Situational Approach To Crime Prevention

2279 Words10 Pages
SOCS108 Essay Questions 2500 words
Provide a critical comparison of situational and social approaches to crime prevention.

Social and situational approaches to crime prevention are different in the way crime is prevented. In this essay, I will briefly talk about the definition of crime prevention and how situational and social approaches came about, provide a critical comparison of situational and social approaches by first explaining what is situational and social approaches to crime prevention, followed by the differences between the two approaches, their strength and weaknesses and lastly, to show understanding that there are other approaches to crime prevention.
What is crime prevention?
The term crime prevention has
…show more content…
The second difference is that situational approach focus on opportunity reduction targeting the instance where crime is said to occur at a particular time and space, coming out with intervention to increase the cost of committing crime preventing the potential offender from offending whereas social approach focus on tackling the root causes of crime through social policies and developing programs to prevent the onset of criminal behaviour (Evans, 2010). The third difference is that situational approach focus on victim where it is the victim’s responsibility on both the commission of crime and prevention through target hardening like burglar alarms and surveillance while social focus on the offender through changing the social environments and targeting the motivation of the offender to deter offending (Hughes, 1998, p.20). Thus, from the differences mentioned, the underlying rationale between situational and social approach is that for situational approach, crime is opportunistic and can be prevented through…show more content…
Other weakness includes criminalization of social policy and unfair stigmatization where for criminalization of social policy which means “funding for social intervention projects becomes dependent on crime prevention outcomes rather than seen as a social good in its own right” (Knepper, 2007 cited by Evans, 2010), where initial aim of social policy focusing on human welfare has been replaced by desire to control crime in areas like housing and education while unfair stigmatization or labelling occurs as a result of focusing on the at risk groups or communities which lead to the problem of stigmatizing participants as delinquent or even condemnation of the entire neighborhood as “being prone to crime and outside normal group behavior” (Evans, 2010,
Open Document