Since the rising interest and concern of women’s fear of crime in the 1980s, it has prompted academics to write literature on the topic. A topic seen throughout the literature is women’s fear of violent crime and the effects on women (Maxfield and Skogan 1981; Mesch 2000; Pain 1997; Stanko 1995). Many academics have tried to understand and explain why women are much more vulnerable and scared of violent crime than men. Warr (1984) wrote that “fear of crime is fear of rape” this suggests that women’s fear of crime stem from the fear of rape. This concept is also highlighted by a number of academics for example, Maxfield (1984) found that by analysing the British Crime Survey in 1982 that women feel less safe due to their fear of sexual assault. All women fear sexual violence but it has been argued that women of a high class are able to deal with the effects and danger more easily (Gordon and Riger 1989; Stanko 1990; Valentine 1989). It has been suggested that the lower classes have a lack of acceptance socially and are socially marginalized which increases their fear of crime. Women’s fear has also been said to have stemmed from images of crime, (Madriz 1997; Mesch 2000) these images portray who is most likely to commit crime and where crime is most likely to happen. This portrayal of images can have effects on where women go and move through the city (Valentine 1989). Valentine goes on to explain the routes that women take are “coping strategies” as they have to take a certain route to reduce the fear of being victimised. This may include taking a longer route purely because the area is more lit up or in a more populated area. Kinsey (1984) talks about the concept of a “virtual curfew” some women may have when going to some urban areas at night. This highlights the fact the fear of crime has taken over the lives of some women and they have to change their daily routine in order to avoid being a victim of crime. However, many academics believe that the outdoors isn’t the only place women fear vulnerable to crime. A lot of crime happens at home as women are at risk of being victimised by an intimate (Mesch 2000; Stanko 1988). Academics have shown women’s fear of crime by mapping areas where it happens (Stanko 1990, Madriz 1997). However Pain (1997) disagrees this is a good approach for violent crime as the British Crime Survey has revealed violence against women is massively underreported to both police and researchers. Domestic violence has become an increasingly worrying issue as in the United States it now constitutes the greatest common cause of nonfatal injury to females. The interest of women’s fear of crime has highlighted the magnitude of scale and how important it is do something about it and has therefore enabled crime prevention schemes directly aimed at women (Stanko 1995). For example there are now many rape crisis and sexual harassment shelters to help support women about confronting this type of violence. Women have united together in supporting women’s fear of crime and have held “take back the night” marches to show women they are not alone. These movements have highlighted the reality of most women’s fear and also enabled the public to understand it too. This literature is only taken from the UK and the USA therefore, could be seen to disregard women’s fear of crime in poorer countries which may be completely different.
Geography of Crime
An important part of understanding crime is trying to understand where it happens, researchers in the late 19th century and early 20th century made no advances in the spatiality of crime (Herbert, 1982). Shaw and Mckay (1942) were the first researchers to fully develop the spatial awareness of crime. They did a study on Chicago whereby they looked at delinquency data from the Illinois crime survey. Through their research Shaw and Mckay created the theory social disorganization. Social disorganization theory communicates that the environments (social and physical) around a person is a factor in what choices a person makes. An area with poverty and a high level of different ethnicities have the highest crime rates. In Chicago Shaw and Mckay noted four types of deviance: A relapse into criminal behaviour, youth crime, adult crime and truancy which were noted to be all interconnected. High levels of truancy in an area have been said to have been linked to potential delinquency. In the study truancy and delinquency was mostly found in the central business district (CBD) and the industrial inner city areas. The findings of an increase of crime towards to the CBD has been found in nineteen American cities. Many academics also found that the highest rates of crime were found in the CBD whilst they were lower rates in the suburbs (Booth, 1891; Burt, 1925). Herbert (1982) argues that spatial theory does realise that poverty is class based but doesn’t tell us why certain individuals resort to delinquency. However, in recent years the number of houses the public sector owns in the United Kingdom has rose to 31%. These houses are located on the suburbs instead of in the city centres. This has caused a mass amount of people to move to the suburbs and crime levels have also moved with them. The movement of crime can be seen in Morris’ study (1957) whereby he studied offenders in the town Croydon. He noted the distribution of delinquents in the area was related to the public housing market which was on the suburbs. This finding also leads criminologists to suggest that socio-economic status is a factor in delinquency (Amir, 1971; Herbert, 1982; Morris, 1957). The literature within this topic is much outdated which could be seen as not relevant in today’s society however, it does include important studies (Morris 1957) which may seem to mirror the geography of crime today.
