3.2 Flashcards
Environmental design
Some criminologists argue that the built environment can affect the level of crime in two ways:
• by influencing potential offenders, e.g. presenting them with opportunities to commit crime
• by affecting people’s ability to exercise control over their surroundings.
They argue that agencies such as architects, builders, town planners and local councils can
‘design crime out’ by changing the physical layout of an area.
Environmental design 5 list
Defensible space:
-The architect Oscar Newman argues that some spaces are defensible while others are indefensible.
- Indefensible spaces are where crime is more likely to occur, in what he calls ‘confused’ areas of public space such as anonymous walkways and stairwells
- they belong to no-one, are cared for by no-one, and are observed by no-one. E,g., in his study of high-rise blocks in New York, Newman found that 55% of all the crimes committed occurred in public spaces such as hallways, lifts, stairwells and lobbies, because no-one felt they ‘owned’ them.
- Defensible spaces are areas where there are clear boundaries so it is obvious who has the right to be there
- Newman argues that defensible spaces have low crime rates because of four key features: territoriality, surveillance, a safe image, and a protected location
Territoriality:
- Territoriality is where the environment encourages a sense of ownership among residents - the feeling that it is their territory and they control it
- Certain layouts also tell outsiders that particular areas are for the private use of residents. For example, cul-de-sacs project a ‘private’ image and encourage a sense of community.
Natural surveillance:
- Features of buildings such as easily-viewed entrance lobbies and street-level windows allow residents to identify and observe strangers. - Likewise, cul-de-sacs allow residents to overlook each other’s homes
- By contrast, high-rise blocks often have concealed entrances that allow offenders to come and go unseen.
A safe image:
- Building designs should give the impression of a safe neighbourhood where residents look after each other
- A negative image means the area will be stigmatised (negatively labelled) and targeted by offenders.
A safe location:
- Neighbourhoods located in the middle of a wider crime-free area are insulated from the outside world by a ‘moat’ of safety.
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
C.R. Jeffery’s Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) argues that altering the built environment can reduce crime by denying opportunities to criminals. Alice Coleman applied similar ideas in the UK, finding that poor design in blocks of flats increased crime due to anonymity, lack of surveillance, and easy escape routes. She recommended private spaces for each block and removing overhead walkways. These ideas influenced urban planning, leading to a 50% crime reduction on the Lisson Green estate and the implementation of the ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD) scheme. Homes meeting SBD standards have a 30% lower burglary rate.
An example of CPTED
- gated lanes ‘designed to keep crime out’ of an environment e.g., burglary, stop fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour, create sae place for children
- Gated lanes are lockable gates installed to prevent offenders gaining access to alleyways e.g., those at the rear of many old terraced houses.
How does CPTED: Gated lanes work? (7)
• They provide a physical barrier, thus increasing the effort required to commit a crime.
• Residents taking responsibility for closing the gates increases guardianship and surveillance.
• Gates increase residents’ sense of territoriality.
• Offenders can no longer use the excuse that they thought it was public space.
• Open alleys may suffer from the ‘broken windows’ problem of disorderly, uncared-for space that invites crime. Gating indicates it is a cared-for space that doesn’t tolerate crime.
• Gating may reduce the rewards of crime. e.g., it will be difficult to steal large objects if the offender has to climb over tall gates with the items.
• Cost may be an issue for residents in some areas, although Sidebottom et al found that the average cost was £728 per gate and that the average benefit was over twice the cost (£2.19
for every €1 spent).
Limitations of CPTED
• While they may decrease criminals entering from outside, they don’t work against criminals who live within the gated area.
• In areas where neighbours don’t know or don’t trust each other, residents may be less likely to get together to install gates, or may not take responsibility for them.
• There may be difficulties installing gates if the alley is a public right of way, or if it has several owners all of whom will need to agree. There needs to be full consultation with residents to win their commitment to the scheme.
• Gated lanes can restrict access for emergency services and refuse collectors, which can be a problem.
CPTED theory
CPTED has links with the right realist theories and ideas:
• Situational crime prevention (SCP) Like SCP, CPTED involves ‘target hardening’ by changing the physical environment to make it harder to commit crime: e.g. barriers to prevent vehicle access to a neighbourhood will make getaways harder.
