Occurrence of crime displacement is largely determined by three factors; i) offenders motivation, ii) offenders familiarity and; iii) crime opportunity. Undecided criminals are more likely to search for other crime targets and types that provide similar monetary gain (Guerette, Stenius & McGloin, 2005). Criminals are more likely to change their modus operandi to crime targets, places, times, and tactics with which they are more comfortable. This means if crime displacement occurs; it is most likely to be close to the original crime location and involve similar targets and tactics. The probability of crime displacement is greatest when it is close to the original crime location and decreases as the distance from the response area increases as in stipulated in Figure 2.13 (Eck, 1993). Criminals are more likely to change their behaviour to crime targets, places, times, and tactics with the one which they are most familiar (Eck, 1993). Most criminals are more likely to commit crime in familiar areas because it poses greater risk and greater effort to familiarize themselves with new locations. Distance from the original crime location increases the probability of unfamiliarity among criminals.
Figure 2.13 Familiarity Decay and Crime Displacement
Source: Eck, John E. (1993). The Threat of Crime Displacement,
Criminal Justice Abstracts, 25, 527-546.
Crime displacement is mainly determined by criminal motivation, criminal familiarity and crime opportunity. Criminal motivation determines which criminals and types of crimes to be displaced. Criminals driven by drug addiction are more likely to displace their crime behaviour to crime types and targets that facilitate their addiction. Opportunistic criminals will continue to be involved in crime after a response because their motivation is greater. Likewise, instrumental criminals (those motivated by monetary gain) are more likely to seek out other crime targets and types that provide similar monetary gain (Guerette et al., 2005).
Different crimes present different costs, efforts, and rewards as there are many instances where displacing crime behaviour is not worthwhile for the criminals. It is noted that criminals will displace their criminal behaviour when the risks and effort of committing new crimes are worth the returns on investment (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Normally opportunities to commit crime are unevenly distributed across time and location. The other aspect needs to be considered where crime opportunities are blocked then committing other crimes is likely to happen. Blocking crime opportunities can make it more appealing for individuals to satisfy their needs through legitimate activities. A criminal’s decision as to whether to displace his crime behaviour in the aftermath of a response is shaped by the variety of circumstances found among other crime types, targets, times, tactics, and places (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). If criminal knowledge is limited of knowing the way to commit the crime then crime displacements likely will not happen. This means the criminal may not be well versed with the skill or tactic to commit that crime. Criminals are also less likely to commit crimes in location where they are not familiar. Some criminals have limited time to commit crime and thus, crime may not occur if preventive measure is able to delay the crime from happening. Displacement exists in thirty-three of the studies reviewed by Hesseling (1994), although overwhelmingly small in scale. Sometimes crime may not be displaced due to the opportunity theory, the crucial importance of which has long been underestimated. Secondly, consistent research findings into the distances overwhelmingly travelled by criminals to offend will explain why prevented crime is not displaced.
2.4.6 Other theories related to crime displacement
Three recent theoretical perspectives: 1) rational choice, 2) routine activity theory, 3) crime pattern theory; have influenced the understanding of the importance of place in crime prevention efforts (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Rational choice perspective provides the basic rationale for defining place as essential. Some expert claims that this perspective is to some degree not tested, while others have demonstrated that it is possible to test various forms of rational choice (Hogarth & Reder, 1981).
Routine activity theory explained the occurrence of crime seeries as the confluence of various situations (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1994). Firstly, there must be a motivated criminal in order for crime to happen. The explanation of the development of motivated criminals is the goal of criminal theories. Second, there must be a desirable target. Third, the target and the criminal must be at the same place and at the same time. Finally, three other types of controllers: 1) intimate handlers, 2) guardians and; 3) place managers; must be absent or ineffective in order for crime to occur, guardian must be absent, ineffective or negligent (Eck, 1994).
Crime pattern theory is particularly important in developing an understanding of crime and place because it combines rational choice and routine activity theory in aid of explaining the distribution of crime across places. The distribution of criminals, targets, handlers, guardians, and managers over time and place will describe crime patterns. The rapid changes in society have caused the increased of potential targets while separating them from the people who can protect them. Reasonably rational criminals, while engaging in their routine activities, will look for places without guardians and managers and where their handlers are unlikely to show up. Pattern theory explores the interactions of criminals with their physical and social environments that influence criminals' choices of targets. Crime pattern theory explained how targets come to the attention of criminal’s influences the distribution of crime events over time, space, and among targets as revealed by Brantingham and Brantingham (1993). It will only occur when criminals engaged in routine activities. It is the same as non-criminal individuals, criminals move among the surrounding of home, school, work, shopping, and leisure. As criminal conduct their normal legitimate activities regularly, then they become more aware and discovered criminal opportunities. Thus, criminal opportunities that are not near the areas offenders routinely move through are unlikely to come to their attention. A given criminal will be aware of only a subset of the possible targets available. Criminal opportunities found at places that come to the attention of criminals have an increased risk of becoming targets (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). Some criminals may aggressively seek out unknown location while most of them will conduct their searches within the areas as they become familiar through non-criminal activities.
