Crime Science: Historical Roots, Defining Features, and Approaches, Schemes and Mind Maps of Criminology

Download Crime Science: Historical Roots, Defining Features, and Approaches and more Schemes and Mind Maps Criminology in PDF only on Docsity! 1 WHAT IS CRIME SCIENCE? Richard Wortley, Aiden Sidebottom, Nick Tilley and Gloria Laycock To cite: Wortley, R., Sidebottom, A., Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2019). What is crime science? In R. Wortley, A. Sidebottom, N. Tilley, & G. Laycock (eds). The Handbook of Crime Science. London: Routledge 2 ABSTRACT This chapter provides an introduction to the Handbook of Crime Science. It describes the historical roots of crime science in environmental criminology, providing a brief overview of key theoretical perspectives, including crime prevention through environmental design, defensible space, situational crime prevention, routine activities approach, crime pattern theory and rational choice perspective. It sets out three defining features of crime science: its outcome focus on crime reduction, its scientific orientation, and its embracing of diverse scientific disciplines across the social, natural, formal and applied sciences. Key words: crime science; situational crime prevention; 5 with the term. We trust that these researchers will not mind being badged fellow travellers. This handbook is intended as a crime science manifesto. In it we set out the case for crime science, define its key features, and showcase examples of crime science in action. This introductory chapter is divided into two main sections. In the first we trace the roots of crime science back to environmental criminology, describing some of the key philosophies and theoretical approaches that have helped shape the development of crime science and that remain important underpinnings. In the second section we discuss three defining characteristics of crime science, namely its determinedly outcome focus on crime reduction, its scientific orientation, and its embracing of diverse scientific disciplines. ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY ROOTS During the 1970s, in both the USA and the UK, questions were raised about the extent to which the treatment of offenders could reduce crime. Offender treatment programmes were the dominant model for crime reduction at the time, and so concerns that ‘nothing works’ (Martinson, 1974) became something of a demotivating mantra for those working in the Criminal Justice System, particularly in prisons. It also left a policy vacuum on what to do about crime. From the early 1970s to mid 1980s, a series of seminal publications appeared in the new field of environmental criminology that informed an alternative crime reduction model 6 (Table 1). From disparate disciplinary roots and with different foci, these approaches shared a common interest in crime events (rather than criminality) and the immediate circumstances in which crime occurs (rather than presumed distal causes) (Wortley & Townsley, 2017). In this section, we trace the development of environmental criminology, show how the various strands developed and came together to form a coherent perspective, and highlight the key assumptions and methods that influenced the conceptualisation of crime science. Table 1 here Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Three years before Martinson’s (1974) ‘nothing works’ report, C. Ray Jeffery (1971) published a book that anticipated the attack on rehabilitation and set out a radical prescription for crime prevention. Entitled Crime Prevention through Environmental Design – universally referred to as CPTED (and pronounced sep-ted) – the book presented a wide-ranging critique of the then dominant (and largely still current) criminal justice policies and practices. Jeffery argued that we lack the scientific knowledge to rehabilitate offenders and that we should instead focus on supressing their criminal behaviours. This required a shift in attention away from the presumed criminal dispositions of offenders and onto the immediate circumstances that facilitate or inhibit criminal acts. Jeffery was strongly influenced by arch behaviourist B.F. Skinner’s (1953) model of operant conditioning. In essence, 7 operant conditioning holds that our behaviour is contingent upon the consequences it produces – behaviour that is rewarded is reinforced and behaviour that is punished is discouraged. Applying this principle to crime, Jeffery asserted that ‘there are no criminals, only environmental circumstances that result in criminal behaviour. Given the proper environmental structure, anyone will be a criminal or a non-criminal’ (Jeffery, 1971, p. 177). Jeffery proposed a new discipline of ‘environmental criminology’ to inform criminal justice policy and to promote crime prevention. In this new discipline, he wrote: 1. Scientific methodology is emphasized, in contrast with an ethical or clinical approach, limiting observations and conclusions to objective, observable behavior which can be verified 2. The approach is interdisciplinary, cutting across old academic boundaries and borrowing freely from each. The human being is regarded as a total system – biological, psychological and social 3. The human being is regarded as an input-output system, capable of receiving messages from and responding to the environment. Communications, cybernetics and feedback are critical concepts 4. Adaptation of the organism to the environment is the key process. Behavior is viewed as the means by which the organism adapts to an environmental system 5. A systems approach is used wherein emphasis is placed on the interrelatedness of parts, structural-functional analysis, and the 10 antisocial behaviour. To Newman, what was needed to prevent crime was the stimulation of a sense of territoriality in residents. If residents could be encouraged to feel a greater sense of investment in their surroundings then they would be more likely to take actions that would defend those areas against intruders. So-called ‘defensible space’ could be created through a ‘range of mechanisms – real and symbolic barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved opportunities for surveillance – that combine to bring an environment under the control of its residents’ (Newman, 1972, p. 3). Narrowing the prevention task to the creation of defensible space has taken the Newman version of CPTED down a separate pathway to that taken by environmental criminology more generally. CPTED exists today as a more-or-less standalone model concerned principally with the design of the built environment (Armitage, 2017). Nevertheless, Newman’s Defensible Space makes three important contributions to environmental criminology and ultimately to crime science. First, Newman showed by example the value of expanding the disciplinary reach of criminology beyond the usual suspects. As an architect, Newman was one of first non-social scientists to write about crime and its prevention. Environmental criminology is based on the premise that crime is the combined effect of the characteristics of the person and the situation in which the crime is performed. Because criminology largely comprises social scientists, there is an abundance of research addressing the nature of the person. Newman on the other hand could 11 speak with