3.2 describe the contribution of agencies to achieving social control.
Environmental design:
Some criminologists suggest that the design of buildings and spaces can be used to reduce
crime. They argue that agencies such as architects and local councils can ‘design crime out’
by changing the physical layout of an area. These changes could limit opportunities for
potential offenders to commit crimes and give people the ability to control their surroundings.
Alterations to a neighbourhood can reduce crime by natural surveillance with clear open
spaces, this leads to the likelihood of detection and apprehension of offenders. This links to
the broken windows theory by Wilson and Kelling as it demonstrates how neglected areas
encourage further crime as there is already visible signs of it occurring, such as graffiti,
substance use and criminal damage.
Indefensible spaces:
Architect Newman argued some spaces are defensible while others are indefensible. The
indefensible spaces are the most likely places where crimes will occur as they appear uncared
for or unowned. The anonymity of these indefensible spaces make them ideal for
environmental offenders to commit crimes.
Newman studied high rise blocks in New York and found that 55% of all crimes committed
occurred in the flats public spaces as no one felt they owned them.
Defensible spaces:
Defensible spaces are less likely to attract crime as these spaces are clearly cared for and
owned, such as public shared gardens cared for by the community (territorial) , people can
observe and monitor the area (natural surveillance) which is less likely to attract criminals.
The theory developed by criminologist C.R Jeffery CTPED is based on the idea that some
crime arises from the opportunities presented by the physical surroundings, therefore they
alter the physical environment and design of buildings so less crime occurs this promotes:
surveillance, access, territoriality, ordered maintenance.
Consider: blind corners, bushes, lighting, security.
Example: Alice Coleman conducted a study of over 4000 blocks of flats in London and found
that poor design was linked to high crime rates. She recommended removing overhead
walkways to improve visibility and cared for public gardens. Her research influenced
planners, councils and architects to ‘design crime out’ and a 50% reduction in crime was seen
when over head walkways were removed. There is now a secured by design kitemark that
building industries can achieve to meet crime prevention standards.
Environmental design and gated lanes.
Another way environmental design can influence criminality if gated lanes or alley gating,
literally gates are installed at the entrance and rear of alleyways in order to deter burglars and
other criminals to gain unlawful access from the rear of houses. 1/4/2006, laws came into
force giving local authorities powers to erect gates to combat crime and anti-social behaviour.
It allows communities to share public space and care for it, reducing burglaries and antisocial
, groups from using the space. Gated lanes work according to : Sidebottom: as they help reduce
crime because they provide a physical barrier which deters offenders and increases
territoriality. It stops spaces being viewed as public spaces.
Strengths: deters criminals as it prevents access to premises, prevents anti-social behaviour as
there’s a shared sense of ownership, obstacles for quick getaways and prevents fly tipping/
the broken window theory. Example~ Preston, Lancashire, reduced crime and prevented
rubbish being dumped in the back lanes, the residents felt they were re-claiming their streets.
Weaknesses: doesn’t deter criminals who live inside the gated areas, only works for a few
crimes~ doesn’t work for domestic abuse, instead they are trapped inside, doesn’t work for
cyber crimes or fraud, expensive to install, emergency services access is restricted, may push
crime into another ungated area, it isn’t the complete solution to crime.
Theories:
CTPED and gated lanes
Functionalists: crime is inevitable, regulation reaffirms the boundaries of acceptable
behaviour thus strengthening collective values.
Right realism: assumes that rational choice theory will be a factor. Therefore if
opportunities are blocked through design or there is too much risk, they are less likely to
try it. Its harder to commit them in the first place.
Marxism: would argue that the bourgeoisie are protecting their property from the
proletariats.
Environmental design: Prison design
The ways prisons are designed can impact criminality within the prison. There are a variety
of prison styles used by the Uk and other nations.
The panopticon~ ‘all seeing’
Designed by Jeremy Bentham, the prison was deigned for social control. The cells are
visible to the guard from a central viewing point, the guards can see the prisoners but the
prisoners cannot see the guards so don’t know when they are being watched. Therefore,
the prisoners must constantly behaviour. The surveillance turns into self- surveillance.
Foucault argues that modern society controls us through surveillance. Prisoners can be
seen but cannot communicate to others therefore the crowd is abolished which leads to
control, the design ensures a sense of permanent visibility and ensures the functioning of
the power.
Super max prison~ ADX, Florence, Colorado.
Max security for the most dangerous criminals such as those that threaten national
security. The idea developed in the USA, but also in the UK known as category A prisons
such as HMP Wakefield.
Norway: Bastoy prison: human ecological prisons, a small society on an island, self-
sustaining village where there are 3 rules: no drugs, no violence, no alcohol.
left realism approach~ prisoners are treated with respect so they rehabilitate to return to
society. Reoffending rates are low.
