Situational Crime Prevention Research Paper

Richard Rivas
Criminology
06/06/07

Assignment 1
3). Situational crime prevention aims to remove whatever is attractive to criminals about committing that particular crime. An example of this is the method they use at the shoe stores in the mall. At footlocker they only show you one shoe, this makes stealing non-rewarding for thieves. It would not make sense to only steal one shoe even if it was in your size. This approach reduces crime in quick and practical ways, by removing the opportunities a criminal has to commit a crime. Situational Crime prevention works well when the crime is an offense, that clusters in time or space. This would explain why so many stores implement this form of crime prevention. In movie rental places such as blockbuster, the movies are kept up front where only the employees can reach them. This also makes it much easier to find the person who steals the movie or game because it would have to have been done by someone who works there. While there is no doubt that this method of crime prevention works to prevent burglary and theft, there is some dispute on
its effectiveness on violent crime. One can argue that while situational crime prevention may prevent crime at that particular store, the criminal is likely to just go elsewhere.
Some would argue that this method does not really stop crime; it just stops it in that area. This method may stop crime in cities and stores that are well off and equipped with these kinds of security measures. This method however only brings more crime to poorer neighborhoods that cannot afford these security measures. If the store in the Chapel Hills mall owns cameras and security devices than that will cut down on the theft at that particular store. It just brings the crime to a smaller store that is only MORE affected by this crime than its larger counterpart. Ultimately a criminal will weigh out the risk and costs of the crime, and when the costs and risk of the crime are too high a crime is less likely to
occur. This crime prevention method operates under the theory that criminals are more likely to commit a crime if it is easy for them to commit. An example of this would be someone leaving their windows open, or their doors unlocked. While leaving your windows up and locking your doors definitely will not prevent your vehicle from being broken into it will help.
The argument that I make from this is if it really works as well as we would like to believe. Looking at the crime rate statistics in the United States, it has not declined significantly since these implements were put in. The only crime that has dropped significantly is vehicle theft, and I would argue that is because vehicles or more unique and easier to find now. Vehicles are less expensive and it is harder to sell the vehicle or parts in the vehicle, so no line can be drawn here either to support situational crime prevention. The United States is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, and we have more cameras and security measures than any other country. Yet the United States has triple the crime rate as many European Countries, Countries in South America, and Canada. So I don't see how a line can be drawn between the two in almost any way. We have to be careful and not forget what really deters crime, a high employment rate, a good economy, and a good family. While I am not arguing that situational crime theory does not work, just that it seems to be used to provide us with a false sense of security. I would like to end with this, if technology and situational crime theory work so well, why isn't the United States with all of our technology the safest country in the world?