• Felson’s routine activity theory emphasises the importance of a ‘capable guardian’ protecting potential crime targets. In CPTED, mutual surveillance by neighbours acts as a guardian.
• Rational choice theory CPTED sees offenders acting rationally. For example, if intruders fear they will be challenged by residents, they will be more likely to stay away from the area.
Criticisms of CPTED (5)
• CPTED focuses on defence from outsiders who come into the area to offend, but insiders commit crime too; e.g. domestic violence
• CPTED cannot explain offences that don’t involve physical intrusion into a neighbourhood e.g., cybercrime, fraud, and white collar and corporate crime.
• Cul-de-sacs might be defensible spaces - but they might not actually be defended e.g., if the residents are all out at work all day, there is no surveillance. This highlights how social factors (such as employment patterns) can interact with environmental factors.
• Some housing estates have high crime rates because of councils’ housing allocation policies rather than because of how they are designed. Some councils place ‘problem families’ with a history of anti-social behaviour on ‘sink’ estates.
• An area’s reputation rather than its design may cause a high crime rate. If police regard a particular estate as crime-ridden, they will patrol it more, leading to more arrests, a higher recorded crime rate and an even worse reputation.
Prison design: the panopticon
- Another way in which the built environment can be used for social control is the way prisons are designed
- Foucault argues that in modern society we are increasingly controlled through self-surveillance
-He illustrates this through a description of a prison design known as the Panopticon (meaning ‘all-seeing’). - In the Panopticon, prisoners’ cells are visible to the guards from a central viewing point such as a watchtower
- However, though the guards can see the prisoners, the prisoners cannot see the guards and so they don’t know whether or not they’re being watched at any given moment.
- Therefore, not knowing if they are being watched, the prisoners must constantly behave as if they are, just in case
- In this way, surveillance turns into self-surveillance. The guards have no need to discipline the prisoners; the prisoners discipline themselves.
Surveillance theory
- Foucault’s surveillance theory argues that in today’s society, self-surveillance has become an important way of achieving social control
- We know that we might be being watched - for example by CCTV cameras - so we monitor and control our behaviour ourselves.
What are behavioural tactics?
- Behavioural tactics are ways in which agencies can seek to change individuals’ behaviour to make them conform to social norms and laws.
2 examples of behavioural tactics:
• ASBOs and Criminal Behaviour Orders
• token economies.
ASBOs and Criminal Behaviour Order
- Tony Blair’s New Labour government introduced ASBOs (Anti-social Behaviour Orders) in 1998 to deal with low-level anti-social behaviour e.g., vandalism, graffiti, public drunkenness and youths gathering to play loud music at night.
- ASBOs were civil orders, not criminal orders, and were used to restrain a person from committing actions that threatened the legal right of another person, e.g., an order to stop behaving noisily outside someone’s house late at night
- However, breaching the conditions of an ASBO was a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in prison.
Labelling theory and ASBO’s
- It gradually became clear that ASBOs were not working e.g., between 2000- 2013, ASBOs were issued to just over 24,000 people, 58% of them breached their ASBO’s conditions, and 10,000+ orders were breached repeatedly.
- Labelling theorists argue that labelling a person as a criminal or deviant can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- In this situation, the individual internalises the label as part of their identity and begins to live up to it, earning status and credibility from their peers
- Labelling theorists suggest that ASBOs became a ‘badge of honour’ for some young offenders, reinforcing rather than reducing their offending behaviour and leading to repeat offending.
Criminal behaviour orders
- As a result of criticisms of ASBOs, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced them with 2 new measures: civil injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders.
- Injunctions aim to deal with low-level nuisance and annoyance. Breaching an injunction can mean up to 2 years in prison for adults or a 3 month detention order for under-18s.
- Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) deal with seriously anti-social individuals who cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. A CBO lasts at least 2 years for adults and 1-2 years for under-18s. Breaching a CBO can mean up to five years in prison for adults or two years’ detention for under-18s.
CBOs negative and positive requirements
- Negative requirements As with ASBOs, a CBO forbids a person from doing something, such as going to certain places, seeing certain people or engaging in certain activities.
- Positive requirements Unlike an ASBO, a CBO can require a person to do something positive to improve their behaviour. For example, where someone has committed a drug related offence, the CBO can require them to join a drug treatment programme to address their addiction.
