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 of competition for status resources and consumption of goods. These mechanisms together result in ‘social impoverishment’ and economic depression, these produce stresses which are said to result in crime. Clarke (1980) rejects this idea, suggesting that if you look at the pre and post war poverty rates eradicating poverty did not reduce crime rates. There was of course crime before the market society described here and crime was still a feature of that, so although this may give possible reasons for particular crimes it seems unlikely that by doing away with market society that crime would disappear.
Young (1986) attacks this view of criminals as being those who are impoverished. He says that ‘to blame the poor for their criminality is to blame the victim’. Instead he points to the real criminals as being the ruling classes, suggesting that criminal law is a direct expression of their concern to protect themselves. This turns the idea of ORBA on its head, implying that the real function of the police is the social control of the lower classes. This also attacks the theoretical base that criminals choose to commit crime, instead suggesting that the definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminal’ are merely a social construction of the upper classes.
ORBA are also only able to deal with street crime such as theft and burglary, it cannot impact upon crime such as domestic abuse, child abuse and assaults occurring in the home. Target hardening, CCTV and security personnel are for the prevention of the criminal entering the property or protection of public space. In fact when you look at aspects such as target hardening there is an assumption that the home is safe and somewhere to be defended when in actuality it may be the opposite. Stanko (1990) points out that crime prevention revolves round public space and therefore focuses on crime which is visible to the public. He suggests the reason for this is because it is easier to provide a leaflet with the advice to avoid certain areas, or check the back seats of cars than it is of advising women about ‘trustworthy men. Bright (1991) comments that ‘while situational crime prevention, theoretically, can reduce the estimated 70% of recorded crime thought to be opportunistic, it is unable to prevent many violent crimes such as some categories of assault, domestic violence, child abuse and racially motivated crime’ (quoted in Walklate p316). Of course this also links back to again to why ORBA are attractive to policy makers as it is easier to provide legislation for public areas and also public crime is visible and it makes more political sense to tackle crime which the public can see. This means that opportunity reduction based approaches are theoretically and practically limited to attempting to prevent crime in the public domain.
In the practical application of ORBA’s there is the issue of displacement to consider. Displacement is based on the concern that if a criminal is prevented from committing a criminal offence in one place, he simply moves on to another. In other words there is a concern that the problem hasn’t really gone away. John Tisshaw works for Newham Emergency and Security Services, which installs facial recognition units in London. He suggests that crime in the areas where cameras were installed had fallen 35% and that crime in the surrounding area had only increased 10%. The increase in the surrounding area is illustrative of displacement; it also appears to indicate that overall crime had reduced by 25%, however caution is urged as these figures may be misleading. For example Reppetto (1976) suggests that displacement does not just occur in a different area, it can also occur at a different time, using a different method or even changing to a different type of offence (cited in Clarke (1980). Clarke (1980) and other criminologist emphases that it may be less difficult testing criminal movement from one area to another, but extremely difficult from one type of crime to another, this isn’t helped by the lack of research into the effectiveness of prevention.
So although there may be a perceived reduction in crime there is no way of knowing whether crime has been displaced further away than the research investigated, or that the criminal changed the type of offence to one which was not recorded by police. This also leaves the question that if displacement does occur, where or to whom is it displaced?
The areas where crime is likely being displaced to may be areas with less security; this tends to be areas where the poorer and more vulnerable live, such as the elderly. Clarke (1980) points out this danger and suggests that perhaps crime prevention should be dependent upon manufacturers to make more secure cars and buildings. This would certainly help those who have the money to buy the latest products but again it leaves those who can’t afford them and are probably in the greatest need of them. He also suggests perhaps it could be paid for by the public through taxes. Yet again on this he urges caution as those who have already purchased protection may not be willing to pay for those who have not. This highlights the inequality inherent in ORBA, in relation to personal property, meaning that it is the most vulnerable who are really left to be victims of crime.
Professor Gloria Laycock from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science highlights the dangers of crime prevention technology suggesting that the technology is developing at a much faster rate than the debate surrounding it. This means that they could be open to abuse by those operating it. For example Laycock points out, with specific regard to CCTV that it may be okay if a suspect is being watched when there is some hard evidence against that person. However she questions who decides who to follow when the camera operator is on their own, suggesting that the camera operators’ prejudice may be the focus. Not only is this biased but it could also lead to a reinforcing of prejudices if those they are watching then go on to act criminally. For example with the bombing in London on the 7th July 2005 there is suspicions of Muslims, if the camera operator choose to follows Muslims disproportionately and saw suspicious behaviour this would then reinforce the prejudice and could result in racists behaviour. She suggests that safe guards need to be put into place so that it is being used within specific protocols and guidelines.
If particular groups are being targeted disproportionately then it is an infringement of human rights, it also brings into question whether people want or choose to be on CCTV. Anna Nolan from the very first Big Brother points out that although she knew cameras were watching her in the house she stated that this was her choice. However she also highlights that when she goes out of her own house she does not choose to be recorded, she describes this as ‘horrible voyeurism’. Mark Littlewood from Liberty is an advocate of human rights; he describes Liberty as a checking service for the government to make sure they are operating within human right guidelines. He points out, with regard to CCTV, that consent is the key for example, with regard to Big Brother, he states that of the 150,000 who applied there were at least 55,000,000 who didn’t. He therefore suggests the need for an open government policy where we are entitled to watch what is being watched, that way we don’t end up living in a George Orwell novel. This is not to suggest that this technology is necessarily bad. John Tisshaw points out the facial recognition technology have also been used to find lost children and it can make people feel safer, so there are benefits to the technology which have nothing to do with crime prevention.
To summarise, this essay explained ORBA as a method of crime prevention which is attractive to policy makers because it was simple and could be targeted at certain public area’s, it also put the responsibility of crime prevention onto government agencies but mostly on to the victims who invited criminals by inadequate security. Currie (1991) argues that the market society actually perpetuates crime and Young points to capitalism as the expression of upper class fear. ORBA focus of crime is on the public area, this mean it misses crime in the private sphere. The practical application of ORBA brings the unfinished, and possibly unanswerable, issue of displacement and the inequality that this highlights. Finally the issue of advancing technology brings with it the issues of human rights and abuses for which the debates can’t keep up, despite this there are positives to these technologies.
In conclusion, I think ORBA are a good idea primarily because they do give people a sense of security which allows people to go about their daily lives in the public domain. Although until these defenses are available to everyone and the debate surrounding them has caught up to the technologies, then they remain the property of those can afford them and are also open to abuse. There is also the worry that crime measures will go too far and then we find ourselves in a Big Brother house scenario with every move we make scrutinized.
Word Count 2047
References
Bottoms A. E. (1990) in Walklate S. (2002) ‘Community and Crime Prevention’, Controlling Crime, Sage, London.
Bottoms A. E & Willis P. (1992) ‘Explanations of Crime and Place’, in McLaughlin E., Muncie J., and Hughes G. (2002, 2nd edn) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London, Sage Publications in association with Open University Press.
Clarke R. V. G. (1980) ‘’Situational’ crime prevention: Theory and Practice’ in McLaughlin E., Muncie J., and Hughes G. (2002, 2nd edn) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London, Sage Publications in association with Open University Press.
Cohen L. E. & Felson M. (1979) in McLaughlin E. Muncie J. (2003) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, Sage, London.
Croall H. (1998) Crime and Society in Britain Pearson & Longman, London.