Crime topic 5 Flashcards
(20 cards)
What did Brown and Altman (1983) suggest would deter burglars?
Barriers eg fences
Territorial markers, signal owners individuality such as house name plaques
Traces eg garages
What is defensible space?
Environmental designs of neighbourhoods eg high rise flats experienced increased levels of crime.
What did Newman suggest in relation to ‘defensible space’?
A space which can be perceived as belonging to a personal person or small group of people.
The physical design of housing can encourage/discourage crime, eg Van Dyke and Brownsville. Van Dyke with high rise flats had a higher crime rate.
Why is there a problem with high rise flats?
Numerous spaces don’t belong to one person eg stairwells, shared garden, residents feel diminished responsibility.
Which other factors did Newman identify as leading to a reduced sense of community?
Neighbourhoods can consist of a number of high rise buildings with a reduced sense of community.
What should be done to create defensible space in a block of flats?
Courtyards- greater surveillance opportunity.
Residents should take more care of communal areas to give a sense of ownership.
Children should play to build a sense of community.
What did Wilson and Kelling (1982) suggest with the Broken Windows theory?
A lack of social cohesion, failure to challenge minor disorders increases serious crimes.
Visible signs of disorder and neglect eg a broken window, can encourage further antisocial behaviour.
If minor issues are left unaddressed it signals an area to appear unmotivated leading to more serious crime.
What does the zero tolerance policies and foot patrol suggest?
Zero tolerance is defined as ‘a type of policing that involves dealing with all kinds of crime rather than just serious offences.
Consisting of-
Addressing all types of crime
Police officers challenge even low level crime
Low level crime should be tackled with low-intensity, humane methods.
Foot patrols are carried out by community police, tackling small crimes such as minor acts of vandalism, it creates an environment where there is a social norm of low/norm criminal activity.
It also helps increase confidence in the community, where people will go out more creating a stronger social cohesion with a mutual surveillance.
What was the aim of Wilson and Kellings research?
Outline effectiveness of the safe and clean neighbourhoods programme to see if features of a neighbourhood can influence crime rates and the changing role of the police in the US and strategies for maintaining order.
What was the method?
An article, published 5yrs after the safe and clean neighbourhoods program started, an evaluation article was carried out by W+K.
Referring to the ‘Newark food patrol experiment’.
Brief summary of procedure?
W+K considered Newark as a case study, used a naturalistic observation of police officers, Kelling accompanied different police officers over many hours.
Results of existing attitudes?
Negative towards foot patrol, police chiefs felt it reduced mobility of workers. Officers didn’t want to be out in the cold as they viewed it as a punishment.
Effect on crime rates?
It did not reduce crime rates
Residents feeling about crime?
Felt crime had been reduced, taking fewer behavioural precautions and had a more favourable view of the police.
Morale of foot patrol officers and relationships with the community?
Higher morale and job satisfaction, improved relations with the community.
How ‘order maintenance’ prevented crime?
Foot officers got to know the community, establishing informal rules.
Residents felt more confident to report disorder because they felt something would be done.
What was the broken windows metaphor?
Impossible to separate disorder and crime. Any condition which fails to conform to traditional standards of decency, cleanliness or proper conduct.
W+K concluded unchallenged behaviour leads to breakdown of community control can lead to more serious crime.
Community disorderliness leads to- increased fear or crime, isolation, lack of faith in the police.
What are the main conclusions?
The relationship between low level and serious crime can be broken down with the broken windows metaphor.
Police order should be created and maintained collaboratively by police and the community.
Section A question?
- Aim, Procedure
- Neighbourhoods where vandalism occurs could be improved. Signs of decay such as broken windows encourages vandals to break more windows and further damage. W+K suggest to prevent crime problems must be fixed when they are small eg graffiti should be repaired quickly so crime doesn’t escalate.
- W+K outline the effectiveness of zero tolerance policing, through relentless and aggressive law enforcement against even minor crimes. Minor crimes like vandalism should be pursued to avoid escalation in criminal behaviour, in NYC crime fell by 40%. We should consider the broken windows theory to reduce crime as graffiti and vandalism portray a broken community.
Section C question?
Application 1-
Improve control of access to properties, eg single clear point of entry
Increase opportunities for surveillance, eg well designed street lights.
Create and maintain a sense of ownership. eg plant trees
Zone of territorial influence- markers such as hedges
Application 2-
Foot patrols and zero tolerance, helps create a social environment in which the norm is that the disorder is not tolerated which maintains order. Rationale- W+k
Application 3-
Situational crime prevention-
People often commit crimes to their own benefit but criminals must perceive benefits of of not committing crime, offenders are motivated by minimal likelihood of getting caught, anticipating good outcomes.
Make crime harder to commit eg bike locks, tagging car
Creating defensible status, increase risk of being caught to challenge crime,
Poyner and Webb found a significant reduction in vandalism and theft on a British housing estate following these measures.
