On Crime Prevention

On Crime Prevention

I previously mentioned a couple of crime theories that relate to victimization.  There is another theory that in reality relates to crime prevention.  It has as its foundation the theories promoted by Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and Cesare Beccaria (1738 – 1794), both who were Choice or Rational Choice theorists.

Classical Criminology

As a primer, Choice Theory or Rational Choice (properly referred to as Classical Criminology) simply states that people commit crimes because they choose to commit crimes.  Prior to their introductions of Choice Theory, the prevailing attitude was that people committed crimes because the devil made them do it.  As the Age of Enlightenment (1650s through 1780s) and development of scientific thought emerged it became apparent that it would be difficult to prove that the devil made anybody do anything.  (Likewise, it was also impossible to prove that God made anything happen by using the scientific method or process for proving anything.)  As a result, the notion that the devil was responsible for crime was dismissed and the fields of medicine, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and law began to wield influence on what we now call criminology.  While Choice Theory came about more as a result of a desire to change penal codes and modes of punishment than as a social science, it opened the door to identifying the different potential causes of crime. Incidentally, criminology is a rather recent entry into the social sciences when compared to sociology and psychology. With a few caveats, I am a Classical – Neoclassical Theorist.  Neoclassical Theorists assert that there may be multiple causes to crime.  If you happen to be a person who believes that the crime should fit the punishment and that people have free will to commit or not commit crimes, you most likely hold to the classical school of thought.

Crime Prevention

Returning again to Choice Theory, the central notion of this theory is that people commit crimes because they choose to commit crimes.  This theory becomes especially important when we think in terms of crime prevention.  One of the most important ideas that has evolved from this theory is that there are three things that go into a person committing a crime.  Actually, one of the three on the list amounts to the "lack" of something.  They are:

     1. A Motivated Offender
     2. A Suitable Target
     3. The Lack of a Capable Guardian

Put these three on the table and you will have a crime.  Let's discuss the first "item" on the list.  Obviously, if a person is not motivated to commit a crime there will be no crime, but what if there is a person who is motivated to commit a crime?  You must then determine just exactly how motivated that person is.  If the motivation is extremely low and there are no opportunities to commit a crime, or the opportunity is too far out of reach for the offender, the person will not commit a crime.  On the other hand if the offender is highly motivated, that person may jump at any opportunity, regardless of how far out of reach the offense may be.

            Motivated Offenders

I like to think of motivated offenders as having three characteristics that contribute to their degree of motivation. This is my own design and not attributed to any other theorist.  For a motivated offender to advance his/her crime, that person must have the following.

     1. The ability to commit a crime.
     2. The opportunity to commit a crime.
     3. The desire to commit a crime.

You remove the motivation of an offender by removing the person’s ability and opportunity to commit a crime or lessen or remove the person’s desire.  I would suggest that an effective tool would be to replace the person’s desire with something more appropriate.

            Suitable Targets

A suitable target may be a person or an object – property.  If the target is what the offender wants, and the offender is motivated to strike, then we have a crime.  Remove the target or present the target in such a way as it will not have the appearance of suitability, then crime has been prevented.

Again, I have my own theory on suitability of targets. Like offenders, there are three characteristics of the target that play into their suitability. And, like the three characteristics of the offender being of my design, these characteristics of the suitable target are of my design.

     1. Attractiveness of the target.
     2. Accessibility of the target.
     3. Ease of escape from or withdrawal from the target.

            Capable Guardians

The third component of the equation is the capable guardian.  This simply says that if there is a guardian protecting the offender, a guardian that is capable of denying access to the target by the offender, then no matter how motivated the offender may be, there will be no offense.  Keep in mind that the guardian must be stronger than the motivation of the offender to commit the crime.  Capable guardians may be guard dogs, surveillance systems, security alarm systems, several friends walking together (day or night), and in some cases the appearance of capable self-defense of the part of the target.  In all cases the target must become less suitable to the offender. Three factors contribute to the capability of the guardian, again as I see them.

