Urban Crime: Causes, Prevention & Solutions

This assignment delves into the complex issue of urban crime. It requires an in-depth analysis of the contributing factors to urban crime, including social, economic, and environmental influences. The assignment further explores various crime prevention strategies, ranging from traditional policing methods to community-based initiatives and restorative justice programs. Finally, it encourages critical evaluation of these approaches and their effectiveness in addressing the multifaceted challenges of urban crime.

Urban
criminology

Critical account of the nature of urban crime using both empirical examples and theoretical
insights
General opportunities for criminal activities is higher in urban areas in comparison to the
rural areas. This aspect can also be noticed by criminology statistics of the England and Wales.
Figures of criminology shows that there are high level of burglary, vehicle related thefts and
violence in urban area and this crime rate is continuously increasing (Bassiouni, 2012). In
addition to this, youth in urban cities get high opportunities for engagement in criminal activities
due to changing surroundings and neighbourhood factors. Increase in urban crime is influenced
by various factors and incidents (López, 2013). These factors have been described by various
criminologists through their subjective approach.
In the 19th century, there have been contrasting features in comparison and relevance to
urban and rural communities. With the growing poverty and interruptions in living of human
being, there has been increase in crimes. In England, UK, there has been shown proportion of a
person per 100,000 committing the trail for crime in 1805-1842 (Knepper, Doak and Shapland,
2009). However, rapid urbanization lead to people weed out from the traditional ways of living
life and forced them into the lifestyle of poverty and overcrowding livelihood. While considering
the employment of the human being, it was noticed that people were facing fluctuations in the
labour market. There was no security of the job, associated benefits, social security etc. All these
factors proved major contributor of crime in the society (Brown, 2012). Gradually, with the
change and development growth, there has also been seen fast growth rate of urban criminology.
Urban criminology can be best explained in the way of its development into society.
Commencing from 19th century where there were London dock workers who were found
struggling with the money (Umar, Cheshire & Johnson, 2015). This includes the highwaymen
who belonged to rural communities. At that time, it was a robbery which later took the shape of
crime. Gradually, with the passage of time rural communities had been developed with the
commerce and trade. These lead to emergence of thieves due to prevailing of ungovernable
locations (Taslitz, 2011). The major reason which leads to the rise of thieves, therefore crime is
due to development of commerce, trade and towns. Gradually, it took shape of growth in the
skills of urban thieves which made people to make use of various ways in which ways were
required to explore for strengthening the safety and protection.
2

Moreover, the growth and development of the working class society have been examined
because of various factors. Along with the same, there has been shown tremendous growth in the
standard of living. This leads to growth in working class people. They are seems to fall in more
desire for money and wealth (Lynch, 2014). The curiosity for luxurious living, good food and
intention of more has been one more factor that contributes to the crime. It is when people do not
see any alternative for earning money; they lose their humanity and participate into activities of
crime. The class of society has been also one factor which leads to crime (López, 2013). People
started comparing themselves which in turn made them desire for more and therefore crime.
Moreover, there are inclusive of various characteristics such as differences that are examined
between masculinity and femininity, concepts of privacy and male power in the community.
These aspects have direct and indirect impact on the rise of crime. This has been evidenced in the
form of crime activity such as domestic violence (Wikström, Oberwittler and Treiber, 2012).
Family and job opportunities later developed the activities such as entertainment and
leisure. This lead to emergence of boys clubs, music halls etc. With this growth in urban areas,
people and their living culture were strengthened and solidified. There has been shown incredible
expansion of urban communities such as work, home, pub and entertainment, school and lawful
times (Hallsworth and Lea, 2011). This leads to rise in public space and gathering which let
people expose them. Crime rate hike has been increased because of these factors stated above.
All these factors have been contributory in the production of criminal activity.
Research literature on urban crime can be bifurcated in two main areas. First is concerned
with the comparison of cities in order to understand why some specific areas have high criminal
rates in the comparison to another. Second area of the research literature is focused on the
variations in criminal level in urban cities (McLeod, 2012). However, both these research areas
are concerned with the similar theories and are focused on the same social forces. Primary
theories concerned with the nature of urban crime are subculture, conflict theories and
disorganization.
In accordance with the subcultural theory, mainly there are two types of urban crime i.e.
subculture of violence and subculture of poverty. In both the groups, there is common belief that
certain groups carry out a set of norms and values due to which they are more likely to get
engaged in the criminal activities (Ristroph, 2011). According to the Brown, subculture of
3

