Negatives of SCP - SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION

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).

An attempt to explain behaviour of rioters in London 2011

How could contemporary classicist thinking be used to explain the behaviour of the rioters? Your answer should identify at least one key thinker/author and use evidence to support your claims. In approx 250 words, your answer should briefly describe two key points in favour of adopting the approach and two potential shortcomings.

Behaviour of the rioters that took place in London, 2011, can be explained by using contemporary classicist thinking. Two main theories should me mentioned. Routine Activities Theory developed by Cohen & Felson in 1979, is focused on the situation in which offending takes place. This theory contains 3 key ideas that can effectively explain why the crime took place (causes of crime): 1. Suitable target (rioters found shops as ‘easy money’ target, with easy access to goods); 2. Absence of guardian (there wasn’t enough police to stop them, they didn’t act effectively); 3. Criminal inclinations – motivated offender (riots as a result of a hatred towards police, after death of Matt Doughan). 

Another theory is The Rational Choice Theory developed by Cornish & Clark in 1989, which have in its centre the idea of ‘expected utility’ – individuals’ actions based on maximising profits and minimising loses. This approach can be satisfactory used in explaining the behaviour of rioters as many of them have been motivated by easiness of burglary. Big number of rioters calculated profits which outweighed the costs – they didn’t have to put much effort in burglary process (easy access to shops) and thought that they will get away with it – not enough police present – which also implicates practical use of these theories in crime prevention.

To sum up, these are key points in favour of adopting this approach. But we need to remember that contemporary classicist thinking has its shortcoming as well. This theories present only 3 factors for committing the crime, while there is way more of them. They do not consider psychological aspects of offending as well as moral (not everybody would do it, because of their own, moral constrains). They also neglect the social aspects of committing a crime such as level of education or economic status.