     1. Ability to Identify the Offender
     2. Ability of Target to Prevent the Crime and/or Protect Oneself
     3. Ability of Target to Detain the Offender

Offenders may unconsciously weigh the costs and benefits of committing the crime.  They consider the suitability of the target (person or property) and the risk that will be taken too achieve the benefit of the effort to commit the crime.  If the risks are too high, then the crime will not be committed.  In the case of a highly motivated offender, one who is intent on committing a crime, perhaps a specific crime, if the risks are too high, if the target is not suitable or the guardian presents too high of an obstacle to overcome, the offender will look for another target.  It is called risk-benefit analysis.  It's called rational choice.  Your job as a target (and we are all targets at one time or another, generally several times in a lifetime) is to become less suitable and to have a guardian appropriate for what you want to protect.

It is important to understand that victims of crimes are not (generally) responsible for their victimization.  Some victims appear more attractive than others, not because of beauty, but because of ease of attack and appearance of what the offender is desiring.  We do not hang signs on our mailboxes that say "Please Knock Me Over" nor do women, regardless of how provocatively they may dress announce that they desire to be raped.  But, we increase the probability of being victimized if we give the appearance of suitability without a capable guardian.  We increase the risk of having our Christmas gifts stolen from our cars when we leave them in plain view in the back seat of an unlocked car.  And yes, the drunk co-ed at a frat party who says yes by her appearance and behavior even though she verbally says no will likely be victim to her worst nightmare.  This is not a popular position, but it happens to be a reality and in no way excuses or justifies the behavior of those who would take advantage of her.

Clothing

The Question

A young friend, a young lady, posted the following comments and questions on Facebook recently.

“What I’m about to say is 'mature' content. Take it seriously. I’m not trying to be funny. I've always wondered, "Why do we wear clothes?" Why is it against the law to be naked? The nature of the human body is beautiful. Why hide it? Animals are naked. We are animals. So why (hide it)? I just need an actual reasonable answer. None of that "it's immodest" stuff or "that's just how society is". Give me one good reason why it’s 'bad' enough to be against the law.”

A Few Answers

I saw a number of good responses to her question, one of which came from Edward Houghton.  He first reflects back on a comment made by Heather Ligouri Esposito Let me quote both in their entirety here.

Heather: “Also - without clothes we'd have to carry towels around with us everywhere. To put under us when we sit down. I mean, I wouldn't want to sit where someone else just sat. If you know what I mean....wink wink.”

Edward: Heather is right. Not everyone looks good naked. Also, you must realize that the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall. This is actually a very good description of psychobiology and the way things really are from a behavioral science view. One of the most powerful physical drives that people have is, to be blunt about it, lust. Males are highly visually oriented in their lust drives - if they weren't, there would be no pornography industry. Being modestly clothed is a protective barrier against becoming the object (much could be said here about the objectification of women in general, but that is another huge subject) of someone's lust, which, believe me, is not good. Women are not as visually driven as men are. Men see motion, women see color. Why is this the law? It isn't in many places. NYC does not have a topless ordinance, for example.”

I also posted a response, which was pretty short for my responses to questions.  It follows.

Gregory Talley: “Pockets. Men need pockets. If they carried purses they wouldn't need pockets. For most men, carrying a purse is not manly, ergo pockets. Pants and shirts are needed for pockets. Women need clothes because they need shoes, especially high heeled shoes. If they didn't wear clothes while wearing shoes they would look (1) hideous, or (2) like (please excuse the term) sluts.

“Actually, the human body is a beautiful creation--God's creation. I'm sorry if you don't want to accept the Savior's hope for us, e.g., you don't want a religious reason, but it is a real reason. Your body is not only beautiful, but it is sacred. It is the temple of God. Brother Houghton's explanation is spot on. You see, I lived in a world where objectification of the human body, mainly women's bodies led to exploitation, actual physical harm, and murder. You cannot convince me after 25 years of living in that world and another 20 years of academic research that it doesn't exist in nearly every corner of society.

