, interested group contacts NHWN to register and contact local police and make goals
Coordinator appointed
NHW allows residents to help make community more secure by looking out for each other
NHW members receive regular local policing updates
'Pulling Levers' policing
Deterrence theory suggests crime can be prevented when the offender perceives that the cost of committing crime outweighs benefits
General deterrence is idea that general population is dissuaded from committing crime when understood that punishment will follow
Pulling levers is a special kind of deterrence
Pulling levers deterrence framework:
Selecting particular crime problem
Key offenders identified and law enforcement directed at them
Police communicate with offenders to tell them they're under particular scrutiny and how to avoid enforcement action
Deters crime as criminals become aware of consequences
Evaluation
Validity
Valid:
Zimbardo -> residents unaware there was a study going on, natural behaviour
Not valid:
Kelling's observations during Newark foot patrol study were subjective
Reliability
Reliable:
Measures of zero tolerance policing can be considered reliable as based on data from official NYPD records which are collected under strict guidelines
Not reliable:
Evidence to support broken windows theory based on Kelling's observations which were subjective
Sampling bias
Bias:
Difficult to generalise broken windows theory to all cities
No bias:
Broken windows theory can be applied to cities where there is already some breakdown in community controls
Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentric:
Zero tolerance is ethnocentric because they were designed to deal with problems found in Western society
Collectivist cultures may may view the best way to deal with crime in terms of family and community rather than policing
Reductionism/holism
Reductionist:
Broken windows is reductionist as it ignores other explanations such as economy and drug use
Newman (1973) only used physical design of buildings as explanation in different crime rates
Holistic:
Harcourt and Ludwig (2006) found fall in crime due to decreased use of crack cocaine rather than the zero tolerance policy
While zero tolerance should be regarded as an important crime prevention strategy, other factors should be considered
Individual/situational
Individual:
Residents of Newark may have exerted an element of self-restraint in committing crime and this led to reduction of crime in the neighbourhood
Situational:
Explanation of crime being due to the neighbourhoods they're in is situational
Usefulness
Useful:
Brings social benefits to neighbourhoods
Setting out defensible space allows residents to be more satisfied with their neighbourhood
Not useful:
Anecdotal evidence from Kelling lacks validity and therefore his observations must be applied cautiously
Ethical considerations
Ethical:
Informed consent not required as study took place outside in a public space
Disorderly behaviours observed happened in their own neighbourhoods
Conducting socially sensitive research
Sensitive:
Reductions come at too high of a social cost
Argued that zero tolerance policing has violated civil rights
Not sensitive:
Argued that arresting on minor charges can be preventing the offenders from becoming involved with more serious crime in the future