From the analysis above as shown in Figure 5.2, it seems that removing the opportunity to commit cargo crime is the most effective measures in stopping or reducing this crime. Cornish and Clarke (2003) looks into reducing opportunities for cargo crime will be achieved essentially through some modification or manipulation of the physical environment in order to directly affect criminal’s perceptions of increased risks and effort and decreased rewards, provocations, and excuses. Future research should also investigate larger scope related to displacement of crime and diffusion of crime prevention benefits. This requires the use of both comparable adjacent and non-adjacent control areas. Bowers and Johnson (2003) suggested crime displacement quotient technique be used to investigate any spatial displacement or diffusion effects. This technique requires the use of at least two comparison areas: one adjacent to the treatment area that serves as a buffer to determine displacement and diffusion effects. The other comparison should be at non-adjacent area that is immune to treatment contamination. All these efforts requires calculations of measurements that can assess the size of crime displacement or diffusion in relation to any gains achieved in the treatment area.
5.3 Recommendation on Cargo crime Preventive Measures
Transportation and supply chain business can take the following preventive measures to prevent cargo crime in Malaysia:
a. Thoroughly screening prospective employees.
– Some cargo security experts maintain that a high percentage of cargo crime involve inside information.
b. Carefully select transportation partners and suppliers.
– Remember that these companies have care, custody and control of cargoes once they leave the premises until it reaches the destination.
c. Establish a security culture within your company.
– Provide security training for all employees and educate truck drivers on hijacking awareness and preventive measures.
d. Always include factor in security when determining cargo routing.
– Cargo criminal often knows the shipping points (whether factories, warehouses and distribution centres) and will follow trucks as they depart.
– The criminal will normally strike at the place which they feel safe.
– Drivers should not be allowed to stop in high risk area as well as known crime hot spots area.
e. Security Surveillance
– Incorporate counter surveillance into the duties of security guards and have them patrol along the perimeters.
f. Utilize the advantage of technology
– Trucks and shipment can be tracked.
– Vehicle immobilization and advanced high technology security seals are now easily available at lower cost.
g. Conduct periodic security audits
– Operations and personnel changes
– Criminals are always generating fresh ideas and modifying previous techniques
Durlak and DuPre (2008) stressed that future research needs to pay more attention on the implementation of crime prevention programs and its influence on their outcomes and successful implementation calls for taking account of local environment, context and conditions. For example, detailed observational and other information on the crime problem that is the focus of the attention, as well as the setting (e.g. road transportation secured facilities, unemployment rates), can be matched with the proven crime prevention program and modifications can then be made as required. The holistic approach is useful when risk arises from the environment and a greater understanding of the cause is needed to reduce the total risk.
Cargo crime prevention means many different issues to different peoples depending on which area they are focusing. Many programs and policy are introduced in order to prevent or deter cargo crime and the measures taken are more towards crime control. Usually crime prevention means the effort to prevent crime in the first instance where the act has not been committed yet. Both situations share the common ultimate goal to ensure the prevention of the future criminal act is more meaningful. The different between crime prevention from crime control is that prevention usually operates outside of the confines of the formal justice system (Braga, 2008; Braga and Weisburd, 2010; Weisburd et al., 2010). There are many ways of classifying crime prevention programs. More (1995) sees the crime prevention programs classified into three categories such as primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary prevention involves control measures concentrating on improving the secured facilities within the logistics network and target hardening of the cargo. The secondary prevention focuses on intervention with transportation personnel, fences or buyer of stolen cargoes and individuals who are highly at risk of being involved in criminal activities. Van Dijk and de Waard (1991) expanded this classification system to include second dimension that focus on target group in crime prevention programs. This second dimension distinguished between offender, situation and victim-oriented activities based on routine activity theory as discussed by Cohen & Felson, 1979). The dimensional analogy enables programs to be organized in different stages of the criminal activities whether it is during primary, secondary or tertiary stage and the target group. The key contribution of this new analogy is to confirm the needs and the efforts made in preventing crime. The researcher must also consider the crime victim or potential victim together with the targets of offender and place. Ekblom (1994) tried to reconcile these earlier versions with the mechanism and context based evaluation approach advocated by Pawson and Tilley (1994; 1997). There are three characteristics of crime prevention program that are relevant and they are the ultimate objectives, final intermediate objectives and the actual methods used from development to intervention. However Ekblom’s approach was not meant to be a rigid classification but rather to be more conceptual and that it can be realized in various ways in relation to both form and content according to their needs.
Another crime prevention classification that distinguishes four major prevention strategies is discussed by Tonry and Farrington (1995b). This type of crime prevention development refers to interventions designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals especially those targeting risk and protective factors that were discovered by Tremblay and Craig (1995); Farrington and Welsh (2007b) during the studying of human development. Clark (1995b); Cornish and Clark (2003) refer situational prevention to interventions that are designed to prevent the occurrences of crimes by reducing the crime opportunities and also increasing the risk and the difficulty to commit crime. Hope (1995) refer community prevention refers to interventions that are designed to change the social conditions and social institutions that will influence crime in residential communities. Criminal justice prevention programs refer to traditional deterrent and rehabilitative strategies enforced by law enforcement and criminal justice system agencies (MacKenzie, 2006).
Situational crime prevention focused on the setting or place in which criminal acts take place as well as its crime-specific focus. There are many findings that crime is not randomly distributed across a city or community, but it is instead highly concentrated at certain places known as crime hot spots where crime happen frequently (Sherman et al., 1989). Eck (2006) estimated that throughout the U.S., 10% of the places are sites for about 60% of total crimes reported (Eck, 2006). In the same way that individuals opted criminal as their careers and there are also criminal careers of places (Sherman, 1995). Situational crime prevention has been defined as preventive measures that rely upon improving society or its institutions and reducing opportunities for crime (Clarke, 1992). These different approaches serve as the basis of the highly detailed classification system of situational crime prevention, which can further be divided into separate techniques (Cornish & Clarke, 2003).
The theoretical origin of situational crime prevention is wide-ranging (see Newman et al., 1997; Garland, 2000), but it is largely informed by opportunity theory. This theory defined the offender is heavily influenced by surrounding inducements and opportunities and being highly adaptable to changes in the situation (Clarke, 1995a). Opportunity theory includes several more specific theories and one of these is the rational choice perspective. This perspective appears to have had the greatest influence on the pragmatic orientation of situational crime prevention, as articulated Ronald Clarke (1995a, b, & 1997).