“Love yourself. Show a lack of respect for your body and flaunt it, trust me, you will get no respect from others. I've seen the trail of tears, broken lives, and dead bodies that follows those who do not respect their own temple of God.”

Of course the first paragraph was a little light.

I’ll finish this section with a quote from Heather again as she makes excellent points.

Heather: “On the topic of sexual violence - please know - that women are raped and assaulted no matter how they dress. Do women who are scantly clad get more unwanted advances than those who are not? Probably. But know that wearing baggy sweats all the time is no form of protection. And there is a large piece that goes unsaid that men need to respect women and despite whatever physical urges they have, should keep it in their pants and their words in their mouths. I agree with brother Talley that to flaunt one's body is not good because it makes the focus of others be on you as an object - not a person. So - if we all walked around naked - would women get raped constantly? Probably not because we all would be naked and it would be the social norm. BUT - clothes are better. I'm freezing right now. And it's raining. frown emoticon Poo.”

Here come the Stories

What I am about to say may not rest well, but let me simply put it out there.  But, I have thought a great deal about the question that was asked by this young lady ever since I read it.  These stories that I present here came immediately to mind when I read the young lady’s comments but knew that that relating them would simply take up too much space and time on Facebook.

            Story One

When I was a youngster I had a parakeet named Jingles.  I also had a cat named Scamper.  The cat had free roam of the house and was always well behaved.  We often let the Jingles out of his cage so he could spread his wings and fly like birds are supposed to fly.

One of the neat things about parakeets is that you can teach them to talk and I had taught Jingles several little phrases.  One phrase that Jingles especially liked was, “Pretty boy, hello, Baby!”  Sometimes the cat would be in the house at the same time that Jingles would be flying around loose in the house.  Jingles loved to dive-bomb Scamper while saying, “Pretty boy, hello Baby!”  Scamper would simply glare at Jingles knowing that if he retaliated that he would be banished forever.  Day after day though, Jingles would torment Scamper with his freedom.

It was Thanksgiving Day.  We had left the door to the house unlocked because we lived in a place and at a time when it was safe to do that.  We had gone to my aunt’s home for Thanksgiving dinner.  When we came home late that evening we were greeted at the door by Scamper who made a bee line for a snowbank outside.  After one step inside, we knew why Scamper was running for his life.  Somebody had let the cat in the house in our absence.  We found feathers everywhere.  Jingles had taunted Scamper with, “Pretty boy, hello, Baby!” one time too many.

Just because Jingles flew free and taunted Scamper, Jingles didn’t make Scamper eat him.  Nonetheless, the temptation was there.  Scamper was quite able to control his urges under my watchful eye, but once out of sight….

            A Little Criminology

All too often we place blame on victims.  We see that happening in a murder trial that is going on right now, and it ought not to be.  But sometimes victims could do a lot to avoid victimization.  There are two crime theories I am thinking of that relate directly to victimization.  They are the hazardous locations theory and hazardous behavior theory.  A closely related crime theory is the victim precipitation theory (the victim actively egged a person on to commit a crime—I think Jingles may have fallen victim to that particular theory).  In essence, those theories state that in the offender’s process of making choices, victims increase the likelihood of victimization by placing themselves in dangerous places (generally bars and in the company of intoxicated people) or by things the victim says or does.  For example, a person places himself/herself in serious jeopardy by wearing the wrong colors in a gang’s territory that “flies” under different colors.

Just because a woman has a right to be safe regardless of what she wears and should not be blamed for being the victim of a sexual assault, it does not lessen the possibility that her appearance will draw unwanted attention and perhaps even unwanted attack.

            Story Two

I once heard a young man say to a girl, “If I can see it I am free to touch it.”  Really?

