Counterblast: Some Discussion of the Home Office Discussion Paper 'Opportunity/Security as a Driver of Crime'
Counterblast: Some Discussion of the Home Office Discussion Paper 'Opportunity/Security as a Driver of Crime'
复制标题
反击：对内政部讨论文件“机会/安全作为犯罪驱动因素”的一些讨论
DOI：
10.1111/hojo.12148
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
FARRELL G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
FARRELL G
最近的内政部（2015）讨论文件似乎相当混乱。作者和内政部之间的通信澄清说，该文件的目标是“非学术受众，包括警察和犯罪专员，他们将对当地的优先事项和委托作出决定”。这就把标准提得很高了。讨论文件就安全问题向听众提供了建议，下文将进一步解释。这份讨论文件只有十页，包括封面、内容、参考资料、执行摘要和六页正文，适合作政策简介。它包含很少的参考资料，但这是好的，因为专家知识是隐含的。这篇论文的标题可能是用词不当，因为安全不是犯罪的驱动力，除非它适得其反，但这本身并不是灾难。据透露，“机会/安全”一词似乎是用来在文件中指的三个重叠领域的犯罪机会理论（理性选择和日常活动），情景犯罪预防（SCP），和安全假说作为1992年后在英格兰和威尔士的犯罪下降的解释。这似乎产生了一个定义上的混乱，贯穿全文。这篇论文的主要重点是对安全假设的批评（下文将进一步详细介绍）。它表面上对情景犯罪预防的有效性表示赞扬，以此来缓冲这一点。然而，当关键的例子包括“闭路电视对犯罪有”适度”的影响“和”有一些--不是特别有力的--证据表明防碎眼镜可以减少暴力“（第2页）时，即使这样也显得不情愿。1这被称为用微弱的赞美来诅咒。
A recent Home Office (2015) Discussion Paper appears rather muddled. Correspondence between the author and the Home Office clarified that the paper is aimed at'a non-academic audience, including Police and Crime Commissioners, who will be taking decisions on local priorities and commissioning'. This raises the bar rather high. The Discussion Paper offers that audience advice on aspects of security as explained further below. Appropriate for a policy brief, the Discussion Paper is short at ten pages, including cover, contents, references, executive summary and six pages of text. It contains few references but this is okay because expert knowledge is implied. The paper's title may be a misnomer because security is not a driver of crime unless it backfires, but this is no disaster on its own. It transpires that the term'opportunity/security'seems to be used in the paper to refer to the three overlapping areas of crime opportunity theories (rational choice and routine activities), situational crime prevention (SCP), and the security hypothesis as an explanation for the post-1992 crime drop in England and Wales. This seems to generate a definitional confusion that dogs the paper throughout.The paper's main emphasis is criticism of the security hypothesis (detailed further below). It cushions this with seeming praise for the effectiveness of situational crime prevention. Yet even this seems begrudging when the key examples include'CCTV had a" modest" effect on crime'and'there is some-not particularly robust-evidence that shatter-proof glasses can reduce violence'(p. 2). 1 This is known as damning with faint praise.