Introduction
Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) is a perspective in criminology that examines situational factors in criminal acts and implements specific interventions aimed at disrupting said factors and preventing crime. It is summarized in the article “Situational Crime Prevention” by J. Freilich and G. Newman. This paper will reflect on the description provided in the document and suggest some materials that praise or critique the perspective’s application.
Criticisms and Praise
The rationality principle, stating that potential criminals perform what amounts to a cost-benefit analysis, is a fundamental premise of SCP. However, there have always been doubts as to whether one can always be rational, leading to the notion of bounded rationality (Freilich & Newman, 2017). Sidebottom and Tilley (2017) describe a situation where an offender’s “aggression is ‘expressive’ rather than ‘instrumental’” (p. 79).
Coyne and Eck (2015) further point out that during this supposed cost-benefit analysis, one may not consider the deterrents and “operate on faulty heuristics” (p. 24). This, despite the reduction of provocations’ inclusion in SCP’s 25 methods, contradicts the fundamental notion that people commit crimes to reach some measurable goal.
SCP focuses on deterring crime by increasing the risk and effort in committing a crime. However, research, as well as experience, shows that this is not always an effective tactic. Active resistance by the victim, for instance, should seem like an obvious way to deter an offender. However, in some situations, like child sexual abuse, fighting back and calling for help only succeeded in “warding off an offense in 11.8% and 4% of cases” (Jacques & Bonomo, 2016, p. 11). The same offender-based study shows that removing the excuse by simply refusing one’s advances was the most successful defense tactic by the victim. These findings suggest that different interventions’ effectiveness might vary on a crime-by-crime basis, necessitating further research.
Another criticism is that the design methodologies advocated by SCP, such as defensible space and environment manipulation, create restrictive and unwelcoming places. The paper by Raymen (2015) argues that the results of such methodologies reduce public spaces to “non-places” that prevent day-to-day social interaction along with criminal acts. It further posits that such measures have ultimately led to a rejection of “social solidarity in favor of a competitive individualism which is willing to harm others to further the benefits of the self” (Raymen, 2015, p. 508). Therefore, although most studies corroborate the short-term reduction of crime due to SCP interventions, their possible long-term effect on the broader social structure warrants further research, as it may be harmful.
Despite these criticisms, SCP generally shows positive results in the short-term reduction of crime. In their review, Bowers and Johnson (2016) maintain that overall, situational approaches tend to be effective (p. 123). Their review also mentions that when such approaches were implemented, “geographic displacement was not an inevitable consequence” (Bowers & Johnson, 2016, p. 132). However, they add that the effect of such measures varies based on the location and type of crime targeted. Although no adverse effects have been noted, this suggests that SCP is not necessarily effective in preventing certain types of crime.
Conclusion
SCP, as a perspective in criminology, has demonstrated its effectiveness and positive outcomes in the years since its inception. However, the fundamental principle of rationality is somewhat flawed, even if bounded rationality is taken into account. Furthermore, it has been shown to have unequal outcomes depending on the specific type of crime being targeted by its methods. Finally, while SCP’s short-term positive effect on crime reduction is evident in studies, cautions of a long-term adverse effect on the social well-being related to the planning of public spaces should not be ignored.
References
Coyne, M. A., & Eck, J. E. (2015). Situational choice and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(1), 12–29. Web.
Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2016). Situational prevention. In D. Weisburd, D. Farrington, & C. Gill (Eds.), What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation (pp. 111-135). New York, NY: Springer.
Freilich, J. D., & Newman, G. R. (2017). Situational Crime Prevention. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Web.
Jacques, S., & Bonomo, E. (2016). Learning from the offenders’ perspective on crime prevention. In B. Leclerc & E. U. Savona (Eds.), Crime prevention in the 21st century: Insightful approaches for crime prevention initiatives (pp. 9-17). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
Raymen, T. (2015). Designing-in crime by designing-out the social? Situational crime prevention and the intensification of harmful subjectivities. British Journal of Criminology, 56(3), 497–514. Web.
Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2017). Situational crime prevention and offender decision making. In W. Bernasco, J-L., van Gelder, & H. Elffers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of offender decision making (pp. 67-87). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Web.