applied, crime prevention

HideShow resource information
whats prevention?
Reducing the likelihood of crime happening by making it more difficult for the criminal and less worthwhile
1 of 59
Defensible Space Theory (Newman)?
A cost-effective method using the majority of people, who are law abiding citizens, to contain criminal activity by working with the police rather than engaging in vigilantism (avenging crime themselves
2 of 59
in this theory what are public spaces designed as?
Public spaces are designed so that law-abiding residents can collectively (as a community) take control over the semi-private spaces they’ve been given
3 of 59
first element of defensible space theory?
Zone of territorial influence: make individuals feel a sense of ownership and protectiveness over their neighbourhood by getting them to invest financially in their residence, putting up gates and fences to mark their boundaries- show their ownership
4 of 59
second element of defensible space theory?
Opportunities for surveillance: Make sure entrances and communal areas are overlooked, or put up CCTV. Build housing in smaller groups so neighbours know one another and can identify who shouldn’t be in the building
5 of 59
third element of defensible space theory?
Image: Personalisation of communal areas/ exterior of buildings should be encouraged to make residents feel more territorial, and appearance of building improved so they value them and are motivated to protect their residence.
6 of 59
fourth element of defensible space theory?
Milieu: Residences should be built in busy areas or next to civil service buildings so there’s lots of surveillance by people and CCTV. High rises should be avoided as they’re known by criminals to have design flaws (unsurveilled areas).
7 of 59
evidence newman, sample?
Two NY housing projects in 1972 (these are low income/ welfare housing developments): Van Dyke and Brownsville. Roughly equal social density (288 people per acre).
8 of 59
newman method?
A quasi experiment comparing a high-crime rate high rise housing project (Van Dyke) with a lower crime-rate walk-up housing project (Brownsville)
9 of 59
newman method 2?
Analysed factors about the features of the neighbourhood which differed and therefore may explain the higher crime rate, graffiti, and vandalism in the high-rise building
10 of 59
newman method 3?
This was followed-up by an observation of how residents behaved when a recorded argument was played in the corridors of their buildings
11 of 59
findings brownville?
Courtyards and common entrances were easily visible (easier surveillance) from the flats and therefore more defensible as strangers were more likely to be noticed and challenged.
12 of 59
finding brownville 2?
Communal areas were well-kept (gardens and wallpapered corridors) which suggested ownership to criminals and discouraged them from criminal behaviour or vandalism.
13 of 59
findings brownville 3?
People often allowed their children to play in communal areas and kept their doors open, which meant they developed better relationships with their neighbours, so worked together as a community to protect their space.
14 of 59
findings brownville 4?
Residents challenged the researchers before they even entered the building to play the recorded argument * Neighbours came out when they heard the argument.
15 of 59
findings van dyke?
Children were allowed to play out without supervision which meant they were often the offenders responsible for vandalising the area. * People did not leave their doors open leading to less of a sense of community
16 of 59
findings van dyke 2?
Neighbours locked their doors when they heard the argument and turned up the volume on their TVs.
17 of 59
conclusion?
The fact that Brownsville had more enclosed and surveillable spaces, had a better image, and residences were clustered in small groups of 3-6 families, increased residents’ feelings of territorial influence
18 of 59
what does the conclusion make them more likley to do?
making them more likely to challenge or report suspicious activity than in the Van Dyke, the High Rise, which had a lot of concealed communal spaces (i.e. corridors and foyers).
19 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 1
Disorder (any behaviour which fails to conform to traditional standards of decency, cleanliness, and proper conduct) indicates higher crime rate. This could be physical (i.e. graffiti, and vandalism), or it could be social drugs begging etc
20 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 2
Triggers fear of crime in residents.
21 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 3
Residents spend less time in public places interacting with members of their community. They become too fearful to challenge minor disorderly behaviours.
22 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 4
This means that criminals are more confident committing crimes, including more serious ones, as they are not challenged, and they have the privacy to commit criminal acts because there are less people present on the streets to act as guardians
23 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 5
Wealthier individuals move away from the area resulting in urban decay, less surveillance, and more opportunities for criminal activity.
24 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 6
When minor crimes are reported, police explain they are too short-handed to deal with these petty crimes, and citizens lose faith in them. This leads to a failure to report crimes.
25 of 59
broken windows theory, wilson and kelling? 7
Criminals become even more confident in carrying out criminal behaviour as they are not being reported
26 of 59
Evidence: Case of Zero tolerance policy?
Crackdown on minor offences/ disorder in NY in the 1990s, during which people were arrested for minor crimes, i.e. washing car windscreens at traffic lights without drivers’ consent, fare dodging on subway, begging.
27 of 59
what happend within the zero tolerance policy?
7000 more police officers were employed to sweep for these minor violations. To maintain order, stop-and-search techniques were also used.
28 of 59
what happened to the crime rate? due to the zero tolerance
By 1996, the crime rate had dropped by 25%. This was attributed by the police commissioner to the zero tolerance policy.
29 of 59
key research- Wilson and Kelling, what was it on?
Reviewing Broken-windows policies
30 of 59
what was the aim of wilson and kelling?