authority on the situational side of the equation, providing informed advice on what architecture could offer to environmental criminology. Second, Newman demonstrated the importance of operationalising prevention advice. Jeffery’s CPTED was a polemic, long on theory but short on application; Defensible Space in contrast was essentially a how-to manual. Newman gave explicit instructions and offered many concrete examples of how to prevent crime: low rise buildings have less crime than high rise buildings; even low fences will deter many potential intruders; windows should look outwards onto the street so that passers- by can be observed; graffiti and rubbish invite disorder, and so on. Many of the principles of defensible space could be readily converted into policy statements and even codified into building and town planning regulations. Finally, Newman taught the value of understanding and altering the behaviour of those who were the potential victims and observers of crime. Where Jeffery presented a detailed psychological model of the offender, Newman barely mentioned offenders. His focus instead was on how urban design can change the behaviour of residents so that they might exercise greater levels of guardianship and thereby deter potential offenders. The focus on the role of residents as potential victims and guardians introduced additional elements to the crime dynamic, underscoring the point that crime prevention was not exclusively about dealing with offenders and nor was it the sole province of the criminal justice system. 12 Situational Crime Prevention The next major contribution to environmental criminology came with Ron Clarke’s situational crime prevention (SCP). In fact, Clarke’s early writings on the role of situations in crime predate Jeffrey and Newman. Researching absconding from residential schools for juvenile offenders, Clarke found that the best predictors of absconding were institutional factors rather than any personal characteristics of the absconders. The best way to prevent absconding was not to try to identify potential absconders, but rather to change the way that institutions were built and run (Clarke, 1967). But it was in Crime as Opportunity published by Clarke and colleagues a decade later (Mayhew, Clarke, Sturman and Hough, 1976) that the conceptual foundations of SCP were first set out in a comprehensive way, although the term itself was not used until Clarke’s 1980 paper ‘Situational’ Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice. SCP ‘seeks to alter the situational determinants of crime so as to make crime less likely to happen’ (Clarke, 2017, p. 286). The approach shows the influences of both Jeffery and Newman. The conceptual underpinnings of SCP, with its focus on the reduction of opportunity and the manipulation of the costs and benefits of crime as the bases for prevention, owe a clear debt to Jeffery. But like Newman, Clarke focussed on providing concrete prevention techniques, with some of these borrowed directly from Defensible Space. At the same time, Clarke extended Newman in significant ways. He conceptualised the situation as being much broader 15 Routine Activities Approach Jeffery, Newman and Clarke were concerned with strategies for deterring offenders in the circumstances in which they were about to commit their crimes. Routine activities approach (RAA), advanced by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979), takes a step back from this point and seeks to describe how offenders and victims come together such that crime becomes a possibility. RAA draws on the observation that crime is the result of the routines of everyday life. Potential victims and potential offenders move around in the course of their lives and from time to time find themselves at the same place and time. There, in the absence of capable guardians, an offence may occur. Potential targets might be individuals, products or systems, all of which can be objects of crime. Potential offenders are those motivated to commit an offence at that time and place. Potential guardians are people – not necessarily formal security or law enforcement personnel – whose very presence at that time and place can discourage crime from taking place. Depending on the opportunity presented, a large percentage of the general population might be tempted into offending, albeit that certain subsections of communities are more likely than others. Cohen and Felson (1979) demonstrated the role of routine activities in crime through their analysis of crime rates in the US after WWII. Crime increased substantially in the post-war period. At the same time, economic conditions had 16 generally improved. This pattern went against conventional criminological wisdom that poverty produced crime. Cohen and Felson (1979) argued that improved economic conditions and associated social changes had the effect of bringing potential victims, potential offenders and unguarded potential crime locations together. For example, in the case of burglary, the increased participation of women in the workforce meant that there was an accompanying increase in the number of houses left unattended during the day. At the same time, domestic dwellings now contained more portable, high-value possessions worth stealing. Together these factors help explain a shift to daytime domestic burglary from night-time domestic burglary, within an overall shift to domestic burglary from commercial burglary. RAA was originally formulated to explain the effect of macro-level social changes on broad crime patterns. However, further development of RAA by Felson (2002; 2017) showed that it could also be used at a micro-level to analyse the dynamics of individual crime events. RAA provides the basis for the familiar crime triangle (Figure 1; Clarke & Eck, 2005). The inner triangle of Figure 1 shows crime as requiring three necessary elements – an offender, a target or victim, and a place for the offence to occur. The outer triangle splits the concept of capable guardian into three types – guardians, who are in a position to protect potential victims or targets (e.g., parents, friends, security guards); handlers, who are able to exercise some control over potential offenders (e.g., parole officers, teachers, coaches); and place mangers, who are responsible for looking after particular places where crime might occur (e.g., park rangers, bar owners, landlords). At this micro level, RAA provides a 17 useful companion to SCP. As the crime triangle neatly illustrates, just as there are three necessary elements to a crime, there are correspondingly three potential targets for crime prevention. Some crimes occur because of the easy accessibility to targets and so intervention requires making those targets more difficult to reach; some crimes occur in locations that offer many crime opportunities and require interventions that address these environmental features; and some crimes are the result of the presence of a likely offender and strategies for deflecting or managing that individual are required. As with Newman, RAA emphasised that crime is about more than just criminals. Put differently, crime can be reduced by attending to the vulnerability of potential victims and actions of potential guardians. Figure 1 here Geometry of Crime and Crime Pattern Theory A major lesson to be drawn from RAA is that crime is not random but is instead patterned in broadly predictable ways. However, RAA has little to say about the relationship between routine activities and the physical environment and, more particularly, the locations at which potential offenders and victims are most likely to converge. Brantingham and Brantingham (1981; 1993; Brantingham, Brantingham and Andresen, 2017) provide an account of how urban form shapes the movement patterns of citizens and results in the clustering of crime in time and place. They refer to these movement patterns as the geometry of crime, which combined with other environmental criminology perspectives form a crime pattern meta-theory. 