3.2- describe the contribution of agencies to achieving social control Flashcards
Environmental design
Built environment can affect level of crime, influencing potential offenders, affecting peoples ability to exercise control over their surroundings.
Environmental design - defensible space
Architects, Oscar Newman argues crime is more likely to occur in indefensible spaces, ‘confused’ areas of public space: anonymous walkways and stairwells, belong to no-one, not cared for and are not observed. Defensible spaces are areas with clear boundaries, obvious who has a right to be there, defensible spaces have low crime rates because of territoriality, surveillance, a safe image and a protected location.
Environmental design - Oscar Newman study
Of high-rise blocks in New York, found 55% of crime occurred in public spaces such as hallways, lifts, stairwells and lobbies, because they felt no one ‘owned’ them.
Environmental design - territoriality, natural surveillance, a safe image and a safe location
Where the environment encourages a sense of ownership among residents, feeling of control, certain layouts tell outsiders that particular areas are for private use of residents. Features of buildings allow residents to identify and observe strangers. Building designs should give impression of safe neighborhood: should be a ‘moat’ of safety.
Crime prevention through environmental design
Ideas developed further by American criminologist C.R. Jeffery, the built environment can either create or deny opportunities to criminals, by altering environment we can reduce crime.
Crime prevention through environmental design - Alice Coleman
Analysed 4,099 blocks of flats in two London boroughs, concluded poor design of many blocks produced higher rates of crime and anti-social behavior. Anonymity, lack of surveillance and easy escape, encouraged crime. Her recommendations were to have no more block of flats, each existing block should have its own garden or private space and overhead walkways should be removed because they obstruct surveillance.
Crime prevention through environmental design - influence on plans
On Lisson Green estate in West London, removal of overhead walkways led to a 50% reduction in crime some police forces now employ architectural liaison officers to ‘build in’ crime prevention features at the design stage for new buildings and the ‘Secured by Design’ kitemark scheme used by the building industry indicates that a new building meets crime prevention standards, Home Office research found a 30% lower burglary rate in SBD houses.
Gated lanes: an example of CPTED
Lockable gates installed to prevent offenders gaining access to alleyways, such as those as at the rear of many older terraced houses, used to prevent burglaries, may also stop fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour by youths congregating, dog fouling and creating safe play areas for children.
Gated lanes/ alleys - how do they work?
In review of 43 studies, Sidebottom et al found gates reduced burglary rates because they provide a physical barrier, thus increasing effort required to commit crime, residents take responsibility for closing gates, increases guardianship and surveillance. Gates increase residents sense of territoriality, offenders can no longer use excuse that it was a public space, open alleys may suffer from ‘broken windows’ problem, gating may reduce rewards of crime; difficult to steal large objects if there is tall gates, cost may be an issue for residents in some areas (£728 per gate).
Gated lanes/ alleys - limitations
They don’t work against criminals who live within the gated area, in areas where neighbours may not know or trust eachother, residents may be less likely to get together to install gates, or take responsibility, may be difficult to install gates, all owners need to agree, full consultation with residents to win their commitment to scheme and can restrict access for emergency services and refuse collectors, which can be a problem.
CPTED and theories
Situational crime prevention, involving ‘target hardening’, by changing physical environment to make it harder. Felson’s routine activity theory, emphasises importance of a ‘capable guardian’ protecting potential crime targets: mutual surveillance= guardian. Rational choice theory: if intruders fear they will be challenged by residents, they will be more likely to stay away from area.
Criticisms of CPTED
Focuses on defence from outsiders who come into area to offend, but insiders commit crime too. Cannot prevent offences that don’t involve physical intrusion into a neighborhood, such as cybercrime, fraud, white collar and coorporate crime. Cul-de-sacs might be defensible spaces but may not be actually defended, highlights how social factors 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 play ‘problem families’ with a history of anti-social behaviour on ‘sink’ estates). An areas 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, higher recorded crime rate and even worse reputation.
Prison design - the Panopticon
Foucault argues we are increasingly controlled through self-surveillance, illustrates this through Panopticon, prisoners’ cells are visible to guards from central viewing point such as a watchtower. Though the guards can see the prisoners, the prisoners cannot see the guards, do not know whether or not they are being watched, prisoners must constantly behave.
Surveillance theory
Argues in todays 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.
Behavioural tactics - ASBOs and Criminal Behaviour orders
Tony Blairs New Labour government introduced Anti-social Behaviour Orders, in 1998 to deal with low-level anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, graffiti, public drunkenness and youths gathering to play loud music at night. These were civil orders, not criminal and were used to restrain a person from committing actions that threatened the legal right of another person, like an order to stop behaving noisily outside someones house late at night, breaching conditions of ASBO is a criminal offence, punishable up to 5 years.