violence states that high violence rate is consequence of the culture where general criminology
believes that violence is an acceptable form of behaviour. In addition to this, carriers of the
subculture of violence are quicker in comparison to the other activities (Brown, 2012). It is
because; situation that normally generates anger in an individual is able to provoke violence. For
the formulation of such ideas, various criminologists believe that social institutions contribute for
the development and persistence of a subculture conducive to violence and criminality. For this
aspect, example of disintegration by various institutions can be considered such as families,
schools and churches. These institutions do not consider certain individuals (minorities) for the
learning opportunities, values and conventional norms. Theoretically, they promote equality but
in practical life they consider discrimination (Ristroph, 2011). Consequently, certain groups have
more violent behaviour as they are aggressive towards the society and for them, violence is an
acceptable means for solving the situation or for taking revenge.
According to the study of Graham Dewhirst, generally in main urban areas, the number
of crimes recorded (per 1000 of population) is significantly greater than in comparison to the
rural areas. As per their study, urban crime rate is 130 in comparison to the rural crime rate of
50.2 (McLeod, 2012). However, the gap between these crime rates has been reduced drastically
over the past four years. It is because, in 2011-12 this was gap of 95.8 and at present is only 79.8.
This aspect shows there is reduction of 17.5% in criminal rates (Zhang, Goyal and Sinha, 2015).
Comparison of crime in urban and rural areas show that criminal activities are bifurcated
in various categories. For burglary rate of reduction in crime in urban area is double in
comparison to the rural areas (Crawford, 2011). With the changing environment, urban area is
developing and consequently there is improvement in the security aspects. However, for the
criminal damage and arson rate of reduction in rural area is higher than urban areas. It is because,
individual residing in the urban areas are more aggressive and short tempered due to daily
activities (Lynch, 2014). As a consequence, they are more likely to get engaged in the criminal
activities. In accordance with their point of view, it is remedy for their loss occurred to them due
to society. Violence and sexual offenses are continuously increasing in both urban and rural
areas. People are using violence for their mental relief and due to this they are hurting weaker
party physically and mentally.
4

In this aspect, classical statement provided by Wolfgang and Ferracuti's can be
considered in The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology (1967).
In this subject matter, contribution is also provided by Elkins and Curtis, (1975). As per the
viewpoint of critics, the major drawback with this perspective is that it tends to look out over the
interrelationship of institutional deterioration and normative processes with the more structural
features of a given community (Dervan, 2011). Due to this aspect, it is difficult to rationalize it
with a testable fashion. It is because; presence of subcultural values cannot be certainly measured
in individuals as per their predictable behaviour.
According to the study of Taslitz economic and psychological factors also contribute in
urban crime along with the cultural factors. In this aspect, criminologists states that personality
traits and predispositions have vital role in the criminal behaviour of individual (Getis, 2012).
These traits and predispositions occurred through the surroundings. In accordance with this
study, imbalance in emotions can be result in unruly behaviour and it will increase the chances of
resorting to the crime (Taslitz, 2011). By considering changing lifestyle of urban people there is
significant change in the behaviour of individual. It is because; individual is restricted by various
aspects and they use crime to prevent these restrictions. Study of Hallsworth and Lea states that
individual in urban areas can easily criminal behaviour by way of interacting with others
(Hallsworth and Lea, 2011).
On the other hand, explanation of subculture of poverty is more focused on urban crime
in comparison to the explanations subculture of violence. It is because, subculture of violence
only segregates crime in urban and rural area but subculture of poverty is primarily concerned
with the criminal behaviour in the barrios and ghettos of central cities. Poverty is crucial
economic factor that lead to the crime in urban areas (Chadwick, Levitt and Shickle, 2014). It is
because; poverty results in the desperation which enhances anger of individuals and provoke
them to take extreme steps. In this aspect, various studies are conducted by the criminologist
which shows relationship of criminal behaviour and financial position. This aspect demonstrates
that economic deprivation is key trigger of criminal behaviour (Shaw, 2005).
In accordance with this approach, norms and values that demotivate the work are the
causes of developing poor communities. It is because; displace of this subculture is disinclined to
the endeavour to achieve as they have limited patience and are less likely to hold over their
5

