CD11 - Crime Control and Prevention 

Crime prevention is a central concern in sociology, reflecting how societies seek to address deviance and maintain order. Realist perspectives—comprising left realism and right realism—offer distinct explanations for why crime occurs and inform corresponding strategies for its reduction. Understanding these theoretical foundations is essential to critically evaluating the effectiveness of crime prevention methods.

Left Realists focus on the structural conditions that foster crime, such as relative deprivation, marginalization, and the emergence of deviant subcultures. They argue that these systemic inequalities generate a sense of exclusion and injustice, particularly among working-class and minority groups. Crime, in this view, is not a product of individual failure but a response to the pressures of an unequal society. As a result, left realism advocates for social and community crime prevention, emphasizing measures to reduce inequality and strengthen social cohesion.

In contrast, Right Realists prioritize individual agency, suggesting that crime is a rational choice made when the perceived benefits outweigh the risks or consequences. This perspective shifts focus from societal structures to the behavior of the individual offender. Accordingly, right realism underpins situational crime prevention—strategies that increase the risks and reduce the opportunities for crime—and environmental crime prevention, which addresses the physical conditions that might encourage deviance.

By linking crime prevention methods to the causes of crime identified by realist sociologists, students can explore how these approaches seek to address, or overlook, the underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior. This chapter examines the strategies proposed by these perspectives, their strengths and limitations, and their real-world applications.

Social and Community Crime Prevention

Left realists argue that crime is deeply rooted in social inequalities, including relative deprivation, marginalization, and the emergence of deviant subcultures. Unlike theories that focus solely on the individual, left realism highlights how structural issues create the conditions for crime. Their proposed solutions emphasize addressing these social problems directly through community-oriented strategies. Social and community crime prevention aims to foster a sense of belonging and solidarity, reducing the likelihood of deviant behavior.

This approach draws heavily on Hirschi's Social Bond Theory, which posits that strong community ties—through attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief—reduce the likelihood of criminal activity. By strengthening social bonds, communities can foster informal social control, where individuals are less likely to offend because they fear damaging their relationships and reputations.

Key Principles of Social and Community Crime Prevention

  1. Addressing Structural Inequalities: By targeting poverty, unemployment, poor education, and social exclusion, these methods seek to eliminate the conditions that make crime more likely.
  2. Fostering Community Bonds: Inspired by Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory, this approach strengthens community ties to promote informal social control, where individuals monitor and discourage deviant behaviour within their communities.
  3. Early Intervention: Many programs focus on intervening early in individuals' lives to prevent the development of criminal behaviours, especially among vulnerable groups.

Examples of Social and Community Crime Prevention Methods

Intervention Programs: Troubled Families Program

Intervention programs take a more targeted approach, addressing families already identified as being at risk of criminal or antisocial behaviour. In the UK, the Troubled Families Program, launched in 2011, provides a compelling example of this strategy. Initiated following the 2011 riots, the program aimed to "turn around" 120,000 families identified based on criteria such as truancy, unemployment, and involvement in crime.

Each family was assigned a key worker, who worked intensively with them to address underlying problems. The program aimed to:

  • Improve school attendance (targeting over 85% attendance rates).
  • Reduce antisocial behaviour and criminal activity (a reported 33% reduction in youth crime).
  • Increase employment among adults in participating families.

By addressing these issues holistically, the program sought to reduce the social and economic conditions that often lead to deviance. However, while the government claimed a 90% success rate, critics argued that the statistics may have been exaggerated, and the program faced challenges in scalability and funding.

Community-Based Projects: Perry Preschool Project

Community-based initiatives form the cornerstone of social and community crime prevention. These include youth groups, parenting classes, and community centers, which aim to create supportive environments and address social inequalities. A notable example is the Perry Preschool Project (1962–1993) conducted in Michigan, USA.

This longitudinal study involved 123 African American children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods, divided into a program group and a control group. The program group received:

  1. Structured Preschool Education: Focused on developing soft skills such as teamwork, problem-solving, and social behaviour.
  2. Home Visits: Teachers visited families weekly to assist parents in fostering educational and social development at home, including activities like reading and cooking.

