Why are opportunity reduction-based approaches to crime prevention attractive to policy-makers and what are the main problems associated with their theoretical bases and practical implication?

Authors Avatar

Why are opportunity reduction-based approaches to crime prevention attractive to policy-makers and what are the main problems associated with their theoretical bases and practical implication?

First this essay will explain what is meant by opportunity reduction based approaches (ORBA).  It will give reasons why these approaches are attractive to policy makers and link this to a broader political context.  The theoretical base will be examined in relation to social construction and also pointing out what crimes this approach doesn’t address.  

The practical implication of ORBA are analysed such as the problem of displacement and the inequality this highlights.  Then finally the uses, abuses and human rights issues regarding certain aspects of the technology associated with this method of crime prevention.

ORBA are part of situational crime prevention which manipulates the environment as a method of trying to prevent crime. Situational research is divided into two measures, (1) increasing the chances of being caught and (2) reducing physical opportunities for crime (Clarke 1980). It is the latter that this essay is primarily concerned with, although the two measures do overlap. For example, installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) will reduce the opportunity for crime and increased the likely hood of being caught. Cohen and Felson (1979) suggest that three elements are needed to provide opportunity, these are, (1) a specific situation, (2) a target and (3) the absence of effective guardians, affecting one or more of these elements will in theory reduce or remove opportunity. Opportunity reducing measures include such things as target hardening, for instance increased building and car security or increasing surveillance in the form of CCTV (Bottoms 1990) or security guards in public and semi public areas.  

From the early 1980’s opportunity reduction based approaches were attractive to policy makers. They appealed to the common sense notion that if you provide opportunity this ‘invites’ criminals. Margaret Thatcher herself said ‘We have to be careful that we don’t make it easy for the criminal’ (September 1990 quoted in O’Malley 1992). There was a succession of publications and adverts from the Home Office that pointed to offending being opportunist rather than a predisposition (Croall 1998). This common sense thinking was appealing to policy makers for the following reasons; first it was a simple explanation.  It acknowledged a spatial distribution of crime (Bottoms and Wiles 1992) meaning that crime prevention measures could be targeted at certain ‘crime ridden’ areas.  It also placed the emphasis on the offender, who chose to commit crime and the victim for ‘allowing’ it to happen by not taking the necessary precautions.

In a broader sense it was part of broader political aspiration of reducing state intervention by placing responsibility for crime prevention with government agencies and the public, thus making government more cost effective. It was as Garland (1997) suggests ‘governance at a distance’. He pointed out that government were able to exert power and control in the form of budgets, standards, effectiveness and efficiency with the agencies having almost imaginary agency.  This was because they were forced to work within tight budgets to particular standards, so although they were ‘free’ to work in areas they thought necessary, the government still restricted what they could achieve.  Thus meaning that agencies also placed the responsibility of crime prevention on to the public because ‘severely restricted police resources and the sheer frequency of crime means that any improvement in the situation will rely heavily on property owners accepting responsibility for their own property and valuables’ (Hall 1986 p453)

Join now!

A strong criticism of the theoretical base of this approach comes from Currie (1991). He suggests that the market society of capitalism, of which the ideologies of managerialism is a part, actually promotes crime by five mechanisms.  These result in increasing inequality and economic deprivation, due to lack of jobs, low paying jobs or no jobs at all. A weakening of support within the community, as everyone is in the same boat with very little resources. Fragmenting the family, as people have to move away to find jobs.  Withdrawing public provision, as benefits are cut, and promoting a culture ...

This is a preview of the whole essay