20 The starting point for Jeffery was a psychological view of the offender that emphasised the situational dependence of behaviour. For Jeffery, environmental criminology only made sense if it could be established that human beings were fundamentally constructed to adapt their behaviour to immediate environmental conditions. Subsequently, Newman, Felson and the Brantinghams paid little attention to the psychology of the offender, simply taking for granted that behaviour was malleable. However, Clarke, with colleague Derek Cornish, returned to the issue of the offender in order to elaborate the theoretical underpinnings of SCP (Clarke and Cornish, 1985). After reviewing a wide range of theoretical perspectives from psychology, sociology, criminology, economics and human ecology that argued against pathological explanations of crime, they settled on rational choice as the model of offender decision making which could accommodate environmental inputs being converted to situationally-dependent action. The rational choice perspective (RCP) shares Jeffery’s assumption that behaviour is a function of its consequences. Through their actions, offenders, like everyone, invariably seek to benefit themselves in some way and to avoid unpleasant outcomes. Clarke and Cornish, however, disliked the deterministic, ‘mindless’ behaviourism that Jeffery advanced, fearing (rightly) that it would find little support among other criminologists. They argued that there was much to be learned by trying to understand the crime commission process from the subjective perspective of offenders. RCP portrays offenders as purposive, reasoning agents. It holds that crime always involves choice. Offenders are active decision makers who draw on 21 environmental data in deciding whether or not to engage in a particular crime at a particular time and place. It is assumed that crime will occur when the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs. Benefits of crime are not limited to material rewards but include sexual gratification, peer esteem, excitement, revenge and so on. The costs of crime are likewise not limited to the distant threats of criminal justice sanctions but also the immediate concerns about how difficult and risky it might be to commit the crime. As an underpinning for SCP, RCP suggests that crime can be prevented by implementing strategies at the potential crime scene that make crime a less attractive option from the perspective of potential offenders. From the start, Clarke and Cornish presented the rationality of offenders in highly qualified terms. Following Simon (1957), they described offenders as exercising ‘bounded’ rationality to arrive at decisions that were merely ‘satisficing’ – satisfactory and sufficient. Clearly, on many occasions the decision to commit a crime turns out to be a poor one – the offence may not produce the anticipated payoff or the offender may be caught. An offender’s capacity to make optimal decisions can be limited by a wide range of personal and environmental factors including intellectual capacity, cognitive biases, lack of information, emotional arousal, time pressure, and the effects of drugs or alcohol. Clarke and Cornish described RCP as a ‘good enough’ basis for SCP, and used the term ‘perspective’ – not ‘theory’ – advisedly. RCP was not intended as a rigorous psychological account of how offenders actually go about making decisions (see Wortley, 2013). Rather it is a rough-and-ready heuristic, primarily intended to provide a rationale for SCP 22 that can be readily communicated to practitioners. It conveys in simple terms the basic message that all of us tend to act out of self-interest and all can be persuaded not to offend if the costs seem to be too high. RCP is akin to Popper’s ‘rationality principle’: its flaws are acknowledged, but it is deemed sufficient to explain most criminal behaviour and to furnish a basis for designing strategies to change that behaviour (see Tilley, 2004). More generally, it assumes that the potential to commit crime is not a fixed attribute confined to a sub-section of the population, but is dynamic and depends upon the nature of the immediate environment. It follows that crime can be prevented by altering the immediate environment, via situational crime prevention. Summary Beginning as a series of largely independent insights into the relationship between crime and the immediate environment, environmental criminology has now developed into a complex set of inter-related ideas and approaches (Wortley and Townsley, 2017). With the benefit of hindsight we can identify three linked questions that the pioneers of environmental criminology sought to answer: 1) Why do people commit crime? Environmental criminology starts with the premise that whether or not an individual commits a criminal act is inextricably tied to the nature of immediate environment. Insights into the situational nature of criminal behaviour were provided by Jeffery’s (1971) CPTED and Clarke and Cornish’s (1985) RCP. 25 section we unpack the three key features of crime science – reducing crime, thinking and acting scientifically, and bringing disciplines together2. Reducing Crime The ultimate goal of crime science is the reduction of crime and associated harms. Pursuit of this goal is not unconditional – ethics, costs, public acceptability, politics, aesthetics and unintended consequences are all crucial considerations in responding to crime and in any research agenda aiming to inform improvements in preventive performance. Situational approaches to crime reduction form a central part of the crime science armoury, primarily because there is strong evidence that such opportunity reduction measures are effective at reducing crime; however, other promising crime reduction strategies are not excluded. Defining Crime Crime is a legally defined action (or failure to act) that is liable to formal sanctions. What constitutes crime is to a certain degree chronically in flux; the definition of specific crimes varies from society to society and within any society over time. There are many examples of behaviours that were once crimes and are no longer so (e.g., homosexual acts) and new crimes are regularly created (e.g., the criminalisation of particular psychotropic substances). Take the example of child 2 There are several earlier, less detailed definitions of crime science; see Clarke (2004); Cockbain & Laycock (2017); Laycock (2001; 2005) 26 sexual abuse. The legal age of consent varies considerably across the world (from 12 to 21 years of age) and has steadily risen in most countries over the past hundred years or so (for example, in the UK it was 10 years old in 1800, but is at the time of writing 16 years) (Wortley and Smallbone, 2012). Thus, whether a person commits the crime of child sexual abuse may depend upon which country he/she lives and into what era he/she was born. Crime encompasses a wide spectrum of behaviour, from relatively minor antisocial acts, such as littering and disturbing the peace, to very serious offences, such as sexual assault and murder. Crime science approaches may be applied across this spectrum. Its focus includes crimes that have not often been addressed in criminological texts – acts of terrorism, human trafficking, theft of intellectual property, food adulteration, counterfeit products, maritime piracy and so on. Moreover, the nature of crime is changing in response to social and technological changes. This will likely require corresponding changes in how we deal with crime. Crime science is uniquely placed to address the prevention challenges posed by digital and other technologies that are producing new crime threats such as Internet child exploitation, cyber bullying, identity theft, phishing, ransom-ware, and the criminal exploitation of the Internet of Things. Person and situation 27 Most academic texts purporting to be about crime – often called ‘the psychology of crime’, ‘the sociology of crime’, and the like – are not about crime at all but are about criminals and criminality. They are devoted to examining the psychological and sociological factors assumed to produce the predisposition to commit crime, but they rarely pay attention to the criminal act itself. The underlying assumption is that crime is the inevitable outcome of criminality (and that criminality is the primary cause of crime) and once criminality has been accounted for the explanatory job is done. This person-centric view of crime is an example of a wider tendency – known as the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977; Ross and Nisbett, 2011) – for human beings to interpret events in terms the characteristics of actors and correspondingly to downplay the contribution of immediate environmental factors. When we see a person misbehaving we call them bad and possibly in need of punishment or correction. We are much better, however, at recognising the role of circumstances in our own behaviour; when we behave badly we attribute it to the situation in which we find ourselves (e.g., I was tired). This error pervades our view of crime control too and leads to the criminal justice system, which not only makes a statement about the limits of acceptable behaviour, and provides a means of delivering retribution and justice, but importantly is also seen as an effective vehicle for crime control. 30 some neurological impairment known to be associated with reduced levels of impulse control. Distal factors (prenatal and developmental experiences) are to do with the establishment of internalised criminal predispositions; proximal factors (situational aspects of the crime event) are about the expression of criminal behaviour at a given time and place. We can apply the same process to the other two sides of the crime triangle – victims and locations. Did the victim of the pub assault do anything that might have unnecessarily provoked the aggressor? Had he had too much to drink that night? Does he possess long standing dispositional factors that are associated with his victimisation? And so on. For location, the distance scale is micro-macro rather than temporal but the principle is the same. Is there something about the design and layout of the pub and the way it is run that facilitated the assault? Is it located in a seedy part of town? Is there a more general problem with violence in the local community? Is the assault reflective of national problem with respect to violence? Distal causes are also called ‘root causes’ and as such are often accorded a privileged status as causal agents. ‘Root’ implies that the cause is fundamental to the outcome, and that any change effected without addressing the root cause can provide little more than a Band Aid temporary solution. Root causes are the object of enquiry for much criminological theory and research. But do root causes deserve their elevated position? The problem with so-called root causes is that their role as behavioural determinants tends to emerge only in retrospect – a case of hindsight bias 31 (Kahneman, 2011). It is easy to join the dots looking backwards but much more difficult to identify prospectively the long-term effects of behavioural inputs. The more distal the cause, the greater the potential for ‘leakage’ as we move towards the event, and the more tenuous the cause-effect link. For example, many people will grow up in abusive households without committing an assault in a pub (or indeed any crime). In comparison to distal factors, proximal circumstances can be more precisely identified and linked directly to a particular behaviour. Moreover, there is ample evidence that behaviour can be changed without addressing root causes. For example, random roadside breath testing has dramatically reduced the incidence of drink-driving (and associated road deaths) without attending to any distal causes of problem drinking (Homel, 1988). As a general rule, with an eye to the ‘low hanging fruit’, crime scientists will try to operate on causes as close to the crime event as possible. However, there is no hard and fast dividing line between proximal and distal. The scope of crime reduction If we move beyond the crime event as the sole focus for the delivery of prevention strategies (as is the case for environmental criminology) then a wider range of potential intervention points open up. Crime reduction may be achieved through: 1. The prevention of crimes before they occur: This includes the usual environmental criminology approaches such as SCP and defensible space, but 32 also allows for interventions further up-stream and offender focussed, such as prenatal, developmental and social interventions. 2. The disruption of crimes that are underway: This is particularly applicable to organised crime and terrorism. Strategies include: disrupting criminal supply chains; cutting off illicit cash flows; seizing criminal assets; closing markets for illicit goods; and undermining crime networks. 3. The rapid detection of offenders after crimes have been committed: This involves the use of advanced police investigation methods (e.g., data-driven crime analytics, intelligence led policing), crime detection technologies (e.g., surveillance technologies, ‘spyware’), and techniques from the forensic sciences (e.g., digital forensics, DNA identification, gunshot residue analysis). 