Hot Spots Policing Efficiency

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Theoretical Framework
Hot Spots Policing and Environmental Criminology
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Crime prevention is generally preferred to handling the consequences of something that has already happened. In the main, crime prevention entails anticipation, recognition, and evaluation of crime risk, which is then followed by the initiation of actions to address the issue. It is argued that working with confined areas is more sustainable and productive, as it only solves the problem for the respective communities but also prevents crime from spreading. Thus, once the breeding ground for criminals is under the control of the authorities, the entire city might see a decline in the crime rate. This paper seeks to provide a theoretical framework that hot spots policing is based on and find empirical evidence of its efficiency.

Theoretical Framework

Rational Choice Theory

The first theory that justifies the use of hot spots policing is the rational choice theory developed in the 1980s. Rational choice perspective (RCP), a term coined by Cornish and Clarke (2014), proved to be a feasible alternative to the dominant approach that aimed at pathologizing crime and drawing distinctions between offenders and non-offenders. In general, both criminologists and ordinary people used to see criminals as naturally violent, sick and bound to misconduct. Always hungry for sensations, newspapers and other media contributed to the paradigm, creating scary images of maniacs and psychopaths. Cornish and Clarke (2014) did not reject the possibility that pathological elements played a role in committing crimes. Yet, the researchers argued that treating offenders as irrational beings did not help to prevent illegal activities.

In their most renowned work, The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending, Cornish and Clarke (2014) claimed that criminals went through the same decision-making process as everyday people. In most cases, misconduct was a rational choice, and a person carefully weighed the pros and cons before proceeding with it. The authors reasoned that offenders always pursued a specific purpose – money, fame, status, sexual gratification, excitement, and others. When deciding to follow through with their plans, they did some thinking as to whether achieving a goal was worth the risk of being arrested, exposed, and imprisoned. Possible sanctions could deter many criminals and, hence, aid in crime prevention.

The key conclusions that one should draw from the body of work by Cornish and Clarke are the following. Criminal activities are not much different from any other activities, and criminals’ personalities are not precisely distinct from those of law-abiding citizens. For a crime to happen, there must be three elements in place: a motivated person, an available target, and the absence of authorities to stop the crime from occurring on the spot (Cornish & Clarke, 2014). It is easy to see how hotspots are places that criminals might be choosing rationally. Given the already high crime rate, they might assume that the area is not protected enough. The police might not want to deal with it anymore, or the community might have so-called contempt of cops: they do not trust police officers and do not report crimes. Hence, an offender might want to take advantage of the opportunity. This leads to the point that by intensifying surveillance and introducing stricter sanctions, the police and other people in the decision-making position can manipulate the environment in a way that will deter crime.

Admittedly, not a single criminological theory is perfectly robust, so it is essential to point out a few caveats of RCP. First, critics say that the method does not explain to which extent criminals’ reasoning is rational and to which extent they might do something under the influence of uncontrollable emotions (Newman & Clarke, 2016). They see the claim that every human being is rational to be somewhat farfetched. Second, some experts cannot grasp how exactly RCP should be applied to real-life cases (Muntanyola-Saura, 2014). For example, in the United States and Canada, young offenders and adult offenders are not treated the same within the criminal justice system (Taylor, Earle, & Hester 2014). A question arises as to how rationality correlates with age, if it does at all. For the hot spots policing strategy, these shortcomings mean that police officer cannot always predict how effective deterring the crime in a given area will be if harsher sanctions are implemented. The police do not know how offenders’ minds will process the news and what role it will play in planning their actions.

Routine Activity Theory

The second essential theory that is instrumental in understanding the rationale behind hot spots policing is that of routine activity. This theory was developed by Felson and Cohen in the 1970s and created a subfield within the crime opportunity theory. What makes routine activity theory stand out is the fact that the researchers were among the first criminologists to shift the focus from the criminal to the event of a crime itself. Just like Cornish and Clarke, Felson and Cohen argued that the personality of an offender mattered only to a certain extent (Miller, 2014). The police and other authorities could not afford to analyze every single offender’s pathological inclinations. What the authors deemed more effective and sustainable is to adopt a large-scale approach and look at trends and tendencies in crime within a constrained period.

Examining crime as an event and not just an offender’s conscious action requires studying the environment that might have predisposed it. Felson and Cohen argued that poverty, inequality, and unemployment were not the primary motivators behind a crime (Miller, 2014). The statement was reasonably sensational: the researchers rejected the idea that individuals committed the crime out of dire need and explained that people were driven by self-interest that went beyond necessities (Wikström, 2014). Felson and Cohen gave the following example: after World War II, Western countries were expanding welfare and offering more benefits to their citizens (Miller, 2014). Still, there was a surge in crime, which within the theory, was attributed to the growing opportunities. For instance, more offenders could afford to buy a car which allowed for faster and easier navigation. Hence, criminals did not go out of their way to commit a crime: they merely took advantage of their own and others’ routine activities and the environment.

Routine activity theory contributed to hot spots policing by offering tools for determining key demographic cohorts that are most susceptible to victimization. When studying a particular hotspot, aside from overall trends and environmental characteristics, police officers might also want to take a look at the residents (Eck & Weisburd, 2015). For example, seniors or young females living alone are at risk of fraud or assault. Examining both sides, offenders and victims, the police might come up with more elaborate solutions.

Hot Spots Policing and Environmental Criminology

Environmental criminology expands the number of factors that contribute to a criminal occurrence. If within the framework of the rational choice and routine activity theories, three factors – the offender, the victim, and the lack of control – were discussed, environmental criminologists argued that time and space should also be examined. Moreover, Brantingham and Brantingham claimed that without specific geospatial characteristics, crime is unlikely to occur (Andresen, Brantingham, & Kinney, 2016). According to them, what accounts for the emergence of a hot spot is incorrect land usage, traffic, and street design.

