Why Is Barry Felson's 10 Fallacies Of Crime

CRIMINOLOGY 101 D100
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
Instructor: Barry Cartwright

Felix Cheu
301137655

Situational Crime Prevention

Felson’s ten fallacies about crime tell us that common crimes are quickly and easily committed and everyone could be criminals when the temptation of a criminal act has outreached the incentives of obeying the law (Sacco & Kennedy, 2008, p.15-16). When a person sees an illegal opportunity to acquire something valuable, e.g. unattended goods, with very little possibility of getting caught, he/she would probably take it for his/her own desire. In this process, a crime is formed with a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. These three elements above are the basic structure of many crimes in our everyday life. If we add a capable guardian in the structure or make the target less attractive towards the
offenders, many crimes could be prevented, which is principle of situational crime prevention. Situational crime prevention is a kind of deterrence that focuses on the suppression of criminal opportunities (Sacco & Kennedy, 2008, p.338). It seeks to forestall the occurrence of crime, rather than to detect and sanction offenders (Clarke, 2010, p.145). Although it is assumed to be applicable to every kind of crime, it is highly specific that one situational crime prevention case cannot make much impression on the overall crime statistics (Clarke, 2010, p.147). Situational crime prevention first appealed to managers seeking radical ways to solve troublesome crime problems within their business or agencies, before criminologist found it useful to deter crimes (Clarke, 2010, p.146). This is because the problem of explaining crime had been blended with the problem of explaining the criminal, and the problem of controlling crime with that of dealing with the criminal was confused (Clarke, 2010, p.146). Most criminology theories focus on criminals rather than the crime itself. For instance, Sheldon’s mesomorph theory talks about the body shapes of criminals, and Merton’s anomie theory centered on the cause of criminal behaviors. Also, controlling crime and dealing with the criminal was mixed up together. Deterrence theory, Reckless’ containment theory and such were seen adequate to prevent crime until research has shown that offenders pay much more attention to the immediate chances of getting caught than to the punishment they might receive later (Clarke, 2010, p.163). While situational crime prevention seems to differ from most criminological theories, it is closely related to rational choice theory, life exposure theory and routine activity theory. Crime is a purposive behavior designed to meet the offender’s needs for such things as money, status, sex and excitement (Clarke, 2010, p.157). Meeting these needs involves making decisions and choices, constrained by limits of time, ability, the costs and benefits (Clarke, 2010, p.157). Situational crime prevention attempts to make crime more difficult and risky, or less rewarding and excusable as judged by most offenders (Clarke, 2010, p.148, 161). According to life exposure theory and routine activity theory, patterns of activity in active spaces such as work place and home determine the vulnerability of being a victim. Thus, situational crime prevention aims to manipulate the environment and criminal opportunity structure consisting of targets, victims and crime facilitators in order to make crime less beneficial or attractive to offenders (Clarke, 2010, p.148, 161). The four main purposes of situational crime prevention: (i) Increasing the risk (ii) Increasing the difficulties (iii) Reducing the rewards of crime (iv) Remove excuses for crime are achieved through sixteen methods (Clarke, 2010, p.165-166). (1) Target Hardening uses physical barriers to obstruct the offenders, (2) Access Control excludes potential offenders from suitable sites for crime, (3) Deflecting Offenders eliminates the periods of time that easily promotes troubles, (4) Controlling Crime Facilitators regulates items such as weapons from many potential offenders, (5) Entry/Exit Screening increases the likelihood of detecting offenders, (6) Formal surveillance provided by police or security guards creates a deterrent threat to potential offenders, (7) Surveillance by employees act as an informal deterrent to potential offenders, (8) Natural Surveillance such as increased lighting in streets helps reduce crime in specific areas, (9) Target removal takes away the suitable target in the crime structure thus prevents crimes, (10) Identifying Properties makes the physical reward of the crime more difficult for offenders to keep, e.g. vehicle licensing, (11) Reducing Temptation reduces the observable benefits of the crime when potential offenders are making the decision whether or not to commit it, (12) Denying Benefits simply takes away the benefits of the crime, (13) Rule Setting warns potential offenders the shame of getting caught, (14) Stimulating Conscience increases the moral of a person and makes crime less attractive in his/her eyes, (15) Controlling [Psychological] Disinhibitors, such as passing drinking age laws, removes the justification offenders have when committed a crime, (16) Facilitating Compliance reduces the potential for a crime to occur (Clarke, 2010, p.167-180). From above methods, chances of crime occurring are minimized. Brantinghams’ 1993 article on “Nodes, Paths and Edges” incorporates the criminal event theory and situational crime prevention to show how the physical environment influence crime patterns of individual and what can be done from there to reduce overall crime rate from (Brantinghams, 1993, p.5). Brantinghams stated a few key ideas before demonstrating his studies. He points out that (1) crime is an event that occurs when a person with some readiness to commit a crime comes across a suitable situation, (2) many crimes in fact appear to be highly opportunistic and involve little or no conscious searching, (3) high variability of crime results in each solutions being focused and specialized, and (4) potential offenders make their decision of committing crimes based on the surrounding (Brantinghams, 1993, p.4, 5, 8, 10). Brantinghams' findings are strongly related to routine activity theory. Brantinghams have found that major urban planning from zoning to design to transportation planning help shape crimes, for instances, residences of corner houses usually experience the highest rate of burglary (Brantinghams, 1993, p.5, 11). Criminals have preferences when choosing a crime site, they tend to choose places near them, and where they feel comfortable and do not stand out (Brantinghams, 1993, p.13). Personal crimes primarily occur at home or where people go to drink, whereas property crimes occur at or near major active zones of both victims and or offenders such as known shopping centers, work or school (Brantinghams, 1993, p.10). It is therefore the conclusions: (1) physical characteristics of different land use shape the distribution of crime and (2) crimes will be reduced if routine activities include less potential triggering events are made to bring up the solutions suggested from the circumstances (Brantinghams, 1993, p.17, 21, 22). Solutions of preventing crimes from the physical environment perspective mainly involve target hardening, access control, deflecting offenders and the use of natural surveillances of the sixteen methods of situational crime prevention. Brantinghams have suggested (1) placing specific physical barriers at certain locations to harden potential, suitable targets and control access of potential offenders, (2) carefully design the use of lands, e.g. bus stop location, to deflect offenders by cutting periods of time that would easily lead to trouble, and (3) enhance natural surveillances such as strength of street lighting, availability of defensible spaces to deter offenders (Brantinghams, 1993, p.21, 22). All and all, this article is a good example of situational crime prevention application. It has shown us how we could lower the crime opportunity in real life. Situational crime prevention as a criminological theory is not only valuable to criminologists, it is also useful and helpful for law enforcements, political leaders and the general public.
Law enforcements, as formal surveillance, could practice situational crime prevention and deter potential offenders more efficiently. The introduction of random breath testing and photo radar enforced by law and executed by law enforcements contributed to the sharp decrease of related crime (Clarke, 2010, p.171). Political leaders could use situational crime prevention to develop a safer city, thus gaining more trust from the general public. As mentioned in Brantinghams’ article, opportunities for crime can be reduced through the design of a better physical environment. For the general public, situational crime prevention is most suitable to create a safer environment and protect them from any loss. When the general public employs the methods of situational crime prevention around their household or business, offenders will be deterred and potential crimes remain as potential
crime. To sum up, situational crime prevention looks at crime opportunity and seeks to remove or reduce the occurring chances. It was neglected from criminologists but now become increasingly important for them to understand about crime. They are specific, but universal to many crimes. As situational crime prevention protects individuals from losing valuables or becoming victims, it is also useful to the public. Methods of preventing crime can incorporate with many things to form a safer environment for individuals to live in.

Reference
Brantingham, P. L. and Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, Paths and Edges: Considerations on the Complexity of crime and the Physical Environment. Environmental Psychology, 13(1), 3-28
Ronald V. Clarke (2010). Situational Crime Prevention. In Wright, B.R.E and McNeil, R.B. (Eds), Boundaries: A customized reader. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Sacco V.F. and Kennedy L.W. (2009). The Criminal Event: An Introduction to Criminology in Canada, 4th Ed. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.