crime prevention Flashcards
(30 cards)
what can be argued about the way modern cities are designed?
they are unsafe and encourage crime
what did jane jacobs say?
reducing visibility and the number of ‘eyes’ on an area causes problems
what three ideas did jane jacobs talk about?
territoriality- the ability of users to take control of manage their space; surveillance- potential offenders prefer anonymity and avoid surveillance; and crowding out crime- activity increases surveillance and reduces criminal opportunities
what was the pruitt-igoe lesson?
completed in 1956, a utopian solution to ‘urban decay’. demolished in the 70s due to its design.
spacing encouraged crime- as it isolated the community.
a great failure of modern architecture
what concept did newman introduce in 1972?
‘defensible space’- space is considered defensible if it can be clearly perceived as belonging to a person or group of people.
what are the issues with blocks of flats?
there are numerous spaces which do not appear to belong to anyone, e.g., stairwells, lifts, parking areas and shared gardens
what are these numerous spaces considered to be of?
‘secondary’ significance, as residents feel a diminished sense of responsibility for these areas
issues with high-rise buildings and defensible space
residents struggle to distinguish who lived in their building or neighbourhood- which could make identifying potential criminals more difficult.
newman argued this leads to a reduced sense of community with criminal activity less easily detected and challenged.
what else did newman research?
looked at van dyke and brownsville in the new york protects; a series of high-rise blocks vs low-rise with courtyards.
had a similar social density, but crime and vandalism was far higher in van dyke.
why was crime lower in brownsville?
low-rise flags had a common, visible entrance which gave residents greater opportunities for surveillance and strangers were more likely to be challenged.
more cared for communal areas, wall papered and tended gardens put criminals off.
what were people in brownsville more likely to do?
leave their doors open and let their children play out. neighbourhoods met more which created community vs the vandalism being carried out by van dyke children.
what experiment was carried out in van dyke and brownsville?
played a tape recording of an argument- van dyke bolted their doors and turned the tv up, whereas brownsville challenged researchers before they entered the building and came out immediately
factors for defensible space
zone of territorial influence- fence, hedge…
opportunities for surveillance- small groups make community
image- individuality, decorations…
milieu- open spaces attract vandalism
what is the broken windows theory?
visible signs of disorder and misbehaviour in an environment encourage further disorder, misbehaviour and crime.
what did wilson and kelling aim to find?
a situational explanation for crime- disorderly neighbourhoods lead eventually to serious crime.
what did wilson and kelling‘s study link to?
when zimbardo left a car abandoned with its hood up in a rough neighbour and a more upmarket area.
in the first instance the car was quickly destroyed, and the second lasted a week until zimbardo partially damaged it.
badly vandalised within hours.
what did wilson and kelling aim to challenge?
existing beliefs about the fear of crime and the role of the police
what did wilson and kelling find about police attitudes?
existing police attitudes to foot patrol were negative. chiefs felt it reduced mobility and manageability, and officers viewed it as punishment and hard work.
a 5-year evaluation found it did not reduce crime rates.
what did residents report in wilson and kelling’s study?
reported feeling that crime had been reduced, and took fewer behavioural cautions like staying home with foote locked.
what happened to foot patrol officers?
they had higher morale and job satisfaction, as well as improved relations with the community.
rather than catching criminals, they were preventing crime through maintaining public order.
who were officers able to get to know?
‘regulars’ and ‘strangers’, but not all regulars were decent people. officers helped these people learn boundaries- as drunks could sit on steps but not lie down.
how did officers and residents work together?
established rules and both worked to maintain them. made people feel more comfortable reporting disorder.
what did wilson and kelling conclude?
disorder and crime are linked; broken windows affects residents attitudes- as elderly are unable to move from a decaying neighbourhood, which increases crime further as n-one is ‘watching’.
implications for the role of the police
changing focus of policing from keepers of order to crime fighting has reduced community relations; tackling low-level anti social behaviour is important; no personal bias/judgement-treat all offended the same to show police care about all crime levels, and to avoid disorder.