Policing of Crime
Crime had been on the increase (5-7 per cent a year) since the early 1950s. However this increase had been argued to be from more effective and efficient reporting and recording techniques (Rutter and Giller, 1984). This increase nevertheless, did prompt a change in the response to crime (Heal, 1992). Neighbourhood watch is said to be one of the most effective crime prevention programmes. It was first launched in the United Kingdom in 1983, with now over 74,000 neighbourhood watchers around the country. The popularity of the scheme can be seen in Hough and Mayhew’s work, (1985) whereby if residents found a neighbourhood watch were to start in their area, 62 per cent of them would be willing to join. Not all academics believe neighbourhood watch is the most effective scheme, Bennett (1992) notes that there is no scientific evidence to suggest it is effective. He also argues that the scheme is all about “positive thinking” to encourage residents to take part and believe that they are doing something positive for their community. Another crime prevention strategy is the theory of broken window policing. The theory was first spoken about by Wilson and Kelling (1982) as they note serious crime only happens when the little things in a community are not being looked after. For example if a city has broken windows it shows a loss of social control within the city therefore more serious crimes are bound to happen. If criminals are arrested for smaller crimes, in theory larger problems should not arise. The theory has been seen in New York City and local officials noted the decrease in major crimes in the 1990s was due to the zero-tolerance strategies of the broken window theory. However many academics disagree that the broken window theory was to blame for the decrease in major crimes in New York City. Many have pointed out that before the broken window policy came into place crime rates were already declining (Bowling, 1999; Baumer and Wolff, 2012; Eck and Maguire, 2006). As well as New York City having lower levels of crime, Canada was also experiencing lower levels of crime but without the broken window concept being applied (Zimring, 2007). This suggests the lower levels of crime in New York City were not due to the broken window theory. Another theory similar to broken window concept is that of situational crime prevention. Clark (1983) defines the theory in his book as removing any opportunity for delinquents to commit a crime. Clarke believes this way is easier than trying to reform the delinquents. An example of trying to remove opportunity is developing secure products for example, manufacturing cars to be more difficult to steal (Clarke and Newman, 2005). A lot of the literature in this section is modern and can still be used in today’s society. However you do have to be cautious of the reliability of statistics as many may not be accounted for.
Youth and Crime
Youth crime has been a big problem in society for a number of decades; it can be argued that youth crime is far worse than it was in the past, on the contrary it can be said that the use of mass media has amplified youth crime. Harries (1974) notes that from using the statistics from the criminal victimization in the United States, that the age group of twenty-four year olds made up fifty-three per cent of all arrestees in 1971. However he also notes that this statistic can be manipulated as some cities have a lower median age than others. This can be seen in Charleston, South Carolina where the median age is 22.4 compared to Tamp-St. Petersburg where it is 37.8 according to metropolitan area statistics. Other academics are also unsure on the reliability on statistics. This can be seen in the statistics for youth criminal violence. According to statistics, youths are most likely to commit violent crime (Savoie 1999; Shalloo 1937; Stevenson et al. 1999). According to Stevenson et al. (1999) violent crimes committed by youths had doubled in the past decade. However, as Rutter and Giller (1984) argued earlier in the policing of crime topic, Stevenson et al. also debates this rise in figures could be due to the increase in reporting crime. This could make the literature unreliable as academics cannot be sure what the statistics were for youth crime centuries ago due to the more efficient way of reporting crime. This can also be seen in the broken window theory that was earlier explained, as fights at school are more likely to be dealt with police instead of the headmaster which then results in them becoming a “justice statistic” (Stevenson et al. 1999). Felson and Boba (2008) note how from the 1960s there was a wider range of opportunity for youths to commit crime. This is due to the shift in the workforce whereby women were now seen to be working. This creates an opportunity for youths as they are no longer supervised in the afternoon after school. This also meant that teenagers were now using public transport to get around – this increases their offending risk as well their victimization risk. Brantingham et al. (1991) use a case study from Vancouver whereby teenagers would use the Skytrain to the car park building in order to break into cars. In parliament soon acknowledged youth crime and saw the importance of disciplinary towards the young (Goldson and Muncie 2015). The acts that passed were the Youthful Offenders Act, 1854 (sending young offenders to reformatories) and the Industrial Schools Act, 1857 (this act was for the victims whereby they could go to a school). At the end of the century there was a total of 30,000 youths in the industrial schools and reformatories.