Examine the strengths and weaknesses of crime displacement theory
Crime can be distinguished into 3 elements namely motivated perpetrator, transported
goods and lack of guardian (Sherman, Gartin & Buerger, 1989). These elements are known
to be present in all types of crime. The relationship among the 3 elements is very complex
and changes in one of the element may prevent the crime from happening. Crime can be
linked to social process, human behavior and other traits or factors where the pattern of
crime can be of temporary and ecological factors (Parker, 1995).
Reppetto (1976) published crime displacement theory in Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency and put forward his theoretical underpinnings for the future analysis of crime
displacement phenomenon and outlined five types of crime displacement such as:
i Temporal - Committing the intended crime at a different time
ii Tactical - Committing the intended crime in a different way
iii Target - Committing the intended crime type on a different target
iv Spatial - Committing the intended crime type to the same target in a different place
v Functional - Committing a different type of crime
Clarke (1998) argued that crimes are displaced by removing opportunity for crime or by
changing the situation of the crime and when this occurs it does not actually prevent crime
but merely moves or shift the crime to another location. There are five main ways in which
Clarke (1998) suggested that crime is being moved around:
i Geographical displacement - crime can be moved from one location to another which is
identified
ii Temporal displacement - crime can be moved from one time to another
iii Target displacement - crime can be directed away from one target to another
iv Tactical displacement - one method of committing crime can be substituted for another
v Crime type displacement - one kind of crime can be substituted for another
Crime displacement is one probable explanation the criminal pattern changes in a certain
system. A practical and common belief about crime displacement is that if perpetrators have
the ability, mobility and flexibility to exploit the weakest link in the chain, they will do so to
commit the crime (Ekwall & Lumsden, 2007). It is the perpetrators’ ability to organize a
successful theft, and their relationship relative to the actors, within the network that are the
fundamental variables to categorize perpetrators. The crime preventive measures are of
great importance to force a change in the perpetrators’ decision process. A simplification of
the benefit with a crime can be illustrated with the target that the perpetrators want.
Crime displacement theory is related to situational crime prevention based on the
theoretical premise of rational choice (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). An individual or criminal
makes a decision as to whether or not to commit an offence based on a range of inputs.
These include the effort involved, the potential payoff, the degrees’ of peer support for the
action, the risk of apprehension and punishment, and individual needs. The theory does not
state that a perpetrator will commit a crime for every opportunity they encounter. Rather,
the potential perpetrator makes a calculated decision aboutthe opportunity to commit a
crime (Lab, 2000).
The concept of place is essential to crime pattern theory. Not only are places logically
required (an offender must be in a place when an offense is committed), their
characteristics influence the likelihood of 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 focusing on how places come to the attention of
potential offenders.
Crime displacement has been studied empirically in two different ways that is by conducting
ethnographic studies of offenders' motives and offenders’ decision-making processes
whether to commit the crime or likewise; and by evaluating the impact of programs to
reduce crime.
Most studies of crime displacement take the latter approach, evaluating the amount of
displacement resulting from a crime prevention measure by examining crime rates in
adjacent areas or for other offenses. If researchers observed an increase in crime rates, they
typically assume that displacement has occurred as the result of the crime prevention
measures effectively implemented.
There are possibilities that other factors independent to the prevention measures such as
changes in the offender population, the opportunity structure, or the overall trend of crime
rates at the area.
The amount of crime being displaced may be overestimated. Crime displacement is highly
complex and the amount of displacement may depend both upon whether offenders’ resort
to any combination of alternative targets, times, places, methods, and offenses, and
whether these alternatives are familiar to the offender.
Strengths
The key to such an argument is that crime prevention can be quite successful, even
when displacement is both inevitable and complete. While such a statement seems
contrary to reason (given that no overall reduction in crime is produced), there are
still beneficial; if sometimes temporary and effects to be gained from the prevention
of crime.
In fact, it is important to recognize that only effective means of crime prevention
can be capable of producing displacement in the first place (Gabor, 1981, 1990; Barr
& Pease, 1990).
But the advantages of displacement go well beyond this simple, almost tautological,
analogy. They range from the selfish to the selfless and extend benefits to the
individual, the community and society as a whole. At its most basic level,
displacement is of extreme value to those who have avoided victimization. Both
Sherman (1990), Barr and Pease (1990) have commented upon this ‘NIMBY’ (not in
my backyard) approach to crime prevention, which is primarily concerned with
preventing crime against a specific target; regardless of its effects elsewhere.
A change in the patterns of crime will always be considered beneficial for most
cases, provided that the nature of change places the threat of victimization further
from their own lives.
The avoidance of crime can also be much more widespread, benefiting almost
everyone, for at least a short time after the introduction of a crime control measure
The theory of crime displacement states that rational thinking perpetrators with
crime mobility will alter their criminal behavior in response to crime prevention
efforts (Lab, 2000). The objective is to reduce crime opportunities, which will lead to
a change in all potential theft situations; therefore, crime displacement is a valid
theory.
Weaknesses
One problem with the crime displacement theory is that it is accepted because it
instinctively appeals to people’s common sense. Town (2001) illuminates this problem as:
_ Criminals prevented or stopped them in one location then they just find another.
_ Common sense is a valuable commodity, but it has its limitations and changes with time.
In reality, perpetrators are normally limited in their mobility, adaptability and flexibility,
relative to a particular crime, place, time, method and the number of targets is limited in
one way or another (Hesseling, 1994). The theory of crime displacement does not explain
the reason of perpetrators
committing a certain crime or why some crimes are more attractive to them than others.
key element in all crime is the role that opportunity plays, for example, if there
is no opportunity there is no crime (Felson & Clarke, 1998).
There may be some weaknesses in crime displacement theory.
The first holds that displacement is essentially unfavorable, since the prevention
strategies that cause it gives no overall decrease in crime (Hakim & Rengert, 1981).
The second element concerns the belief that displacement is inevitable.
The negative aspects of displacement, combined with its inevitability, are used to
show that social or corrective prevention would be more effective (albeit more costly
and difficult) alternatives to the use of situational methods (Reppetto, 1976).
An intensive effort has been made to show that displacement is not the inescapable
result of any crime control program (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Miethe, 1991).
A primary reason for weakness in the available research is that displacement, like
crime itself, is very difficult to measure. Even if no displacement is found in a given
study or research, it could have occurred in a direction that was not examined
(Cornish & Clarke, 1986), or the displaced crime could easily be concealed within the
overall crime rate (Mayhew, 1988).
This theory is bias because different social class commit different offences , the
authority/non authority determine motives for offenses. E.g middle class-white
collar crime
