Situational crime prevention [SCP] is used in relation to crime prevention
policy that highlights the opportunity basis of a crime (Walklate,
2011). Similarly to the Rational Choice Theory, SCP assumes that crime
depends on opportunities for criminal behaviour: if the costs of
committing the crime will outweigh its benefits, the crime committing
becomes unprofitable (Walklate, 2011, p.82). Situational crime prevention use lots of techniques (such as increasing of efforts, increasing of risks, reducing the awards) to
affect these opportunities. However, there can be seen possible
negative unintended consequences of these kinds of approaches.
One of their biggest criticisms is the idea of displacement –
which is based on the idea „that the impact of the measures taken
by situational crime prevention tends to be geographically limited”
(Newburn, 2013, p.597). It means that the crime won't disappear by
application of situational crime prevention but will simply move its
presence to a different place. It has been well-pointed by Hakim and
Rengert (1981), that there are different types of displacement that
exist. It can be spatial (intended crime committed in a different
place). An example of spatial displacement is shown by Chaiken's
study (et. al., 1974). He presented that an early New York police's
research on subway's 'crackdowns' suggest that robberies had been
displaced to the street. But, displacement can be also
target-oriented (crime focused on switching from one target to
another). A good example of this type of displacement is shown by
Mayhew's study (et. al., 1976). The research showed that the
introduction of steering column locks for new cars in United Kingdom
didn't cut the crime but only displaced theft onto less-protected,
older vehicles. In addition, the displacement can be also temporal
(intended crime committed at a different time), tactical (using a
different method to commit the intended crime) or functional
(committing different from initially intended kind of crime)
(Newburn, 2013,p.597).
However, there can be also found different than displacement
possible negative unintended consequences resulting from situational
crime prevention. One of the main criticisms of these approaches is
fact that it ignores the root causes of crime, such as complex social
and socio-economical factors. “Situational analyses might explain
where and when crimes occur but contribute little to our
understanding of why crimes occur” (Wortley, 2010,p.2). Therefore,
the application of situational crime prevention methods can be seen
as a very limited solution and poor response to crime. For example,
Wortley (2010) highlights that situational crime prevention methods
almost always rely on the assumption that citizens should be taking
precautions against their own victimisation; This way the mechanical
and wide application of situational crime prevention methods can lead
to the evils of victim-blaming. In addition, the ubiquitous presence
of gates, guards, CCTV, surveillance or extra locks can be seen as a
very invasive and oppressive methods which can create a distrustful
and fearful 'fortress' society as well as disintegrate the
communities as a result (Wortley, 2010,p. 7).
