This essay offering a detailed analysis of crime prevention (CP) within and beyond the criminal justice system by providing a categorical breakdown of the different ways of preventing crime. Furthermore this paper will provide theoretical justification and various examples for the different crime prevention approaches. It will also give a comparison, reflect on how their dimensions intersect each other and a critical evaluation for each CP methods.

Historically crime prevention was the main purpose of the police force (Peel, 1829). Since the 19^th century, it has changed dramatically from reactive to proactive interventions. By a contemporary definition crime prevention are actions taken by either the individuals or public agencies with a preventive measure in the psychical and social environment in order to change certain behavior and events to reduce the occurrence of a criminal act and minimize the damage caused by it (Crawford 2007; Hughes in McLaughlin and Muncie 2003). These methods can include anticipation of crime, everyday actions like closing doors behind ourselves, using identification cards and passwords, designing products a way that makes them difficult to use if they got stolen. CP can also use approaches that change offenders’ behaviour, environment and personal circumstances. Also several crime prevention policies were implemented and local communities and various agencies got involved such as the Five Towns Initiative and the Neighbourhood Watch. In recent years, crime reduction were used more commonly instead of CP as an indication and desire to not just to prevent, but significantly reduce crime.

We can categorise CP methods by two main dimensions. The first one we can divide in to three categories, such as primary, secondary and tertiary activities. Primary CP targets the general public and its main aim is to prevent crime before it happens. It includes education, socialisation, campaigns, families and community organisations such as Neighbourhood Watch. The Criminal Justice System (CJS) also plays an important role by reinforcing the main moral values and justifying the punishment of criminals (Brantingham and Faust, 1976).

The Secondary CP focuses on ‘at risk’ individuals and situations. Certain policies targets potential offenders, for example young people who are living in areas of high level of criminality or circumstances (homeless) and environment where crime high likely to happen. Schools, sporting institutions, welfare and medical staff are playing an important role in identifying and diverting those ‘at risk’ of offending. By target hardening the situations for ‘at risk’ groups by using surveillance in areas where criminal behaviour is predicted or around the homes of potential victims, crime can be deterred.

The third, tertiary CP deals with known offenders and situations associated with crime. Its main focus to prevent these individuals to offending again, using rehabilitation, diversion, reparation and sentences. It could also involve mediation between the victim and the offender, closed-circuit television (CCTV) in areas where crime often occur and electronic tagging (Davies et al., 2009).

The second dimension lies between the situational and social approaches (Clarke, 1992). The situational or physical CP involves altering the environment, making the offending harder to commit, reducing the chances and allowing the detection much easier (Mayhew et al. 1976). In practice it means for example the environment designed with gates, access control, improved lights, CCTV, banning alcohol consumption from public areas, steering locks and to make compliance easier installing more bins (Home Office Research Study 187, 1998). This is a direct application of environmental criminology, especially Newman’s ‘defensible space’ (1972) and Jeffrey’s (1971) CP through environmental design.

The Kirkholt Project proved that situational CP though window locks, strengthen doors, neighborhood watch schemes and victim support crime rates drops significantly. (Crawford 1998; Pease 2002) However the evaluation of the situational CP is difficult, because of the factor of crime displacement (Crawford 1998). Therefore the offence could happen in a different place, at a different time or by a different means, also the crime may happen against a different target, the type of the crime could change, just as the perpetrator.

The social approach of CP aims ‘at risk’ individuals who are considered most likely to commit an offence and steps in before any crime happens.  This method could be divided by the type interventions applied, such as developmental CP which focusing on personal motivations and behavior, and community crime prevention which targets vulnerable communities (Christie, 1977) and interested in the collective as a whole (Crawford, 2007). Young people are the majority who are involved in social – developmental CP as they are the most affected by certain risk factors, such as low income, impulsiveness, low school attendance, poor parental supervision and housing, broken families, therefore they are ‘at risk’ to commit or become victim of crime (Newburn, 2007: 584). Community CP involve the community, social control (Sampson and Laub, 1993), recreational and mentoring schemes.

This method by its nature provides a long term outcome, expensive, brings very challenging goals and very difficult to evaluate. In the UK several programs were introduced, such as the Youth Inclusion Programme, targeting the ‘top 50’ undeserving between 13 and 16. The results of the program were ambiguous as there was some drop in arrest rates, but the crime rates in the relating areas are increased the same time.

Close to community- crime prevention, but a response oriented approach based on Wilson and Kelling (1982) broken windows theory, anti-social behaviors (ASBOs) has been treated with a zero tolerance policing. The theory suggests that minor crimes such as graffiti, littering and begging would increase the probability of more serious crimes, therefore applying zero tolerance towards these offences will reduce crime rates. The approach was applied in New York by William Bratton in 1994 with a significant success. However when zero tolerance policy was introduced in the UK, it had small impact on crime. This suggest that other factors might have been associated with Bratton’s crime rates (Davies et al., 2009).

Overall CP is a diverse, multidimensional product made of government bodies, local authorities, private sector, criminal justice agencies and people of the public. Crime preventing is not limited to the CJS, but a cooperation between many organizations, individuals and systems. Its success, limited mainly to the situational CP, while it ignores the socio-structural origins of crime and does not have an answer how to deal with expressive crimes (offenses that linked with emotions).

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 required various local entities to consider crime and disorder in relation to designing and building homes, transportation, lighting streets and licensing. However, there are many areas are remain to be involved in CP simply by design, systematic planning or by strict policies (Pease 2002; Tilley 2002).  For instance in private sector, landlords and pub owners, whose neglect their property or allow individuals to use the premise to sell drugs should be included. 

After all, the current implementations of CP methods are showing a diverse picture to us. As above this paper provided diverse examples of methods and results, the development of CP and progress in this area is needed.  However, there is a possibility we might create a ‘fortress society’ by focusing and relying heavily on CP. Heavily protected houses may deter potential offenders, but it may  also create a ‘gated community’ where every- day social interactions almost impossible and with constant surveillance around it might generate more fear and insecurity within the society (Tilley 2002; Crawford 2007).

Some actions could increase our social divisions even further, if we divide our areas to safe and unsafe. People living in unsafe areas could be potentially labelled as dangerous and will be excluded, feared and stigmatized. These division could be further exacerbated by wealth, as some people with more money could afford better security than others (Tilley, 2002).

Furthermore, regarding developmental CP methods, they can be problematic for example how do policies determine ‘at risk’ children or at what age they get targeted. These questions and issues should be addressed as they involve the basic rights, privacy and equity of the individuals in question (Crawford, 2007).

As a conclusion, crime prevention is very important part of the CJS, alongside of many policies. These implementations are definitely have had some success in crime reduction, however there are some topics still remain problematic such as difficult evaluation, displacement, human right issues and dangers of future development of CP. Therefore future studies of crime prevention and more critical examination of methods are required.