Compare And Contrast Situational Crime Prevention

Compargon And Contrast Situational Crime PreventionA democratic c bother is one(a) in which all supreme powers lie with the people of that community. It requires individuals to answer for his or her actions and requires people to know what they brush off and wad not do. It is a system that promotes individual accountability and responsibility with an oversight to judge ones actions. Democracy promotes rights and freedoms and guarantees society guilty punishment when these rights and freedoms contrive been infringed upon. This means that in order to live in a democratic society, individuals essential value and respect others near them, follow the norms and standards of society, and understand that sanctions apply if they infringe upon anothers standard of life.Crimes ar just now the acts or omissions that infract what is acceptable in society. Crimes theory underlines why certain actions ar unacceptable and improper it illustrates reasons why people commit abomination an d demonstrates why there must be consequences in order to deter others. In most western societies there are codes of conduct or laws that regulate how society is to function and how individuals are to behave. However, no matter how many rules, there remain individuals insistent on partaking in crime and unacceptable behaviour. Born is crime barroom, one approach to relations with crime.Crime prohibition is an attempt to reduce victimization and to deter crime and criminals. It is applied specifically to efforts made by governments to reduce crime, enforce the law, and maintain criminal justice.1It plunder be divided into people, place and situation.2The approach that focuses on people is generally known as crime retainion through social development, where as the approach that focuses on place is generally known as crime prevention through milieual physical body . When these cardinal approaches are combined with situational crime prevention it has been found that there piece of ass be serious reductions in actual crime and delinquency. For the purpose of this essay we are concerned with situational crime prevention and defensible space, a form of crime prevention through environmental design.Situational Crime PreventionSituational crime prevention (SCP) is a strategy which tries to reduce the chance for crime by change magnitude the risks and decreasing the rewards of committing crime.3SCP focuses on preventing the opportunity for crime to occur by addressing factors within a given location that create a crime hotspot. This also includes diminishing characteristics that may make well-nigh people more vulnerable to victimisation because of certain situations.4Increasing the risks of detection, reducing the rewards for offending and increasing the difficulty of offending are all ways to prevent situational crimes. Preventative measures can include installing locks and alarms, increasing surveillance through lighting and reservation buildings harder t o enter. SCP is based on the theory that most crimes committed are contextual and expedient. Therefore, an individual ab fall out to commit a crime is simply responding to the situation around them. SCP examines the circumstances and environment in which individuals may commit crimes, it then identifies possible risks or future crimes, and then searches for solutions specific to those situations.SCP solutions could includeIncreasing the effort required to commit a crime, making it less attractiveIncreasing the risk of being caughtReducing the potential rewards of crimeReducing provocations and temptationsRemoving excuses for committing crimeSCP consists of three zep theoriesRoutine Activity Theory Every crime involves three elements an offender, a target, and an insufficiently guarded environment (thus, must address one or all three).Rational Choice Theory Criminals make rational choices (and not randomly) and thus can be deterred from crime.Offender Search Theory Crime is ver y opportunistic offenders respond to cues given out by the environment (thus, must focus on reducing opportunities).Basically, situational crimes occur because of the situation and environment that an individual is in. Therefore to prevent crime, the theory illustrates that we must change the environment and setting of not merely criminal hotspots, but also all areas where possible crimes may take place. An simulation of an effective SCP campaign is that of the Victorian Governments new measures on street crime. There have been a growing number of intoxicated individuals in the CBD of Melbourne and some individuals and groups have been involved in fights and drunken and disorderly behavior. Situational solutions included education of bar staff and patrons about responsible drinking regulations addressing the number, size and location of bars and their law of closure times police presence at closing times and availability of public transport. This one form of SCP has worked in tha t assaults in the CBD of Melbourne have decreased on average 5.6% since 2008-2009 to 2009-2010.5This leads us in to the term defensible space.Defensible SpaceDefensible Space (DS) is the idea that crime and delinquency can be controlled and palliate through community and environmental design. The idea is important because it associates an individuals environment to his or her expectation of crime in the community or society to which they belong.6The difference in the midst of DS and SCP is that DS is concerned with the residential environment whose physical characteristics (building layout and site plan) function to allow residents themselves to become the key agents in ensuring their own security7, SCP on the other hand relies on governments or authorities assessing the situation and environment of a crime, and then provide sustainable measures in dealing with the setting so as to provide a crime free zone.DS argues that a community