What is the Difference Between Crime Prevention and Victimization Prevention?Difference Between Crime Prevention and Victimization Prevention?
The concept of crime prevention has been defined in a number of ways. A rather inclusive definition would be the sum total of all proactive state policies and private initiatives (by individuals, community groups, businesses, and other organiza- tions) intended to reduce the damage inflicted by lawbreaking activities. Another formulation would include any interventions in mechanisms believed to cause criminal incidents that would reduce the
170 CH APT ER 5
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
probability of these occurrences. A third definition does not emphasize intentions but focuses on results: any strategy or program that reduces the number of offenses or offenders or victims, or the amount of damage (see Schneider, 2014). In a prac- tical sense, crime prevention means “the anticipa- tion, recognition, and appraisal of a risk, and the initiation of some action to remove or reduce it” (National Crime Prevention Institute, 1978).
Prevention relies on proactive strategies that discourage the development of illegal activities, as opposed to reactive crime control measures taken by the justice system in response to acts that have already been committed. Formerly, crime preven- tion strategies centered on government programs designed to eradicate the social roots of lawbreaking behavior, such as desperation for money, job shortages, failing school systems, and racial discrim- ination. Community-based crime prevention cam- paigns focused on lowering the dropout rate in school systems, providing decent jobs for all those who want to work, and developing meaningful recreational outlets and summer jobs for otherwise idle youth. But since the 1970s, this approach, which relies upon social investments by govern- ment to ameliorate conditions that generate street crime, has fallen out of favor because the consider- able expenses of these approaches require substantial revenue from taxation.
Over the decades, a subtle shift has taken place in so-called crime prevention measures. A better term than crime prevention for some of these pre- emptive moves, like installing surveillance cameras, is victimization prevention (see Cohn, Kidder, and Harvey, 1978).
Victimization prevention is much more modest in intent than crime prevention. Its goal is to dis- courage criminals from attacking particular targets, such as certain homes, warehouses, stores, cars, or people. Like defensive driving, victimization pre- vention hinges on the dictum, “Watch the other guy, and anticipate his possible moves.” The shift from crime prevention on a societal and govern- mental level to victimization prevention on a neighborhood, group (business, campus, office building), and personal level demands that potential
victims become crime conscious (or “street smart”). The responsibility for keeping out of trou- ble increasingly falls on the possible targets them- selves, who must outmaneuver would-be offenders and keep one step ahead of them. Crime-conscious individuals are compelled to follow victimization prevention tips, which are long lists of dos and don’ts compiled from observations of other people’s misfortunes. The recommendation derived from studies of other people’s mistakes is that cautious persons should take measures that make them appear to be well protected and their property well guarded, so that criminally inclined prowlers will look elsewhere for easier pickings (Moore, 1985).
Intense interest in the part played by lifestyles and routine activities has led to many new strategies to diminish the odds of being singled out for trou- ble. The ways people try to diminish their odds are called risk-reduction activities.
Avoidance strategies (Furstenberg, 1972) are actions people take to limit personal exposure to dangerous people and frightening situations, such as not allowing strangers into their homes or ignor- ing passersby who attempt to strike up conversa- tions on deserted streets.
Risk-management tactics (Skogan and Maxfield, 1981) minimize the chances of being harmed when exposure is unavoidable. Examples include walking home with other people rather than alone, or carrying a concealed weapon.
Situational crime prevention rests upon interventions that are designed to block criminal opportunities from developing in a particular time and place through the management, design, or manipulation of the human and physical environ- ment (Schneider, 2014).
Crime prevention through environmental design (referred to by the acronym CPTED) stresses the importance of creating well-protected, defensible space (Newman, 1972) by target hardening (add- ing locks, erecting fences) and maintaining effective surveillance (limiting the number of entrances, improving visibility by trimming bushes and adding bright lights). In public housing projects, certain architectural designs can enhance defensible space
TH E O N GO IN G C ON T RO VE RSY O VE R S HARE D RE S P ON S IB I L I T Y 171
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
by erecting barriers to channel traffic and conse- quently limit the escape routes used by intruders. Extending defensible space requires that neighbors take some responsibility and ownership for semipub- lic and semiprivate areas by nurturing a sense of community spirit (collective efficacy) and encourag- ing self-help initiatives like block associations and neighborhood watch patrols (Golden, 2009).
Crime resistance means making an offender’s task more difficult through threat assessment and advanced planning. Risk-reduction actions can be categorized as individual or collective (when arranged in cooperation with others) (Conklin, 1975), and as either private-minded or public- minded (Schneider and Schneider, 1978).
However, the valve theory of crime shifts predicts that the number of offenses committed actually will not drop when targets are hardened because criminal activity simply will be displaced. If one area of illegal opportunity is shut off (for example, if robbing bus drivers is made unprofitable by the imposition of exact fare requirements or pre- paid cards), those who are desperate for cash will shift their attention to comparable but more vulner- able targets (such as cabdrivers or storekeepers) (National Commission on the Causes and Preven- tion of Violence, 1969a). When crime is displaced and criminals are deflected, the risk of victimization goes down for some but rises for others, assuming that offenders are intent on committing crimes and are flexible in terms of time, place, target, and tac- tics (Allen et al., 1981).
Victimization prevention strategies adopted by very crime conscious individuals actually might endanger other people who may be less cautious or less able to implement countermeasures. Victimization will be redistributed spatially, geo- graphically, and socially—a far cry from genuine crime prevention, which would lower the risks everyone faces. For example, a pamphlet distributed by the country’s largest police department frankly acknowledged that self-protective measures might merely redirect offenders elsewhere: “No vehicle is theft-proof. You must approach this problem with the attitude that it will not be my car that becomes part of the statistics. As selfish as it may sound, if
the thief wants a car of your year, make, and model, let it be someone else’s. If you follow these guidelines and take all the necessary precau- tions to protect your car, the chances are it will not be stolen” (New York Police Department, 1992).
The contention that victimization prevention methods simply shift the burden on to others, while alleviating the dangers faced by cautious peo- ple and their well-guarded possessions, is a plausible hypothesis that researchers must examine. One thing is clear: target-hardening strategies certainly lend themselves to commercial exploitation. Adver- tisements constantly proclaim that new, virtually foolproof, security-enhancing products are for sale. As these goods and services are purchased by a growing market share of people who desperately don’t want to become statistics, victimologists can test the claims to see which devices work best, or if they have any appreciable impact at all.
Should each prudent person worry only about his or her own safety and take protective measures to ward away prowlers and fend off thieves? How many anticrime devices and precautions are sufficient? Is there a limit, a point of diminishing returns?