The concept of place is essential to crime pattern theory as the places are logically required then their characteristics will influence the likelihood of committing a crime. Place characteristics highlighted by routine activity theory include the presence and effectiveness of managers and the presence of capable guardians. Crime pattern theory links places with desirable targets and the context within which they are found by focussing on how places come to the attention of potential criminals. Although crime displacement theory, crime pattern theory and routine activity theory are mutually supportive in many aspects but they give different explanations of crime at specific locations. A crime pattern theorist would focus on how criminals discover and gain access to the place as for a given set of high-crime locations. A routine activity theorist would focus instead on the behaviours of the targets and the possible absence of controllers whose presence could have prevented the offenses from taking place; namely the guardians, handlers and place managers. Crime displacement theory looks at the possibility of crime being shifted or displaced to other location. In other words, places are problematic because of their location and relationship to the environment for the crime pattern theorist. As for the routine activity theorist, places are problematic due to the absence and presence of the types of people at the location. On the other hand, for a crime displacement theorist, crime will be displaced. Clearly all the explanations can be valid in different contexts and situations. Crime specific explanations may show some events and crime pattern theory is a useful explanation, for other events routine activity theory offers greater insights, and for still a third group of events some combination of the two theories is required.
Crime displacement theory looks at the possibility of crime being shifted or displaced to other location. In other words, places are problematic because of their location and relationship to the environment for the crime pattern theorist (Ching-EL, 2014b). As for the routine activity theorist, places are problematic due to the absence and presence of the types of people at the location. On the other hand, for a crime displacement theorist, crime will be displaced. Clearly all the explanations can be valid in different contexts and situations.
2.4.7 Crime displacement within the supply chain
Theft opportunities which are highly specific and concentrated in time and place within the supply chain are causing the risk of cargo crime and the risk can be reduced by implementing crime preventive control measures. The control measures are put into practice as to induce a change in the characteristics of cargo crime opportunities and eventually changed the outcome of a criminal decision process. If the potential criminal can change their decision on the target, method, place and time then they will do so within their own capability and the crime will be displaced. A model on crime displacement impact cargo crime needs to begin with the supply chain concept. This is the system context for the model, which means that the supply chain is elucidated with the needs for logistics fulfilment. The elements of crime theory can be used as a foundation for all crimes against supply chain activities worldwide. However, the elements of crime are limited to time, place and motivation in reality. The smaller parts of the global flow of cargo examined and it is less likely for the crime displacement theory to be valid. This is due to the limitations addressed with the assumptions of crime displacement as a reliable explanation about changes in cargo crime characteristics. The practical restraint involves daily business cannot be underestimated.
The management approach in reducing the impact of cargo crime is known as transportation security. Transportation security involve the interaction between physical security control measures and the intervention of humans with the intention of reducing theft, sabotage and other types of crime (EC, 2003; Ekblom, 2007). There are many preventive measures which can be used to reduce the risk of cargo crime but it is important to use it effectively (Mayhew, 2001). These control measures include premises fences, locks, seal, security guards and other types of security systems (Clarke & Homel, 1997). Ekwall (2013) found 97 per cent of all attacks by criminal occurred at vehicle stop area occurred at non-secured parking locations. Cargo crime at non-secured parking locations is more of a volume crime than a high impact cargo crime. The objectives for these types of control measures are to ensure the theft or crime is more difficult to happen. The next important control measures looks into the control and targeting the internal theft problem. Trust of employees in the company can be subdivided in two areas that is the present employees’ supervision (Mayhew, 2001) and new employee reference checks (Muir, 1996). These methods are not sufficient without security plans (EC, 2003), risk assessment and employee education (Mayhew, 2001) to reduce the risk of cargo crime. The complexity of supply chain requires the need for security counter measures to be implemented in different type and method. This approach is to reduce factors specific to different types of crimes, locations and situations (Ekblom, 2007). We need to recognize that crime often reflects the risk, effort and payoff to the criminals (Clarke, 1995).