The results of the study were remarkable:

  • Educational Attainment: 71% of the program group graduated high school compared to 54% of the control group.
  • Crime Reduction: Juvenile arrests were lower among the program group (2.3 per individual versus 4.6 in the control group), and adult arrests also showed significant declines.
  • Economic Benefits: By age 27, participants earned nearly 60% more than their counterparts in the control group, reducing economic pressures often linked to criminal behaviour.

The Perry Preschool Project highlights how early intervention can break cycles of deprivation and crime, demonstrating the effectiveness of community-based crime prevention.

Strengthening Informal Social Control 

Informal social control plays a vital role in social and community crime prevention by empowering individuals within communities to take collective responsibility for maintaining social order. Unlike formal mechanisms such as policing or the legal system, informal social control relies on relationships, shared norms, and community engagement to discourage deviant behaviour. This approach fosters a sense of belonging and accountability, reducing the likelihood of criminal activity by addressing it at the grassroots level.

Key Elements of Informal Social Control

  1. Community Engagement
    A strong sense of community is at the heart of informal social control. When individuals feel connected to their neighbourhoods, they are more likely to take an active role in maintaining safety and social order. For example Community Mentorship Programs
    Mentorship programs connect at-risk individuals with role models who can provide guidance and support. 

  2. Role of Socialisation
    Informal social control extends to the socialization process, particularly for children and young people. Parenting support groups and community-based mentoring programs aim to instil pro-social values early, ensuring that individuals grow up understanding the importance of cooperation, respect for others, and adherence to societal norms. For example Parenting support groups like the Sure Start Program help families socialize their children into pro-social behaviours, reducing the likelihood of future deviance. These programs provide guidance on conflict resolution, effective communication, and creating a stable home environment.

  3. Active Monitoring and Intervention
    Community members often monitor each other’s behaviour and intervene informally to correct deviance. For example, a neighbour might discourage a young person from vandalizing property or guide a struggling family toward resources that could help prevent further issues. This type of intervention is non-punitive and rooted in mutual respect and concern for the well-being of others. Neighbourhood watch schemes are a classic example of informal social control in action. These initiatives involve residents actively observing their surroundings and reporting suspicious activities to local authorities. 

Situational  Crime Prevention

Situational crime prevention is grounded in the right realist perspective, which emphasizes individual choice and rational decision-making in criminal behaviour. Right realists, such as Ron Clarke, propose that individuals commit crimes when they perceive the rewards to outweigh the risks or costs. Consequently, crime can be deterred by altering the immediate environment to increase risks, reduce rewards, or make the act of committing a crime more difficult. This strategy focuses on addressing the opportunities for crime rather than its deeper societal causes.

Right realists see crime as an inevitable feature of human behaviour, but argue it can be managed and minimized by implementing preventative measures that shape the offender's decision-making process. Clarke’s Rational Choice Theory underpins this approach, suggesting that offenders weigh the costs and benefits of their actions before deciding to commit a crime. By increasing the effort required to commit a crime or raising the likelihood of detection, situational crime prevention seeks to alter the cost-benefit balance, discouraging potential offenders.

Designing Out Crime: Hostile Architecture

Designing out crime is a key strategy in situational crime prevention that focuses on reshaping physical spaces to deter criminal activity. The goal is to make environments less conducive to deviance by increasing visibility, limiting opportunities for concealment, and creating spaces where criminal acts are more likely to be noticed and less likely to succeed. This method is often referred to as hostile architecture, reflecting its proactive approach to discouraging criminal behavior through environmental design.

Key Features of Hostile Architecture

Hostile architecture is employed in various urban settings to prevent specific types of crime. Common design elements include:

  • Eliminating Concealment: Removing blind spots, corners, or poorly lit areas that can serve as hiding places for criminal activities.
  • Increasing Surveillance: Installing features like open layouts, centralized observation points, and enhanced lighting to improve visibility and deter offenders.
  • Altering Usability: Designing public spaces to discourage misuse, such as angled benches to prevent sleeping or spikes in doorways to deter loitering.

The effectiveness of these measures lies in their ability to disrupt the conditions under which crime typically occurs, as explained by Felson and Clarke’s Routine Activity Theory. According to this theory, crime happens when three elements converge: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardians. Hostile architecture seeks to break this convergence by increasing guardianship and reducing the suitability of targets.

