Criticisms of Situational Crime prevention

Situational Crime Prevention

CriticismsIt ignores the root causes of the crimes, the theory only looks at preventing the moment in which a crime is committed but does not tackle the reasons for a crime to be committed. It may be argued that tackling an offender's reason to offend may be a more effective method of reducing crime in the long term.

Though reductions in crime may be considerable (often more than 50 percent), situational measures usually ameliorate, not eliminate a problem. (Clarke, 1997)

Measures have sometimes failed due to technical or administrative ineptitude, as when anti-climb paint to deter school break-ins was too thinly applied (Hope & Murphy,1983)

Some measures have been too easily defeated by offenders, as in the case of the early steering locks in the U.S. and Britain which proved vulnerable to slide hammers (Clarke and Harris, 1992Security guards rarely monitor CCTV systems as closely as designers expectedMeasures have occasionally provoked offenders such as New York bullet proof subway booths being attacked with gasoline-fueled fires (Dwyer, 1991)

Numerous examples of displacement have been reported:

The reduction in robberies following the introduction of exact fare systems on New York City buses was a accompanied by an increase of robbery in the subway (Chaiken et al, 1974).

The reduced risk of theft for new vehicles fitted with steering column locks in Britain was found to be at the expense of an increased risk for older vehicles without the locks (Mayhew et al, 1976)

There has been little general discussion of the ethics of situational prevention, this is because both critics and advocates have been preoccupied with its effectiveness. (Clarke, 1997) 

New Page