Brooke Salisbury
Final Exam
q1. Based on what we have discussed in class, as well as theory, crime does not occur randomly across neighborhoods, street segments, or places. According to Wilson and Kelling, at the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired; all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window…show more content… Because of the nature of community life in the Bronx—its anonymity, the frequency with which cars are abandoned and things are stolen or broken, the past experience of "no one caring"—vandalism begins much more quickly than it does in staid Palo Alto, where people have come to believe that private possessions are cared for, and that mischievous behavior is costly. But vandalism can occur anywhere once communal barriers—the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility—are lowered by actions that seem to signal that "no one cares (Wilson and kelling 1982).” In his article, Skogan also discusses crime in relation to neighborhood organization. This supports that crime does not happen randomly because when a neighborhood experiences disorganization, crimes occur and it shows that no one cares about the area. This is typically seen in low class neighborhoods where people are experiencing poverty. Bratingham and Bratingham discuss the criminality of a place which is crime generators and crime attractors. This relates to Routine Activities Theory. “Fear of crime is created by situations and settings that make people feel vulnerable to victimization (see, e.g., Fisher and Nasar, 1992a and 1992b; Nasar and Fisher, 1992 and 1993; Brantingham et al., 1995).” “The urban settings that…show more content… Micro level is the smallest unit of analysis in research and generally focuses on a specific group such as a neighborhood or an individual in a social setting. This type of analysis usually analyzes more specific action to help fix a certain problem in this case, crime at the neighborhood level. A crime prevention approach at this level could be situational crime prevention, the SARA model, social disorganization, collective efficacy, and also applying CPTED. Social Disorganization and collective efficacy go hand and hand. If an area has high collective efficacy and low social disorganization, people will be less likely to commit crimes in those areas as indicated by Skogan. Since this usually happens in low class neighborhoods, creating jobs would be beneficial. As illustrated by the case studies in this volume, dozens of documented examples now exist of successful situational prevention involving such measures as surveillance cameras for subway systems and parking facilities, defensible space architecture in public housing, target hardening of apartment blocks and individual residences, electronic access for cars and for telephone systems, street closures and traffic schemes for residential neighborhoods, alcohol controls at festivals and sporting fixtures, training in conflict management for publicans and bouncers, and improved stocktaking and record keeping procedures in warehouse and retail outlets (cf. Clarke, 1995). Applying CPTED to living areas such as