4. The management of known offenders: This refers to criminal justice responses to crime that might reduce reoffending by delivering specific deterrence, incapacitating offenders for a period of time, providing rehabilitation and reintegration opportunities, and supervisory strategies that steer offenders from situations conducing to their involvement in crime. Taking this wider view of crime reduction provides for a more inclusive and flexible approach but it is not without risk. A strength of environmental criminology is its clearly demarcated area of interest (the crime event) that has provided a sharp focus for prevention. Crime science must avoid the trap of becoming all things to all people. It is important that it retains a crime control focus, if not a crime event focus, if it is to retain its distinctive analytic bite. 35 Crime science recognises that there is more to engineering improvements in response to crime than technical strength, albeit that this is important. The moral objections that can be raised in relation to some forms of technology when applied to crime may mean that there are what Ekblom (2017) refers to as ‘troublesome tradeoffs’ between developments that are most effective and those that least threaten moral principles. The balance between security and privacy, for example, often arises in connection with growing technological possibilities for collecting and interrogating emails with a view to identifying threats to public security. The application of such technologies turns on decisions about the risks and threats of possible terrorist attacks as against those jeopardising personal freedoms for citizens to communicate without the state interference. Thinking and acting scientifically Crime science embraces a scientific orientation to understanding and dealing with crime. To be clear, this does not entail dealing only with quantitative measurement, nor does it mean embracing positivism (understood as meaning the collection of observations and their summary in statements of ‘laws’), and nor does it involve repudiation of any concerns with values, nor does it assume that everything is predetermined by inexorable physical laws that if only we were to understand them would allow us to predict everything and anything. The scientific method 36 Crime science has an unequivocal commitment to science itself as a methodology for helping to find better ways of responding to crime, be the concern with prevention, disruption, detection or offender management. The position taken in crime science is broadly Popperian (Popper 1957, 1959, 1972). This means the following: 1. Crime science devises testable hypotheses. 2. Crime science uses whatever methods are relevant to testing hypotheses. 3. Crime science aims at scientific progress by eliminating false theories and replacing them with those that are falsifiable but not yet falsified and are improvements on predecessor theories. 4. The theories of crime science can neither be proven, nor unequivocally disproven. Judgement is always needed and ultimately is in the hands of the informed scientific community. The fallibilism that Popper stresses is associated with his concerns for openness, diversity, and vigorous debate. 5. Human beings act intentionally including in their commission of crimes, but not they do not act - including criminally - in conditions of their own choosing either in terms of social conditions or in terms of physical conditions. They act in terms of the ‘logic of their situation’ (i.e. intelligibly and attending to their interests in view of the conditions for their action). 6. Humans inhabit a world of ideas (for example norms, laws, scientific theories) that they (or prior humans) have created. These ideas led, among other social phenomena, to the production of physical artefacts (for example knives, guns, safes, trains, TVs, computers, mobile phones, dishwashers) in 37 relation to which human beings then act (sometimes stealing them or using them as weapons and sometimes mobilising them for crime prevention!). This is an interactionist, rather than reductionist, position. Popper refers to a World 1 of things, a World 2 of mind and a World 3 of ideas. Each exists sui generis and each interacts with the others, often producing unintended consequences. Understanding crime patterns involves understanding this interaction. 7. The future, including crime and crime controls, is indeterminate and open in the minimal sense that we cannot predict future ideas (or else we’d have them already) and those future ideas will help shape what then occurs (or is produced) through the interactive processes described in point 6. 8. Problem-solving is ubiquitous and follows an evolutionary path. Mutations comprise hypotheses that are tested by their survival or otherwise; those that survive embody hypotheses that are good enough fits with the problem- situation (ecological niche) into which they are born. Theories follow a similar evolutionary path: they are tested by their adequacy to deal with the problem situation in science for which they have been developed. Everyday problem solving (including that to deal with crime detection and prevention) again follows the same path: devise a tentative solution to the problem at hand, test it, eliminate failures, and then move on to a new attempted solutions or new problem situation. As problem-solvers humans differ from other biota in that we can formulate hypotheses without putting our 40 could potentially falsify the hypothesis (see also Farrell, Tseloni and Tilley, 2016, Tilley et al 2019). Action research A distinction can be made between ‘pure’ academic research conducted to advance knowledge and research carried out in the field to support the implementation of interventions. The latter is often referred to as action research, a term coined by Kurt Lewin, and described as "comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action" (Lewin, 1946, p. 35). Action research is an interactive, iterative process involving "a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action" (p. 38). The researcher/practitioner learns as he/she goes, and modifies the intervention in response to feedback at each stage of the implementation until success is achieved. A well-known model of action research in the area of crime control is SARA (Eck and Spelman, 1987), an acronym for scanning, analysis, response and assessment (figure 2). Originally developed as framework for the implementation problem oriented policing (POP) (Goldstein, 1979), the SARA process is essentially the scientific method adapted for the field. SARA provides police – and practitioners more generally – with a step-by-step guide to implementing crime control initiatives. The researcher/practitioner first identifies crime problems of concern and selects the 41 most pressing and recurrent one (scan). Next, an in-depth analysis of the selected problem is conducted to look for patterns and to identify contributory causes (analysis). Possible responses are then generated and the most practical and cost effective selected (response). Finally, the effectiveness of the response is evaluated (assessment). Throughout the process there are feedback loops such that failure at any stage results in a return to earlier stages. Figure 2 here The goal of action research is to develop a successful intervention rather than simply to test whether or not a particular intervention works. The SARA process can be applied in an informal way in the course of everyday practice without the need to mount a sophisticated research project. At the same time, there are lessons to be learned from successful case studies that can form an important part of the evidence base. For example, in the USA there is an annual Goldstein Award for the best example internationally of a crime reduction initiative using SARA, and the database containing all submissions can be found on the POP website3. Crime reduction as an