Environmental design:
Some criminologists suggest that the design of buildings and spaces can be used to reduce
crime. They argue that agencies such as architects and local councils can ‘design crime out’
by changing the physical layout of an area. These changes could limit opportunities for
potential offenders to commit crimes and give people the ability to control their surroundings.
Alterations to a neighbourhood can reduce crime by natural surveillance with clear open
spaces, this leads to the likelihood of detection and apprehension of offenders. This links to
the broken windows theory by Wilson and Kelling as it demonstrates how neglected areas
encourage further crime as there is already visible signs of it occurring, such as graffiti,
substance use and criminal damage.
Indefensible spaces:
Architect Newman argued some spaces are defensible while others are indefensible. The
indefensible spaces are the most likely places where crimes will occur as they appear uncared
for or unowned. The anonymity of these indefensible spaces make them ideal for
environmental offenders to commit crimes.
Newman studied high rise blocks in New York and found that 55% of all crimes committed
occurred in the flats public spaces as no one felt they owned them.
Defensible spaces:
Defensible spaces are less likely to attract crime as these spaces are clearly cared for and
owned, such as public shared gardens cared for by the community (territorial) , people can
observe and monitor the area (natural surveillance) which is less likely to attract criminals.
The theory developed by criminologist C.R Jeffery CTPED is based on the idea that some
crime arises from the opportunities presented by the physical surroundings, therefore they
alter the physical environment and design of buildings so less crime occurs this promotes:
surveillance, access, territoriality, ordered maintenance.
Consider: blind corners, bushes, lighting, security.
Example: Alice Coleman conducted a study of over 4000 blocks of flats in London and found
that poor design was linked to high crime rates. She recommended removing overhead
walkways to improve visibility and cared for public gardens. Her research influenced
planners, councils and architects to ‘design crime out’ and a 50% reduction in crime was seen
when over head walkways were removed. There is now a secured by design kitemark that
building industries can achieve to meet crime prevention standards.
Environmental design and gated lanes.
Another way environmental design can influence criminality if gated lanes or alley gating,
literally gates are installed at the entrance and rear of alleyways in order to deter burglars and
other criminals to gain unlawful access from the rear of houses. 1/4/2006, laws came into
force giving local authorities powers to erect gates to combat crime and anti-social behaviour.
It allows communities to share public space and care for it, reducing burglaries and antisocial
, groups from using the space. Gated lanes work according to : Sidebottom: as they help reduce
crime because they provide a physical barrier which deters offenders and increases
territoriality. It stops spaces being viewed as public spaces.
Strengths: deters criminals as it prevents access to premises, prevents anti-social behaviour as
there’s a shared sense of ownership, obstacles for quick getaways and prevents fly tipping/
the broken window theory. Example~ Preston, Lancashire, reduced crime and prevented
rubbish being dumped in the back lanes, the residents felt they were re-claiming their streets.
Weaknesses: doesn’t deter criminals who live inside the gated areas, only works for a few
crimes~ doesn’t work for domestic abuse, instead they are trapped inside, doesn’t work for
cyber crimes or fraud, expensive to install, emergency services access is restricted, may push
crime into another ungated area, it isn’t the complete solution to crime.
Theories:
CTPED and gated lanes
Functionalists: crime is inevitable, regulation reaffirms the boundaries of acceptable
behaviour thus strengthening collective values.
Right realism: assumes that rational choice theory will be a factor. Therefore if
opportunities are blocked through design or there is too much risk, they are less likely to
try it. Its harder to commit them in the first place.
Marxism: would argue that the bourgeoisie are protecting their property from the
proletariats.
Environmental design: Prison design
The ways prisons are designed can impact criminality within the prison. There are a variety
of prison styles used by the Uk and other nations.
The panopticon~ ‘all seeing’
Designed by Jeremy Bentham, the prison was deigned for social control. The cells are
visible to the guard from a central viewing point, the guards can see the prisoners but the
prisoners cannot see the guards so don’t know when they are being watched. Therefore,
the prisoners must constantly behaviour. The surveillance turns into self- surveillance.
Foucault argues that modern society controls us through surveillance. Prisoners can be
seen but cannot communicate to others therefore the crowd is abolished which leads to
control, the design ensures a sense of permanent visibility and ensures the functioning of
the power.
Super max prison~ ADX, Florence, Colorado.
Max security for the most dangerous criminals such as those that threaten national
security. The idea developed in the USA, but also in the UK known as category A prisons
such as HMP Wakefield.
Norway: Bastoy prison: human ecological prisons, a small society on an island, self-
sustaining village where there are 3 rules: no drugs, no violence, no alcohol.
left realism approach~ prisoners are treated with respect so they rehabilitate to return to
society. Reoffending rates are low.
