Situational crime prevention in A motivated Environment
Situational crime prevention is different from other crime control approaches that attempt to change the disposition or personality of offenders. Situational crime prevention policies do not deal with the crime or the criminal activity directly. Instead, situational crime prevention theories are based on changing the individual’s environment. Situational crime prevention also targets potential victims by changing their behavior is a way as to reduce their likelihood of becoming crime victims. Situational crime prevention tends to mainly target women and children for such intervention, since they have higher chances of victimization.
Examples are the television and radio commercials aimed at preventing a domestic violence battery and child abuse. These campaigns intentions are to change the behavior of the predators and the men’s. The media campaigns call on men to change their attitudes and behavior against domestic violence. Even though such social campaigns may unusual and may sometimes be very graphic by nature they can be both educational and empathetic in informing the community to not tolerate violence at home. These campaigns demonstrated that by demonizing perpetrators and sensationalizing the victims their environments would have been altered by letting the community know that tolerance for such form of abuse would not be accepted.
Situational crime prevention ignores the individual, instead if focuses on the individuals interaction with its environment. It must be emphasized that the theoretical stance in situational prevention, which has a great deal in common with social learning theory (R.V.G. Clarke 1982), determines a productive interaction between the individual and the environmental scenarios. To prevent and to reduce crime the individual’s interaction with their environment must be analyzed. Architect Newman emphasises that to reducing delinquency in high schools “it is just as plausible to locate the causes of delinquency in the individual as in the environment (1980: Newman) “. Situational crime prevention policies reduce crime though environmental design by deterring low-rate offenders form being able to coming any crime, in addition policies are geared to identify and eliminate high-rate offenders. Situational crime control offers effective measures for the community and will most likely change the criminal to be perception of committing a crime in that particular neighbourhood.
In an attempt to change the disposition or personality of offenders for example,” the introduction of technology which enabled telephones to display the calling number on a potential victim’s phone served to reduce the number of obscene phone calls (Clarke, 1991)”. Security recordings on videotape, cell phones, photographs on credit cards etc, can also reduce the risk of personal items from being stolen. A similar argument concerning the negative aesthetics of an environment such as loud guard dogs, barbed wire and security cameras will deter any criminal activity from occurring. While these are also form of Situational crime prevention theories that will have an effect of changing the individual’s perception of a good target to commit a crime, effective crime deterrents require planning and community consultation. These form of aesthetics imply that a criminal should be frustrated by the situational measures being enforce will change the criminal decision on the time, location and type of crime to be committed. The extend, under which these rational choice policies get applied with immediately effect the motivation of the perpetuator and effectively deterring the opportunistic offender.
In an effort to understand the distinction between the motivation versus the motive of the offender.Adequate Implementation and ability to carry out situational crime prevention effectively,play the most important role in removing targets that may lead to opportunities for offences to be committed, such as larceny, auto theft, home burglary and many white collar crimes. When you’re able to carry out situational crime prevention effectively then the community would be crime free.
Unlike many other theories of crime, both views rational choice theory and routine activity suggest ,crime is not just a pathological activity requiring explanation, but instead it’s part of our normal daily activities . As such, crime is seen as a situational risk than can be analyzed hopefully, avoided. For example, Smith and Burrows (1986) showed how simple changes in a hospital’s management procedures could reduce the amount of fraud. Another study established that certain bus seats are more prone to vandalism than others, and this enabled the bus company to use vandal-resistant materials in the most vulnerable seats (Sturman, 1980). These studies are examples of understanding the distinction between focusing on the motivation versus the motive of the offenders risks were calculated and crime prevention initiatives to be targeted appropriately.
“According to (Cohen and Felson, 1979). Some similarities with rational choice theory are routine activity theory s view, if a crime is to occur there must be a combination of three basic elements, i.e. a motivated offender, a suitable victim, and the absence of a capable guardian.” The theory was originally developed as an explanation of personal-contact predatory crimes such as muggings, but was later extended to cover a wider range of offences.
This theory developed a view explaining the reason why larger cities harbour so much crime has nothing to do with its architectural environment ,but the fact that the three elements motivated offenders, vulnerable targets and a lack of suitable guardians are brought together in the cities. The theory does not consider the motivations required for offending, instead it that the offenders are within society. Similarly, ‘suitable victims’ may include anyone whom the offender may target to attack. I addition, these theories suggest an individual’s lifestyle is a significant contributor in increase chance of becoming a victim. For example, the people with whom you associate with ,it could also be the number of times you choose to go out at night to local bars alone and the environment (area)where you will contribute to a person’s chances of victimisation.
In monitoring and understanding the distinction between focusing on the motivation versus the motive of the offender lifestyle is the highest contributor of crime in our society. For example, most homes in Arizona will possess fairly desirable electrical goods such as video recorders, iPod, iPhones, cells phones, computers, ps3 LCD televisions etc. Also most homes owners tend to leave their homes unoccupied for much of the day while they are at work or at school. By understand. Furthermore, modern mobile homeowners are unlikely to spend time building up good relations with their neighbours, all these elements in combination make victimisation of certain homes more likely.
By understand how situational crime prevention is different from other crime control approaches t and being able to bring together the policies and theories incorporated in rational choice theory and routine activity .Tends to lead to an increased focus on the relationship between certain environments and types of crime. We understand why certain locations usually generate more crime, or whether they just provide a suitable environment in which crime just happens to occur. The environment does not so cause crime as merely provide an appropriate setting for it to occur. It very important to understand rational choice and routine activities perspectives with certain environments more likely to encourage criminal activity and certain environments less likely to do so
Need an essay? You can buy essay help from us today!