engineering problem There are parallels between the research challenges for crime science and the orientation and methods of engineering (Tilley and Laycock, 2016). Engineering is a) an applied, practical problem-solving endeavour which b) pragmatically draws on 3 www.popcenter.org 42 what is known, c) identifies pressing gaps in knowledge needed to improve effectiveness, d) tries to learn from systematically interrogated error, and e) tries to fill those gaps in knowledge and remedy identified errors with well-targeted programmes of research. Crime science adopts the same basic approach (Petroski 1992, 1996, 2008, Syed 2016). Crime scientists begin with a specific problem and try to devise practical solutions whose effectiveness is checked in order to determine whether other measures are needed instead or as well as those already tried. Crime scientists do not expect that precisely the same situation will recur from one problem to the next. Rather, the particularities of a given situation need to be taken into account and the relevance of tested theory and previous measures considered in light of the specific presenting conditions. In this respect, the crime scientist’s approach is akin to that of the bridge builder. No two situations for a bridge are identical in terms of required span, expected traffic patterns, wind pressure, or characteristics of the ground on which the bridge’s superstructure is to be built. Yet we can see clearly that each bridge- builder draws on what has been achieved before as well as what has gone wrong. Moreover, engineers designing bridges make complex calculations about the pressures that a new structure will need to withstand and the responses of the new structure to these pressures. They create a margin for error. They often build virtual or physical models that replicate those that are envisaged, to work out how they will behave in differing conceivable conditions. Engineers try to anticipate future stresses to which a new structure is liable to be put in order to check that it will be 45 detection of specific crimes and support for specific victims as well as the prevention of future crimes, as indicated earlier in this chapter, drawing on any and all disciplines that might have a contribution (See also Laycock 2001, Pease 2005). Medical science has been taken forward by blends of practitioners and researchers. Many medical researchers are also physicians who continue to practice part time, to help ensure that their research endeavours speak to the realities of clinical work. Moreover those who are mainly practitioners also engage with research by participating in projects, reading medical journals reporting research findings and by taking part in various continuing professional development courses apprising them of research findings. Furthermore, practitioners’ lengthy initial training ensures an appreciation of the science behind medicine. Indeed, certifying bodies require that medical practitioners are familiar with essential research findings. So, crime science aims to undergird crime prevention and detection practices with robust scientific findings and routine attention to and participation in new research studies. And, as with medical science, the basic sciences to be drawn on are extensive. Crime science is a long way short of medical science in terms of research findings, underlying theory, tested practices, professional training and practitioner orientation to continuous improvement through the accumulation of new 46 knowledge. It is not even clear who, apart from the police and others working within the criminal justice system, comprise the relevant professional populations. There are likely those whose main concern is not crime whose practices and policies nevertheless are crucial to crime and security. Such people would include, for example, architects, planners, Internet service providers, retailers, insurance companies, product manufactures, government officials, and licensees. The same, however, also goes for health where there is a similarly diverse population for whom health is not their major concern but whose practices and policies are crucial to physical wellbeing. In this case, relevant groups include cleaners, sanitation workers, restaurateurs, planners, architects, and manufacturers of a wide range of produce whose design and operations may have unintended health consequences. Here, a mix of education, training and regulation has routinized attention to the avoidance of inadvertent health harms, informed by research. Part of crime science’s future lies in developing the knowledge base for practitioners whose chief concern is crime, in educating them and in mobilising them as creators and users of emerging research findings. Another part of crime science’s future lies in understanding how inadvertent crime consequences are produced and also avoided. Avoidance strategies might include education and training of those involved in relevant decision-making and maybe also the formulation of regulations that, as with public health, help prevent the production of harmful side effects. 47 What disciplines are relevant to crime science? It is difficult to find whole areas of scientific work that could have no conceivable relevance to crime and crime control. The reader is invited to take any popular science journal and to think about which papers are and are not relevant to crime in one way or another. Here we take the 12 November 2016 issue of New Scientist. Material that explicitly refers to crime, crime detection and crime prevention can be distinguished from that which may be applicable, although its relevance is not discussed. A. Material that is explicitly relevant: 1. Forensic evidence related infanticide. Patterns of head injury have been taken to indicate that a baby has been shaken to death, more specifically a combination of swelling of the brain, bleeding on the brain’s surface and bleeding behind retinas. A review of 1,000 studies casts doubt on this assumption, which has been made by expert witnesses in the evidence they have given. Past convictions may be insecure (pp. 5; 8-9). 2. Skunk lock for bicycles. An innovative cycle lock is described. It sprays a thief with a pungent solution causing vomiting. The lock is given distinctive appearance. The idea is that the lock with the smelly spray acts as a more effective deterrent than other similar locks (p.56). 