CPTED and Broken Windows policing are both successful strategies for reclaiming crime-ridden public spaces (i.e., crime hot spots) by reducing crime opportunities and changing the public’s perceptions of what are acceptable behaviors in those specific areas. The Broken Windows theory is a policing strategy based on the basic principles, which holds that ignoring the little problems such as graffiti, loitering, houses and building with broken windows tend to add up and typically end up destroying a neighborhood good social life. The term Broken Windows come from the term used in 1982 article in The Atlantic Monthly by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Broken Window s theories, propose that in addition to ignoring minor crimes and the minor sings of disorder the results will be additional disorder and ultimately lead to serious crimes to be committed.
In additional program capable of altering the safety and live hood of a community is one that requires the physical environment to be altered. Before one considers implementing Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED), a working definition and basic understanding is essential. The CPTED is a very broad study and it entails a re-design of hot zone environments to encourage desirable behavior, and functionality, and decreased antisocial (criminal) behavior. Although the CPTED field is gradually expanding to encompass affective, psychological, and sociological environmental design-known as the second-generation CPTED, its traditional focus has still been emphasized on altering the environment through effective physical design.
The Broken Windows theory created a positive environment were people who feared becoming crime victims would no longer want to abandon their communities. Instead it promoted community members to stay active in programs focused on prevention and reduction of criminal activity. In addition Broken Window policies sparked a revolutionary change in policing. In trouble neighborhoods were home foreclosures were the highest, the police worked with the community to improve the foreclosed homes physical appearance in turn improving the appearance of the community. If a window was broken the owner had to immediately replace it, if an owner was not found then the community replaced the broken windows. If the front yarn needed maintenance once again the owner was contacted if the owner could not be contacted the community would set up volunteer to help clean the yard. If there was graffiti on the walls they would immediately get painted over or scrubbed, then establish tough zero tolerance policy to deal with graffiti artist. If there were abandoned cars then immediately haul them out.
The “Broken Windows” theory can be applied to almost every other city or county where one resides. There is always that one part of a city where it’s known to fit into this theory. For example in some phoenix neighborhood that had drinking bars and liquor stores, customers were not allowed to drink outside. The business in collaboration with local police would make sure that there wouldn’t be any homeless and drunks on the sidewalls. The residents would also establish community programs to help the homeless and individual dealing with alcoholism.
Another example would apply to the growing problems the Buckeye police had to deal with, due to the high rates of foreclosed homes. The “Broken Windows” theory has implied that crime is more likely to occur in areas that are abandoned and not well taken care of. “Broken Windows” theory as explained by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 (Peak and Glensor 99), they describe how not only “physical signs that an area is unattended” is where crime will more likely take place, but also the type of “public” it is attracting to those areas. When home owners abandon their homes, criminals would tend to hide or be out of the public’s sight on foreclosed homes. The homes are also a loitered and frequented by drug users. Foreclosed homes will then tend to become “hanging out spots” for the local youths. The abandoned homes will then tend to get vandalized and have possible property damaged. Eventually these homes will deter potentially home buyers. However, Broken Windows Policing is not an answer to eradicate all crime, instead policies are intended to be proactive and preventive in working with the community and the local police to prevent and deter crime.
Adequate implementation of broken windows policies and the ability to carry out Crime Prevention thorough Environmental Design resourcefully, play the most important role in removing un-wanted targets that may lead to opportunities for offences to be committed, such as larceny, auto theft, home burglary and many white collar crimes. When you’re able to carry out broken windows policies and prevention through the effective implementation of the CPTED then the community would be and will remain crime free.
Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) is different from other crime control approaches that attempt to change the disposition or surrounding factors the offenders. Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) policies do not deal with the crime or the criminal activity directly. Instead, situational Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) theories are based on changing the individual’s environment. Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) prevention also targets potential victims by changing their interaction with their environment , with an end goal of positively changing the victims behavior .Effecting an environment is a way to reduce the likelihood of individuals of becoming crime victims as a cause of their environment conditions (wrong place at the wrong time). Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) will also tend to target public building designs that will target women and children for immediate situational crime intervention, since they will have higher chances of victimization.
Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) ignores the individual, instead if focuses on the individuals’ interaction with its immediate social, psychological and physical environment. The theoretical stance in s Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED), has a great deal in common with social learning theory (R.V.G. Clarke 1982), determines a productive interaction between the individual and the environmental scenarios. To prevent and to reduce crime the individual’s interaction with their environment must be analyzed. Architects emphasise that to reducing delinquency in high schools “it is just as plausible to locate the causes of delinquency in the individual as in the environment (1980: Newman) “.Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) policies have enable the reduction of crime though environmental design by deterring low-rate offenders form being able to coming any crime, in addition (CPTED) policies are geared to identify and eliminate high-rate crime zone (such as alley ways, dark hallways and dead ends) to directly deter offenders. Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) offers effective design measures for the community and will most likely change the criminal to be perception of committing a crime in that particular neighbourhood.
In an attempt to change the disposition or personality of hot zone environment ffor example,” the introduction of technology which enabled telephones to display the calling number on a potential victim’s phone served to reduce the number of obscene phone calls (Clarke, 1991)”. Immediate physical changes on an environment, such as security visible cameras and constant recordings on videotape or DVD’s on hot zones (such as liquor stores, alley ways, dark hallways and dead ends), will not only aid the police in convicting criminals but the camera’s presence can also reduce the risk of personal items from being stolen and private property from being vandalized. For example in High School with dozens of unsecured and poorly labeled exterior(emergency) doors will not able to effectively control who comes and goes thought the doors. Intruders will have no restrictions and are free rein; as a result schools officials must rely on other security measures. Without the existence of a natural access control, school security officials much place a greater emphasis must on surveillance, territoriality, school social climate, and relying on security personnel to step in and compensate thus by changing the method on which unsecured doors are monitored the safety of the school’s students have been increased .
A similar argument concerning the negative aesthetics of an environment such as loud guard dogs, barbed wire and security cameras will deter any criminal activity from occurring. Policies through Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) will have an effect of changing the (criminals) individual’s perception of a good target area prone to commit a crime; effective environmental designs will act a positive crime deterrent. To effectively maintain a crime free environment , governing bodies along with community planes must be required to approve effective planning policies but must also to effectively consult and address a communities social and criminal problems. Sometimes by just implementing slight aesthetic changes will imply that a criminal should be frustrated by CPTED measures being enforce. Adding lights to hot spots will additionally effect the deception of easy crime, (quick cash, etc.) and will also change a criminal’s decision, as to the time; location and type of crime to be committed. The extend, under which these Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) policies get applied with immediately effect the motivation of the perpetuator and effectively deterring the opportunistic offender will be determined by its environmental designs. , both of these strategies CPTED and Broken Windows have the effect of increasing residents’ willingness to apply informal social control in an area
These policing methods, Broken Windows Policing, Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies require a substantial amount of trust on the police officer’s part as well as an active commitment/participation for the citizen’s part. Both of these methods of policing allow citizens to collaborate with community leaders, architects, social workers, designers and police agencies and develop environments that are not just esthetically pleasant but offer its inhabitants a guaranteed sense of safety and thrust. All participants will have to trust each other and know that each other is looking out for them to help everyone stay safe… By understand how situational crime prevention is different from other crime control approaches by being able to bring together the policies and theories incorporated in rational choice theory and routine activity .Tends to lead to an increased focus on the relationship between certain environments and types of crime. We understand why certain locations usually generate more crime, or whether they just provide a suitable environment in which crime just happens to occur. The environment does not so cause crime as merely provide an appropriate setting for it to occur.
It very important to understand broken windows theories and Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED), perspectives within certain environments are more likely to encourage criminal activity and focus in positive environments are less likely to do so. CPTED and Broken Windows policing are both strategies for reclaiming crime-ridden public spaces (i.e., crime hot spots) by reducing crime opportunities and changing the public’s perceptions of what are acceptable behaviors in those areas. Broken windows theories and Crime Prevention Thorough Environmental Design (CPTED) promote the quality of life and sustainable living environments through enhanced community safety.