Case Study: The New York Port Authority Bus Terminal

A well-documented example of hostile architecture is the redesign of the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal in the 1990s. This project incorporated several features aimed at reducing crime and improving safety in what had been a high-crime area.

  1. Curved Walls
    The redesign eliminated hidden corners where illicit activities, such as drug transactions or assaults, could occur. By increasing visibility throughout the terminal, these curved walls reduced the opportunities for offenders to act undetected.

  2. UV Lighting
    Bathrooms were equipped with UV lighting, which made it difficult for intravenous drug users to locate veins. This simple yet effective measure discouraged drug use within the facility and helped to address a persistent problem in urban spaces.

  3. Centralized Security Desks
    Security desks were positioned to allow a 360-degree view of the terminal. This layout ensured constant surveillance, reducing blind spots and increasing the perceived likelihood of being caught. This design also made security personnel more approachable and visible, fostering a sense of safety among commuters.

These features collectively transformed the terminal from a space conducive to crime into a monitored, open, and less inviting environment for deviant behaviour. The results were striking: crime rates within the terminal dropped significantly following the redesign, demonstrating the effectiveness of hostile architecture in crime prevention.

Target Hardening

Target hardening is a cornerstone of situational crime prevention, focusing on fortifying potential crime targets to make them less accessible, less attractive, or both. By increasing the difficulty and risk of committing a crime, target hardening seeks to alter the offender’s cost-benefit analysis, discouraging criminal behaviour. This strategy aligns with Ron Clarke’s Rational Choice Theory, which posits that offenders make calculated decisions based on the perceived risks and rewards of their actions.

Examples of Target Hardening

Target hardening encompasses a wide range of measures, implemented in both private and public spaces, to reduce the vulnerability of potential targets:

  1. CCTV Cameras
    CCTV systems are a common feature of modern urban environments, providing continuous surveillance to deter offenders. The presence of cameras increases the risk of detection and identification, acting as a significant deterrent. Studies, such as the evaluation of CCTV in city centres by Welsh and Farrington (2009), demonstrate reductions in property crimes and thefts in areas with visible surveillance systems. However, their impact on violent crime is less pronounced, as these offenses often occur impulsively.

  2. Burglar Alarms and Reinforced Locks
    Residential and commercial properties benefit significantly from the use of burglar alarms and reinforced locks. These measures not only delay unauthorized access but also signal that the target is protected, deterring opportunistic offenders. The presence of visible security features, such as alarm boxes, can serve as a psychological deterrent, reducing the likelihood of attempted break-ins.

  3. Gated Communities
    Gated communities are designed to limit access to residential areas, ensuring that only authorized individuals can enter. This physical barrier acts as a deterrent to offenders, particularly those seeking easy access to homes. Sociologist Mike Davis discusses gated communities in his work on urban security, noting how these spaces create a sense of exclusivity and safety, albeit often at the expense of social inclusivity.

Target Hardening in Public Spaces

Public spaces employ a variety of target hardening techniques, often sparking debates about their ethical implications:

  1. Homeless Spikes
    Metal spikes placed in doorways or on benches discourage rough sleeping by making the space physically uncomfortable. While effective in preventing loitering, this measure has been criticized for targeting vulnerable populations rather than addressing the root causes of homelessness.

  2. Angled Benches
    Benches designed at an angle or with divided seats prevent individuals from lying down, deterring loitering and prolonged use. These features are often installed in parks or transport hubs to maintain a perception of order and cleanliness.

  3. Pay-to-Use Toilets
    Requiring payment to access public restrooms reduces misuse for illicit activities, such as drug use. However, critics argue this practice disproportionately affects low-income individuals who may already struggle to access basic facilities.

Psychological Deterrents

In addition to physical barriers, target hardening often leverages psychological deterrents. Signs like "Beware of Dog" or fake CCTV cameras exploit offenders’ fear of being caught, even when the threat is not real. Clarke highlights the importance of perceived risk in deterring crime, noting that many offenders are deterred by the possibility of detection, regardless of whether the measures in place are operational.

Environmental Crime Prevention 

Environmental crime prevention emphasizes the role of well-maintained and orderly environments in deterring criminal behavior. This approach is based on the idea that visible signs of disorder—such as broken windows, graffiti, and litter—create opportunities for deviance by signaling a lack of care and enforcement. In contrast, clean and well-managed public spaces foster community pride and responsibility, reducing the likelihood of criminal activity. Two key frameworks for this approach are Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows Thesis and zero tolerance policing.

Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows Thesis

Proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982, the Broken Windows Thesis posits that minor signs of disorder, if left unchecked, can lead to more significant criminal behaviour. Wilson and Kelling argued that neglecting small infractions sends a message that rules are not enforced, which emboldens offenders to escalate their actions. Maintaining order in public spaces, even for minor issues, can prevent the development of more serious crime by reinforcing social norms and deterring deviant behaviour.

The New York Subway Clean Car Program

The New York Subway Clean Car Program provides a compelling example of the Broken Windows Thesis in action. During the 1980s, New York City’s subway system was notorious for high levels of crime, vandalism, and graffiti. Subway cars were covered with graffiti, creating an environment that felt unsafe and unregulated. This disorder contributed to a general perception that the subway system was chaotic and lawless, discouraging public use and encouraging further deviance.

In response, transit authorities implemented the Clean Car Program, a policy that focused on restoring order to the subway system. The key elements of the program included:

  • Immediate Removal of Graffiti-Covered Cars: Any subway car with graffiti was taken out of service until it could be thoroughly cleaned. This created a zero-tolerance stance on vandalism.
  • Visible Maintenance Efforts: The authorities made sure that once cleaned, the cars remained graffiti-free. Any new graffiti was removed quickly, signaling that disorder would not be tolerated.

The effects of this program were transformative. Over time, the persistent cleaning policy discouraged graffiti artists, as their efforts were rendered futile. The clean subway cars symbolized a renewed sense of order and safety, encouraging public confidence in the transit system. This visible improvement in the subway environment coincided with a broader decline in crime within the system, supporting the central premise of the Broken Windows Thesis—that addressing minor issues can prevent more significant crimes.

Further support for this idea comes from Skogan (1990), who found that neighborhoods with visible disorder experienced higher levels of fear and crime over time. His research highlights how neglecting small issues undermines informal social controls, as residents feel less empowered to intervene or participate in their communities.

Zero Tolerance Policing

Zero tolerance policing is a strict law enforcement strategy rooted in the principles of the Broken Windows Thesis, which emphasizes addressing minor signs of disorder to prevent more serious crimes. This approach involves the enforcement of severe penalties for even minor infractions, such as littering, graffiti, fare evasion, or public urination. By "sweating the small stuff," zero tolerance policing seeks to create an environment where potential offenders understand that no level of deviance will be tolerated, thereby discouraging more serious criminal behaviour.

The Implementation of Zero Tolerance Policing in New York City

In the 1990s, New York City became the global symbol of zero tolerance policing under the leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton. The city's crime rates had soared in previous decades, with high levels of violent and property crimes contributing to a widespread perception of lawlessness. Giuliani and Bratton sought to change this by applying zero tolerance strategies across the city.

Key elements of their policy included:

  1. Crackdowns on Minor Offenses
    The NYPD aggressively targeted minor crimes like subway fare evasion, vandalism, and public drinking. For example, individuals caught jumping subway turnstiles were arrested and prosecuted, sending a clear message that even minor violations would face serious consequences.

  2. Increased Police Presence
    Officers were strategically deployed to high-crime areas, where they enforced laws for small infractions. This visible presence of law enforcement not only deterred criminal behaviour but also reassured residents that the city was reclaiming public spaces from disorder and crime.

  3. Swift and Visible Action
    Offenders were quickly apprehended and dealt with, creating a perception of efficiency and control. Publicized arrests for minor offenses further reinforced the city’s commitment to zero tolerance.

Outcomes of Zero Tolerance Policing

The results of these policies were striking. Between 1993 and 2001, overall crime rates in New York City fell dramatically:

  • Violent Crime: Decreased by approximately 56%.
  • Property Crime: Dropped by nearly 65%.
  • Murder Rates: Plunged from 26.5 murders per 100,000 people in 1993 to 7.3 in 2001.

Supporters of zero tolerance policing attribute these declines to the psychological deterrent created by the strategy. By demonstrating that no crime was too small to punish, the policy disrupted the escalation of criminal behaviour, aligning with the idea that neglecting minor offenses leads to more serious crimes.