“Situational” Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice

2017 ◽  
pp. 471-482
Author(s):  
R. V. G. Clarke
2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Hunn ◽  
Caroline Spiranovic ◽  
Jeremy Prichard ◽  
Karen Gelb

There are claims that the societal appetite for ‘child exploitation material’ is increasing. Yet, Australia’s policy response does not include initiatives to dissuade potential offenders from deliberately viewing child exploitation material for the first time (onset). To critically examine this issue, this paper draws on Situational Crime Prevention theory. It argues that (a) many first-time child exploitation material viewers fit the Situational Crime Prevention construct of the Opportunistic Offender and (b) suggests that current policy overlooks the kinds of non-instrumental factors that increase the risk of onset for this group, including doubts about the criminality and harmfulness of viewing child exploitation material. The paper then empirically examines social attitudes to child exploitation material viewing by presenting the findings of a survey of 504 Australian internet users. Results indicate that a sizeable minority of the participants were: unaware that it is a crime to view certain types of child exploitation material in Australia; and held doubts about the harmfulness of viewing child exploitation material. These findings are used to reflect on how the presence of these non-instrumental factors among ordinary internet users may affect the offending readiness of the Opportunistic Offender. Policy implications are then briefly discussed.


Author(s):  
Ronald V. Clarke

Situational crime prevention is radically different from other forms of crime prevention as it seeks only to reduce opportunities for crime, not bring about lasting change in criminal or delinquent dispositions. Proceeding from an analysis of the circumstances giving rise to very specific kinds of crime and disorder, it introduces discrete managerial and environmental modifications to change the opportunity structure for those crimes to occur—not just the immediate physical and social settings in which the crimes occur, but also the wider societal arrangements that make the crimes possible. It is therefore focused on the settings for crime, not on delinquents or criminals. Rather than punishing them or seeking to eliminate criminal dispositions through improvement of society or its institutions, it tries to make criminal action less attractive. It does this in five main ways: (1) by increasing the difficulties of crime, (2) by increasing the immediate risks of getting caught, (3) by reducing the rewards of offending, (4) by removing excuses for offending, and (5) by reducing temptations and provocations. It accomplishes these ends by employing an action research methodology to identify design and management changes that can be introduced with minimum social and economic costs. Central to this enterprise is not the criminal justice system but a host of public and private organizations and agencies—schools, hospitals, transit systems, shops and malls, manufacturing businesses and phone companies, local parks and entertainment facilities, pubs and parking lots—whose products, services, and operations spawn opportunities for a vast range of different crimes. Some criminologists believe that the efforts that these organizations and agencies have made in the past 20 or 30 years to protect themselves from crime are responsible for the recorded crime drops in many countries. Situational crime prevention rests on a sound foundation of criminological theories—routine activity theory, crime pattern theory, and the rational choice perspective—all of which hold that opportunity plays a part in every form of crime or disorder. There is therefore no form of crime that cannot be addressed by situational crime prevention. To date, more than 250 evaluated successes of situational crime prevention have been reported, covering an increasingly wide array of crimes including terrorism and organized crimes. Many of the studies have found little evidence that situational interventions have resulted in the “displacement” of crime to other places, times, targets, methods, or forms of crime. Indeed, it is commonly found that the benefits of situational crime prevention diffuse beyond the immediately targeted crimes. Despite these successes, situational crime prevention continues to attract much criticism for its supposed social and ethical costs.


Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Blasco ◽  
Nicholas A. Fett

The authors laid the groundwork for analyzing the crypto-economic incentives of interconnected blockchain networks and utilize situational crime prevention theory to explain how more secure systems can be developed. Blockchain networks utilize smaller blockchains (often called sidechains) to increase throughput in larger networks. Identified are several disadvantages to using sidechains that create critical exposures to the assets locked on them. Without security being provided by the mainchain in the form of validated exits, sidechains or statechannels which have a bridge or mainchain asset representations are at significant risk of attack. The inability to have a sufficiently high cost to attack the sidechain while mainchain assets can be withdrawn, along with the disconnect between the integrity of the sidechain and the value of the stolen assets are among the top disadvantages. The current study used a vulnerability analysis and theoretical mathematics based on situational crime prevention theory to highlight the attack vectors and prevention methods for these systems. Much of the analysis can be applied to any distributed system (e.g. blockchain network), particularly any supposedly trustless off-chain component. The equations developed in the current study will hold for any two chains that are bridged and pass value back and forth and provides evidence to suggest a public sidechain is likely not a viable option for scalability due to security concerns. Criminal strategies on blockchain networks in the digital realm are similar to criminal strategies in the physical realm; therefore, the application of criminology can lead to more efficient development and ultimately more effective security protocols.


2018 ◽  
Vol 679 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Lynch ◽  
Paul B. Stretesky ◽  
Michael A. Long

Situational crime prevention theory suggests the need for innovative, non-criminal-justice polices to control crime, but that approach has not been widely employed by criminologists addressing the control of environmental crime. Numerous examples of innovative environmental social control practices can be found outside of the criminological literature; but within criminology, such studies have most often been undertaken by conservation criminologists, while green criminologists have undertaken empirical studies illustrating the ineffectiveness of traditional, punitive responses to environmental crime. Here, we briefly review the use of situational crime prevention theory and research by conservation criminologists and provide examples of environmental social control policies used by various nations that are consistent with situational crime prevention arguments. We also note that research and theory in other disciplines suggest that crime is produced by larger structural economic forces, indicating that situational crime prevention alone is likely not sufficient to control environmental crime.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document