is safer when the people feel a sense of owners hip and responsibility for their fade of society. It asserts that the criminal is isolated and cut off because his turf is removed8when all land and property is owned and cared for individuals or members of the community. If an intruder can sense a watchful community, he feels less secure committing his crime9. The idea is that crime and delinquency can be controlled and mitigated through environmental designs.There are four factors that make a defensible space10Territoriality the idea that ones home is sacredNatural surveillance the link amid an areas physical characteristics and the residents ability to picture what is happeningImage the capacity of the physical design to impart a sense of securityMilieu other features that may affect security, such as proximity to a police substation or busy commercial areaThese factors that make a defensible space are crucial to effectively prevent crimes. DS goes further then SCP because it does not rely on crimes to take place, then be analyzed by a third party, and then enacted upon by future deterrent by lack of opportunity. DS can simply prevent crimes because individuals are not likely to offend when they know that there is a member of the community watching them.SCP StrengthsSCP prevents the opportunity for future crimes to exist by addressing the environment and setting to which past crimes have occurred. With the opportunity gone, the theory states that there can be no crime.SCP makes use of mechanical and organizational measures such as CCTV cameras and security guards. This is an effective way to observe crime and keep the public out of harms way in that individuals do not unavoidableness to confront offenders. This is in the publics best interest in that it is harm minimization for all members of society.DS StrengthsDS is inexpensive on the public purse in that it is the people that are policing society. Governments dont need to spend endless amounts of money into new crime prevention techniques and gad gets.DS promotes public awareness and natural surveillance to crime with the public all looking for crime then individuals have little chance of getting onward with crime. This fact deters individuals from offending in that the risk of getting caught greatly out-weighs that of not. It also promotes public unity, in that the people of society can unite as one against the face of crime and report everything they see.Contrast and CritiqueIn analysing DS we can establish the notion that it attempts to be the only preventative measure against crime. DS is individualistic and private, and SCP is collective and public. However, the theory of DS does embark on the opportunity to make SCP and other crime prevention theories obsolete. DS is about changing the environment so as to deter individuals from crime. So therefore, we could engender the concept that if all environments were changed to a private setting, and all individuals take on all four characteristics illustrated in DS, then ther e is no opportunity in theory for crime to be committed. If natural surveillance increases the threat of being caught by taking move to increase the perception that people can be seen, then that should be enough to deter possible offenders. Natural surveillance through environmental design should, if effectively rolled out, be enough to take opportunity away from possible situations, and thus make SCP invalid in that DS has managed to do what SCP aimed at doing.We can see that whilst in theory DS can effectively deal with preventing crime in the public and private arena, it is wholly unrealistic to advert that DS, based on environmental design is ever going to be put into one hundred percent practice. Like most theories and ideologies, we can only implement parts and elements of the theory. It is unrealistic to suggest that in Australian society, let alone the world, DS can be permitted and effectively rolled out. There is simply not enough money to pay for the infrastructure need ed to create such an ideology present, and that is assuming that it would be a joint venture between both public and private financing. Not everyone can afford to upgrade their house so as to convene the philosophies of DS.It is obvious that both DS and SCP need to work together to create sustainable and effective crime prevention. Both share common ground in that both rely on some form of surveillance to effectively deny an opportunity to prevent crime occurring. Natural surveillance measures can be complemented by mechanical and organizational measures. For example,CCTV cameras can be added in areas where window surveillance is unavailable. This combines the strengths of both SCP and DS in that CCTV prevents the opportunity for crime because offenders can be identified. This is one example of how SCP and DS can both work together to achieve crime prevention.More security guards in shopping centers is both a SCP and DS preventative measure in that the individuals are less likely to offend with a security guard is about, the visible presence is an SCP tactic. If there is crime, the people in the shopping centre can notify the security guards, who as an authority, can act accordingly, this is a DS tactic.ConclusionI started off this essay by talking about two things, democracy and its relationship with crime. DS and SCP as ideologies and theories, to an extent, whilst protecting some of our rights, actually take away what we most prize our fundamental rights to freedom and privacy. These essential rights and freedoms are inhibited upon through the enactment of DS and SCP it brings us to the question therefore at what price must we pay to feel safe and secure, to be a crime free society? This question is beyond me because I have mixed views, I like the notions behind DS and SCP and agree more so with philosophies behind DS, however, I also understand that to protect rights we infringe on others.