I heard a doctor friend talk to a group of young men once about morality.  He drew two vertical parallel lines on a chalk board.  One line had an outward bump not quite two-thirds of the way down and the other line also had an outward bump about a quarter of the way down.  Then he said something that stuck with me for a long time.  He said, “Boys, this figure is the most powerful figure in the world.  It makes young men do crazy things, some of which you ought not to do.”

 

            Story Three

When I was teaching I often had several students come and visit me in my office at once.  It was not unusual for me to have five, six, and more students in my office at a time.  I eventually had to buy additional chairs to keep folded up behind my door so when those occasions happened there would be seating for at least a few more students.  On one occasion I had about six or seven guys in my office.  I recall that two of them were sitting on the floor.  As we visited a female student walked into my office.  One of the guys stood and gave the girl his chair.

“Mary” (not her real name) was wearing a rather short skirt and low neck top.  As she sat down she crossed her legs.  I thought the guys in the room were going to break their necks trying to catch a glimpse of what was going on when she crossed her legs.  Eyes continued to strain when she leaned down to place her books on the floor.

Conversation continued, though the guys that were standing positioned themselves behind Mary and could be seen taking occasional glimpses downward.  As the conversation continued, Mary asked a startling question.  “Don’t you think I look sexy?”

After the snickers from the boys and an uncomfortable silence, she asked, “What?”

“Actually, you look like a slut,” came the reply from one of the guys.

That is when Mary tried (uncomfortably) to cover up, but there wasn’t much to cover.

Then one of the guys made an interesting observation.  He said, “If you want to look sexy then you should cover up.  Sure, you’ll get our hormones going when you dress like that, but when it’s all over, I want a girl who respects herself and shows that respect.” 

By the way, none of these college boys were LDS.

Conclusion

Why do we have to wear clothes?  Well, as Ed Houghton said, there are cultures where you don’t have to wear clothes.  And there are beaches and other places you can go and shed the outer wear if you wish, but I believe you need to be an adult.  As for you and Heather and Ed and me, it is a matter of faith, not religion.  It is a matter of knowing that you are of infinite worth, that you are of value.  You really are a daughter of God who loves you and He wants to protect you from being gawked at, groped, and yes, possibly attacked.  He knows you are not an object but a person with feelings and ambitions and hopes and even fears.  He wants you to not have to carry a towel around everywhere so that when you sit down you won’t have to worry about what it is that you are sitting in and what you might contract or carry with you when you stand up.  He wants boys to have someplace to put their hands, which is why we have pockets, and He doesn’t’ want you to look hideous when you are wearing high heeled shoes.

Obscured Truths

As I sat in our small library in our home I looked across the space and saw an open magazine sitting on a little end table. It was our Church's youth magazine. I peered at the title of the article and immediately scrunched my eyes and questioned why such an article in a church youth magazine would even be included. Yet, there it was, staring back at me: How the Law of Chastity is a Bad Idea. I could not believe my eyes!

Why the Church would even consider publishing such an article was beyond me. This had to be a joke! I forgot what I was working on and reached across to the magazine and pulled it toward me, knocking the magazine that was on top of it onto the floor. When I knocked the other magazine onto the floor, I saw the full title of the magazine article. It now read, "How do I Explain to my Friend that Breaking the Law of Chastity is a Bad Idea." A critical part of the article had been obscured by the magazine that had been on top of the article I was looking at.

Sometimes when we look at the world around us, as the flow of information comes to our lives, bits and pieces of that information may be missing or obscured. As a result, we make decisions based on faulty information. Often, those decisions are as faulty as the information we rely upon to make them. Truth is always there, but because parts of it are obscured, missing, and in some cases willfully withheld from our view, we don't see it. And we dangerously make decisions on faulty information. Only upon closer scrutiny, often by pulling it closer to us and by knocking away those things that obscure truth can we find the full picture. Such action requires diligence and a relentless quest for truth.