emotional state (Taslitz, 2011). As a consequence, they act impulsively and this impulsive
behaviour leads to the criminal activities. Critics of this approach had cited a middle-class and
biased perspective that are not acceptable to the poor (Boyle and Haggerty, 2011). Further, this
approach does not clarify the impact of social structure and institutions on the behaviour of
individuals and their lives.
Conflict theory in urban crime is focused on the income equality as a cause of the
increase in crime rate in the urban areas. In this aspect, various scholars and criminologists have
argued that frustration and anger in urban population are generated by the product of
dissimilarity in income status. It is because, this aspect is unjust as per the point of view of
individuals at subordinate position (López, 2013). Further, social structural cleavages are based
on racism. This factor also demonstrates higher crime rates by poor urban blacks and Latinos in
comparison to the general population. In this aspect, Marxist scholars had described the
inheritance of contradiction in advance capitalism in the formation of crime. This provision is
mainly applied in situation where population is focused on the biased aspects. Further, various
critics had also asserted that conflict theories are not accurate in nature for the prediction of
crime because of the high involvement of political parties (Bassiouni, 2012).
Theory of social disorganization is concerned with the characteristics of urban cities and
neighbourhood influence on the criminal rates. This aspect can be considered by the work of
researchers in University of Chicago in 1930 (Getis, 2012). Objective of this study was to
determine relationship of neighbourhood structure with the level of crime. In accordance with the
study of Shaw and McKay, increasing urban crime is consequence of the deleterious effects of
residential mobility, low socio-economic status and racial heterogeneity (Chadwick, Levitt and
Shickle eds., 2014). Further, crime can be prevented by the reduction of these factors. Other
criminologists in this aspect had considered macro social approach and they had identified other
of additional “disorganizing” factors such as relative poverty (Messner, 1982), racial segregation
(Peterson and Krivo) and family disruption (Sampson and Groves).
Criminologists in this area had firm believe that characteristics of the urban cities are
likely to lead the high levels of social disorganization and consequently, there will be increase in
criminal activities (Wikström, Oberwittler and Treiber, 2012). In general terminology, social
6

disorganization can be defined as an inability of a community structure for the mobilization of
common values of its residents in order to maintain effectual social control. Empirical aspect on
this perspective shows that by intervening dimensions of community, social organization can be
measured in the both formal and informal nature through using the terms of interdependence and
prevalence of social networks in a community (Hallsworth and Lea, 2011). In addition to this,
span of collective supervision in the community directs toward the local problems.
Neighbourhood in urban areas is characterized by the high levels of ethnic heterogeneity,
residential mobility, family disruption, poor housing conditions, economic deprivation or poverty
and low levels of education. These factors are most likely to create instability in society and
consequently have higher impact on the levels of crime and violence (Crawford, 2011). In
general terms, disorganization can be defined as a situation in which there is lack of cohesion
and solidarity. Further, the nonattendance of a mutual sense of community and share
commitment between residents allow the nourishment of crime. It is because; capacity of
community for social control is inhibited. This factor is not dependent on the less efficient formal
criminal justice institutions (Brown, 2012).
Theory of social disorganization has been criticized by various criminologist as it fails for
the appreciation of existence of diversified values within urban areas. This theory does not
recognize different communities in urban areas indeed may be organized as it considers
unconventional values (Knepper, Doak and Shapland, 2009). Due to this aspect, it fails to define
the main concept and consequently it makes the identification and rationalization of variables
difficult.
In accordance with the present study, it can be concluded that there is no specific theory
for the understanding of nature of crime in urban areas. It is because; all the theories stated by
the criminologist have certain loopholes and it is not practically applicable as per the changing
situations and surroundings in the urban areas (Zhang, Goyal and Sinha, 2015). Theory of
subculture is focused mainly on the violence and poverty. However, limitation of this theory is
that it does not clarify the impact of social structure and institutions on the behaviour of
individuals and their lives. Conflict theory in nature of crime in urban area shows in inaccuracies
in the nature for the prediction of crime because of the high involvement of political parties
(Taslitz, 2011). Disorganization theory is based on the characteristics of anti-social factor but it
7