3. A machine that can listen out for crime and trigger an alarm. A computer model that has learned to discriminate sounds is described. One use that is 50 Of course, different disciplines contribute in different ways and at different points of intervention. Figure 3 shows five broad intervention points, arranged chronologically with respect to the crime event, towards which crime reduction efforts might be directed – biological risk factors, developmental experiences, the crime event, the investigation process, and the responses of the criminal justice system. Possible crime reduction strategies and contributing disciplines are shown for each intervention point. Figure 3 about here Ways of bringing disciplines together Throughout this chapter we have argued that different disciplines might assist in better understanding and responding to crime. Yet we need to consider not just the range of disciplines that might contribute to crime science, but also on what basis might they come together. Presently, there seems to be almost universal agreement that mono-disciplinary silos are bad things and that most problems are best solved by bringing multiple perspectives to bear upon them. So far in this chapter we have avoided attaching any particular prefix to disciplinarity. Choices include multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (Austin, Park and Goble, 2008; Choi and Pak, 2006; Henry, 2012; Klein, 2008). Each of these terms has a different meaning and denotes a different degree of integration. However, too often when people speak of bringing disciplines together they do not explain exactly 51 how this is to be done, and terms to describe combined disciplinary approaches are used more-or-less interchangeably. The various forms of disciplinarity are shown in table 3. Crime science specifies no particular level of disciplinary integration. The type of disciplinarity that is undertaken is determined by the requirements of the problem at hand (Borrion and Koch, 2017; Huutoniemi, Klein, Bruun and Hukkinen, 2010). At a minimum, bringing disciplines together requires the creation of a multidisciplinary team where researchers with different expertise collaborate on a problem. Each expert needs to know only enough about the other contributing disciplines for a meaningful exchange of ideas to occur within the team. Interdisciplinarity demands more of the researchers. While they may retain their primary disciplinary orientations, they need to understand, absorb and employ key concepts and methods from the other discipline(s). Fully integrated interdisciplinary fields are often indicated by their double-barrelled names (e.g., medical physics). Finally, and most challengingly, transdisciplinarity aims to take us beyond the blending of disciplines. It requires researchers to break free of (transcend) disciplinary boundaries to create new ways of looking at and solving real world problems. Table 3 about here In practice, all types of disciplinary integration are difficult to achieve. ‘Multidisciplinarity’ and related terms often seem to be little more than buzzwords where the rhetoric around them is not matched by on-the-ground reality. At an 52 individual level, researchers may resist moving beyond the comfort of their own disciplines. Moreover, there are many structural impediments to them doing so. Universities remain largely organised around disciplinary areas. Research councils and other funding bodies likewise often favour disciplinary-focussed research - it is judged to be a less risky investment. Learned societies are typically disciplinary based. And if researchers do manage to carry out multi-, inter- or trans-disciplinary research, they may encounter difficulty finding a journal willing to publish it. In spite of all this, bringing disciplines together is a cause worth pursuing. The crime problems we face today, and those we that may arise in the future, are unlikely to be solved without the combined efforts of researchers from across the disciplinary spectrum. Summary Crime science focuses attention on concerns that, it was believed, were being neglected in mainstream criminology. In this respect, it builds on and extends environmental criminology, which itself began as a reaction to perceived gaps in criminological research. We have set out in this section the defining features of crime science – an uncompromising focus on crime control, the pursuit of this goal through scientific means, and an invitation to researchers from all disciplines to join in the endeavour. 55 general reader. We return in the final chapter of the volume to take stock and to consider future directions for crime science. 56 Table 1 Chronology of seminal approaches in environmental criminological Year Concept Primarily Associated with Key Idea 1971 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design C. Ray Jeffrey Crime is a function of its immediate consequences. Environments should be designed in ways to discourage the performance of criminal behaviour 1972 Defensible Space Oscar Newman Crime is a product of the anonymity associated with urban living. Urban design should facilitate citizens’ ability to defend vulnerable spaces against intrusion by potential offenders 1976 Situational Crime Prevention Ronald V Clarke Crime can only occur where there is opportunity. The immediate environment should be altered to reduce opportunities on a crime- specific basis. 1979 Routine Activities Approach Marcus Felson Crime occurs when a likely offender and suitable target come together in the absence of a capable guardianship. The convergence of these three elements is by governed by socially-determined routines 1981 Geometry of Crime / Crime Pattern Theory Patricia & Paul Brantingham Crime is not random. It is patterned in the urban environment by the distribution of criminal opportunities and the routine movements of offenders 1985 Rational Choice Perspective Derek Cornish & Ronald V Clarke Crime is purposive and always a choice. A particular crime occurs when the perceived benefits of committing the crime are judged to outweigh the perceived costs. 57 Table 2. Twenty-Five Techniques of Situational Prevention Increase the Effort Increase the Risks Reduce the Rewards Reduce Provocations Remove Excuses 1. Target harden  Steering column locks and ignition immobilisers  Anti-robbery screens  Tamper-proof packaging 6. Extend guardianship  Go out in group at night  Leave signs of occupancy  Carry cell phone 11. Conceal targets  Off-street parking  Gender-neutral phone directories  Unmarked armoured trucks 16. Reduce frustrations and stress  Efficient lines  Polite service  Expanded seating  Soothing music/muted lights 21. Set rules  Rental agreements  Harassment codes  Hotel registration 2. Control access to facilities  Entry phones  Electronic card access  Baggage screening 7. Assist natural surveillance  Improved street lighting  Defensible space design  Support whistleblowers 12. Remove targets  Removable car radio  Women’s shelters  Pre-paid cards for pay phones 17. Avoid disputes  Separate seating for rival soccer fans  Reduce crowding in bars  Fixed cab fares 22. Post instructions  “No Parking”  “Private Property”  “Extinguish camp fires” 3. Screen exits  Ticket needed for exit  Export documents  Electronic merchandise tags 8. Reduce anonymity  Taxi driver IDs  “How’s my driving?” decals  School uniforms 13. Identify property  Property marking  Vehicle licensing and parts marking  Cattle branding 18. Reduce temptation and arousal  Controls on violent pornography  Enforce good behavior on soccer field  Prohibit racial slurs 23. Alert conscience  Roadside speed display boards  Signatures for customs declarations  “Shoplifting is stealing” 60 Figure 2. SARA (Source: Clarke and Eck, 2005) SCANNING ANALYSIS RESPONSEASSESSMENT 61 Figure 3. Possible contributions of different disciplines at different points of intervention for crime reduction. Suggested crime reduction strategies and disciplines are illustrative and not intended to represent an exhaustive list. 62 Table 3. Types of disciplinarity Type Features Level of Integration Example Mono-disciplinary Concentration on one field of study. Facilitates specialisation and the development of expertise but limits exchange