To investigate whether police foot patrols and community policing reduce crime.
31 of 59
what was the method of wilson and kelling?
A review of Newark foot patrol experiment, part of a government initiative to increase police foot patrols in the State of New Jersey, 5 years after its initiation, as support for their theory.
32 of 59
how was some data gathered, wilson and kelling?
Some data gathered from naturalistic participant observation of police foot patrol
33 of 59
5 year evaluation by the Police Foundation found The Newark Foot Patrol experiment? 1
Resulted in no decrease in crime rates
34 of 59
5 year evaluation by the Police Foundation found The Newark Foot Patrol experiment? 2
Was rated poorly by officers because foot patrol duty was often used, and therefore viewed, as a punishment. It was also physically exerting, cold, and wet, and perceived as reducing the chance of catching serious criminals.
35 of 59
5 year evaluation by the Police Foundation found The Newark Foot Patrol experiment? 3
Made residents feel more secure and believe that crime had been reduced. Made residents less likely to stay at home.
36 of 59
5 year evaluation by the Police Foundation found The Newark Foot Patrol experiment? 4
Residents were more confident reporting crime as they felt an arrest would be made
37 of 59
5 year evaluation by the Police Foundation found The Newark Foot Patrol experiment? 5
Community foot patrol police had more positive attitudes towards citizens than when in patrol cars. This resulted in better community relations.
38 of 59
5 year evaluation by the Police Foundation found The Newark Foot Patrol experiment? 7
As police were familiar with their neighbourhoods, they established informal rules with regular offenders which maintained the perception of order. saying drunks could sit and not lie down on the floor.
39 of 59
whats the key conclusion?
Public order needs to be created and maintained by police and communities collaboratively (police presence builds relationships with communities who are then more likely to report crime and act as guardians surveilling their streets)
40 of 59
issues with broken windows prevention strategies? public order not a problem for police because?
Their success is based on arrest rates and crime rates. Police are therefore deployed in high crime areas or in solving crimes. Economic cutbacks meant less foot patrols
41 of 59
Public order is often not a priority for police forces because? 2
The use of informal rules leads to issues with legality of methods (they may infringe on an individual’s rights)
42 of 59
Public order is often not a priority for police forces because? 3
The use of informal rules leads to differences in policing of areas; one officer may arrest a homeless person on a charge of vagrancy and another may not because they know the individual’s adverse circumstances.
43 of 59
what did wilson and kelling suggest about the use of informal rules?
Wilson & Kelling suggest this leads to letting many people off with minor crimes, and the community may perceive this as an increasing the danger in their neighbourhood, leading to the broken window effect.
44 of 59
conclusions, solutions to these problems?
Appropriate selection and training of foot patrols is required to prevent discrimination. Citizen patrols or off duty police officers could be used to overcome resourcing issues.
45 of 59
conclusions, solutions to these problems? 2
Foot patrols should be prioritised in neighbourhoods at the tipping point, where public order is deteriorating but there is still a ‘community’ that want to work together and protect each other.
46 of 59
conclusions, solutions to these problems? 3
The authors suggest that in some instances the rights and needs of the community outweigh the rights of the individual.
47 of 59
application, surveillability? aim
To test the defensible space hypotheses that surveillability and evidence of territorial concern will deter burglars.
48 of 59
sample surveillability?
43 males, imprisoned for burgling from homes.
49 of 59
surveillability procedure? 1
50 black and white photographs of single-family houses were assessed for actual barriers, road surveillability, occupant’s surveillability, and traces of occupancy, by graduate students.
50 of 59
surveillability procedure? 2
The same photographs were then given to the burglars, to sort under the numbers 1-7 (with 1 being the highest risk of being burgled and 7 being the lowest). In interview, conducted in prison, were asked why they found properties to be vunreable or no
51 of 59
surveillability findings?
Burglars judged vulnerability to be lower when at least ¾ of the house and yard were visible from the road.
52 of 59
surveillability findings 2?
Adult burglars judged houses with road or occupant surveillability as less vulnerable.
53 of 59
surveillability findings 3?
Youth burglars judged houses with road, but not occupant surveillability , as less vulnerable.
54 of 59
surveillability findings 4?
The most common reasons burglars gave for sorting a house as highly vulnerable were: seclusion of property, opportunities for concealment, and sliding glass doors.
55 of 59
surveillability findings 5?
The most common reasons burglars gave for sorting a house as not vulnerable were: beware of dog signs, property too open, and neighbours too close.
56 of 59
surveillability conclusions? 1
As the theory predicts, houses rated by students as easily surveillable were rated as the least vulnerable targets by burglars.
57 of 59
surveillability conclusion? 2
Contrary to the theory, evidence of territorial concern had no effect on burglars (traces of occupancy, and actual barriers). Burglars apparently assume that occupants who care for the exterior of their house possess goods they can profit from
58 of 59
what can also be used in a application question?
Broken Windows policies
59 of 59

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Defensible Space Theory (Newman)?

Back

A cost-effective method using the majority of people, who are law abiding citizens, to contain criminal activity by working with the police rather than engaging in vigilantism (avenging crime themselves

Card 3

Front

in this theory what are public spaces designed as?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

first element of defensible space theory?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

second element of defensible space theory?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all crime resources »