Around the same time, a supporting theory titled crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) was developed. CPTED strategies hinged on the premise that by changing the environment, it was possible to influence offenders’ decisions. CPTED theorists and practitioners singled out three critical elements to creating a space where the crime rate would be on the decline and stay low in the long perspective (Wortley & Townsley, 2016). First, there is a need for natural surveillance, which can be attained through designing streets in a way that would increase pedestrian traffic and placing windows to overlook sidewalks. Second, natural access control would allow for a clear distinction between public and private spaces by installing single-point entries and fences. Lastly, natural territorial reinforcement would foster a sense of ownership in residents, which would encourage them to confront intruders and report cases to the police (Armitage, 2014).

The theoretical framework of hot spots policing draws on the basics of environmental criminology but only partly. The essential part of the described theory that should be heeded by the police and other authorities is the importance of time and space in predicting and preventing crimes. Hence, the definition of a crime hotspot is not limited to a geographic area but should also include a specific period in time. CPTED is barely applicable to hot spots policing as the police are not responsible for urban planning, nor can it influence the way citizens decide to design their property.

Real-Life Cases: How Effective Is Hot Spots Policing?

Now that the rationale behind the hot spots policing strategy is clarified, the question arises as to how effective the implementation has proven to be in real life. In their meta-analysis of the literature on the topic, Weisburd and Telep (2014) describe the first hotspots study conducted in Minneapolis in 1995. Police officers were not given any specific instructions as to what they needed to do once they had arrived at a problematic neighborhood. It turned out that the mere presence of the police resulted in a reduction of crime and disorder. The researchers calculated the ideal time that police officers need to spend on the spot to prevent crime from occurring and concluded that it would from 14 to 15 minutes. Staying any longer than that did not provide additional benefits.

A more recent study revealed that even if police officers monitor a hotspot unarmed and with few arrest powers, offenders might still be deterred from following through with their plans. Ariel, Weinborn, and Sherman (2016) assumed that the police no longer needed to solely depend on hard power and control criminals with the immediate threat of arrest. Instead, the authors decided to prove that signals of social control, a less resource-consuming means, might be sustainable. The findings matched the hypothesis as the crime rate in 34 hotspots in England and Wales decreased.

Weisburd and Telep discussed a 1995 study that focused on measuring the effect of randomized hot spots policing. The said study developed the theoretical framework further by answering both “How long should police officers stay on the spot?” and “When should they show up?” The researchers assumed that a crime-intense environment was more vulnerable to disruption if the police visited hot spots unexpectedly (Weisburd & Telep, 2014). By the end of the study, the hypothesis was confirmed as the crime was on a steady decline.

Despite the sufficient overall evidence in favor of hot spots policing, some questions remain unanswered. For instance, the findings of the existing studies on different strategies are not exactly coherent or conclusive. In their meta-analysis, Weisburd and Telep (2014) argued that some problematic areas saw a reduction in crime after patrol saturation – a more traditional method of hot spots policing. Others, on the other hand, benefited more from problem-oriented policing that offered more tailored solutions (Weisburd & Telep, 2014). Further, there should be more research on how the police can collaborate with communities to make them part of their preventive strategy. A study by Ratcliffe, Groff, Sorg and Haberman (2015) revealed that even when the police managed to influence a community positively, its residents still retained a neutral or suspicious attitude toward the authorities. Contempt of cop might interfere with hot spots policing and distort the overall picture if the crime is underreported.

Conclusion

Across the globe, taking a proactive approach by raising public awareness and undertaking preventive measures are seen as the most effective way to go about crime reduction. In the United States, the police have adopted a strategy called hot spots policing in which police officers primarily target crime hotspots – geographic areas experiencing high crime intensity. The approach relies on three widely recognized criminological theories: rational choice perspective, routine activity theory, and crime prevention through environmental design. The police operate on the premise that criminals make rational decisions and are more likely to misconduct when the environment predisposes them to do so. Over the last twenty years, there have been numerous studies proving the efficiency of hot spots policing. However, theorists and practitioners have yet to come to a consensus on the best strategies and ways to enhance communities’ engagement.

References

Andresen, M. A., Brantingham, P. J., & Kinney, J. B. (2016). Classics in environmental criminology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Ariel, B., Weinborn, C., & Sherman, L. W. (2016). “Soft” policing at hot spots – do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 277-317.

Armitage, R. (2014). Crime prevention through environmental design. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 720-731.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2014). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Eck, J., & Weisburd, D. L. (2015). Crime places in crime theory. Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies, 4.

Miller, J. M. (2014). The encyclopedia of theoretical criminology (Vol. 2). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Muntanyola-Saura, D. (2014). A cognitive account of expertise: Why Rational Choice Theory is (often) a fiction. Theory & Psychology, 24(1), 19-39.

Newman, G., & Clarke, R. V. (2016). Rational choice and situational crime prevention: Theoretical foundations. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.

Ratcliffe, J. H., Groff, E. R., Sorg, E. T., & Haberman, C. P. (2015). Citizens’ reactions to hot spots policing: Impacts on perceptions of crime, disorder, safety and police. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 393-417.

Taylor, W., Earle, R., & Hester, R. (2014). Youth justice handbook: Theory, policy and practice. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.

Weisburd, D., & Telep, C. W. (2014). Hot spots policing: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(2), 200-220.

Wikström, P. O. H. (2014). Why crime happens: A situational action theory. Analytical Sociology: Actions and Networks, 74-94.

Wortley, R., & Townsley, M. (2016). Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Click Here To Order Now!