of knowledge. A geneticist isolates a gene associated with an increased risk of violence. Multidisciplinary Specialists from different disciplines come together, each contributing their own disciplinary expertise. Knowledge is distributed within the team. A psychologist and computer scientist work together to reduce child sexual abuse images on the Internet. The psychologist contributes knowledge on offender behaviour and the computer scientist contributes technical expertise on implementing strategies online. Interdisciplinary Experts come together to extend the disciplinary knowledge of individual members. Disciplinary borders begin to break down with synthesis of ideas and techniques. The field of computational criminology combines elements from computer science and criminology. Computational criminologists model crime and other complex criminological concepts and conduct simulated experiments to test hypotheses. Trans- disciplinary Disciplines combine in a holistic fashion to create new perspectives that go beyond the contributing disciplines. The new field of data science integrates theories and techniques from many fields including mathematics, computer science, and statistics. Data science can be applied across diverse problem areas. In the case of crime, data scientists might mine big data sets to reveal underling crime patterns. 65 Clarke, Ronald V. (1997). ‘Introduction’. In: R. V. Clarke (ed) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed). Albany NY: Harrow and Heston. Clarke, R. V. (2004). ‘Technology, criminology and crime science’. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(1), 55-63. Clarke, R.V (2017). ‘Situational crime prevention’. In R. Wortley & M. Townsley, M. (eds). Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (2nd ed). London: Routledge. Clarke, R. V. & Cornish, Derek B. (1985). ‘Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy’. In: M. Tonry & N. Morris (eds) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 6. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers. Washington, DC: Center for Problem Oriented Policing. http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/PDFs/60Steps.pdf Clarke, R. V., (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods (Vol. 112). Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. 66 Cockbain, E. P., & Laycock, G. (2017). ‘Crime science’. In: H. Pontell, H and S. Lab, (eds.) The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). ‘Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach’, American Sociological Review, 44: 588-608. Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (2003). ‘Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention’. In M. Smith and D. Cornish (eds), Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies volume 6,. Monsey, NY: Criminal justice Press. Eck, J.E. and Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Washington: Police Executive Research Forum. Ekblom, P. (1994). Proximal circumstances: A mechanism-based classification of crime prevention. R.V. Clarke (ed.). Crime Prevention Studies, Vol 2. Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston. Ekblom, P. (2017). ‘Designing products against crime’. In R. Wortley & M. Townsley, M. (eds). Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (2nd ed). London: Routledge. 67 Farrell, G. (2015). ‘Preventing phone theft and robbery: The need for government action and international coordination’. Crime science, 4(1), 4. Farrell, G., Laycock, G., & Tilley, N. (2015). ‘Debuts and legacies: the crime drop and the role of adolescence-limited and persistent offending’. Crime science, 4(1), 16. Farrell, G., & Tilley, N. (2017). ‘Technology for crime and crime prevention: A supply side analysis’. In Crime Prevention in the 21st Century (pp. 377-388). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Farrell, G., Tseloni, A. and Tilley, N. (2016). ‘Signature dish: triangulation from data signatures to examine the role of security in falling crime.’ Methodological Innovations 9: 1-11. Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Mailley, J., & Tilley, N. (2011). ‘The crime drop and the security hypothesis’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 147-175. Felson, M. (2017). ‘Routine activity approach’, In R. Wortley & M. Townsley, M. (eds). Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (2nd ed). London: Routledge. Felson, M. (2002). Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 70 Martinson, R. (1974). ‘What works? Questions and answers about prison reform’. The Public Interest, (35), 22-54. Mayhew, P., Clarke, R. V. G., Sturman, A., & Hough, J. M. (1975). Crime as Opportunity. London: Home Office Research and Planning Unit. Newman, O. (1972). Crime Prevention Through Urban Design: Defensible Space. Macmillan: New York. Ohana, D. J., Phillips, L., & Chen, L. (2013). ‘Preventing cell phone intrusion and theft using biometrics’. In Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2013 IEEE (pp. 173- 180). IEEE. Pease, K. (2005) ‘Science in the service of crime reduction.’ In N. Tilley (ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. London: Routledge. Petroski, H. (1992) The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Random House. Petroski, H. (1996) Invention by Design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Petroski, H. (2008) Success through Failure: The Paradox of Design. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Popper, K. (1957) The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge. 71 Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson. Popper, K. (1972) Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ross, L. (1977) 'The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process', in L. Berkowitz (ed) Advances in Experimental Psychology (Vol.10). New York, Academic Press. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. London: Pinter & Martin. Ross, N. (2013). Crime: How to Solve it - And Why So Much of What We're Told Is Wrong. London: Biteback Publishing. Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.. Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: Wiley. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: McMillan. Syed, M. (2016). Black Box Thinking. London: John Murray. 72 Tilley, N. (2004). ‘Karl Popper: A philosopher for Ronald Clarke’s situational crime prevention’, in S. Shoham and P. Knepper (eds), Israel Studies in Criminology 8, Willowdale, Ontario: de Sitter: 39-56. Tilley N., Farrell G., Clarke R.V. (2015). ‘Target suitability and the crime drop’. In: M.A. Andresen M.A., & G. Farrell (eds). The Criminal Act. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Tilley, N., Farrell, G. and Tseloni, A. (2019). ‘Doing Quantitative Criminological Research: The Crime Drop’, In P. Davies and P. Francis (eds) Doing Criminological Research, Third Edition. London: Sage. Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2016). ‘Engineering a safer society’. Public Safety Leadership Research Focus, 4(2), 1-6. Whitehead, S., Mailley, J., Storer, I., McCardle, J., Torrens, G., & Farrell, G. (2008). ‘In safe hands: a review of mobile phone anti-theft designs’. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 14(1), 39-60. Wortley, R. (2011). Psychological Criminology: An Integrative Approach. London: Routledge.