is also criticized because it does not consider the existence of diversified values within urban
areas. This study also shows that individual in urban areas have high opportunities to get
involved in criminal activities and it leads in increasing crime rates and they have reasons for the
same (Getis, 2012). Urban citizens are making use of crime in order get rid of their frustration
and for taking revenge from the society for their unjust norms.
8

REFERENCES
Bassiouni, M.C., 2012. Introduction to international criminal law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Boyle, P. and Haggerty, K.D., 2011. Civil Cities and Urban Governance Regulating Disorder for
the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Urban Studies,48(15), pp.3185-3201.
Brown, D.K., 2012. Criminal Law Reform. The Persistence of Strict Liability.
Chadwick, R., Levitt, M. and Shickle, D. eds., 2014. The right to know and the right not to know:
genetic privacy and responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, A. ed., 2011. International and comparative criminal justice and urban governance:
Convergence and divergence in global, national and local settings. Cambridge
University Press.
Dervan, L.E., 2011. Overcriminalization 2.0: the symbiotic relationship between plea bargaining
and overcriminalization. Journal of Law, Economics and Policy. 7(4).
Getis, A., 2012. 8 Spatial Filtering in a Regression Framework: Examples Using Data on Urban
Crime, Regional Inequality. New Directions in Spatial Econometrics. 172.
Hallsworth, S. and Lea, J., 2011. Reconstructing Leviathan: Emerging contours of the security
state. Theoretical Criminology. 15(2). pp.141-157.
Knepper, P., Doak, J. and Shapland, J., 2009. Urban Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and
Restorative Justice: Effects of Social Technologies. CRC Press.
López, M.A.M., 2013. The squatters' movement in Europe: a durable struggle for social
autonomy in urban politics. Antipode. 45(4). pp.866-887.
Lynch, G.E., 2014. Our administrative system of criminal justice. Fordham L. Rev.. 83. p.1673.
McLeod, A.M., 2012. Decarceration Courts: Possibilities and Perils of a Shifting Criminal Law.
Georgetown Law Journal. 100(1587).
Ristroph, A., 2011. Criminal Law in the Shadow of Violence. Alabama Law Review. 62.
Shaw, M., 2005. Urban Crime Prevention and Youth at Risk: Compendium of Promising
Strategies and Programmes from Around the World. UN-HABITAT.
Taslitz, A.E., 2011. Rule of Criminal Law: Why Courts and Legislatures Ignore Richard
Delgado's Rotten Social Background, The. Ala. CR & CLL Rev..2. p.79.
9

Umar, F., Cheshire, J., & Johnson, S., 2015. Understanding the spatial pattern of urban crime: a
developing country’s perspective.
Wikström, P. O. H., Oberwittler, D. and Treiber, K., 2012. Breaking rules: The social and
situational dynamics of young people's urban crime. OUP Oxford.
Wikstrom, P., 2012. Urban Crime, Criminals, and Victims: The Swedish Experience in an
Anglo-American Comparative Perspective. Springer Science & Business Media.
Zhang, C., Goyal, R. and Sinha, A., 2015. Learning, Predicting and Planning against Crime:
Demonstration Based on Real Urban Crime Data. In Proceedings of the 2015
International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. International
Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Pp. 1911-1912
10

BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/
bcs25.pdf
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/history/36805.htm
http://www.uc.pt/fluc/gigs/GeoHealthS/doc_apoio/crime_ambienteurbano_santana.pdf
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2227/Urban-Crime.html
11