Beccaria and Situational Crime Prevention

• Author: Joshua D. Freilich
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016814550815
• Published date: 01 June 2015
• Date: 01 June 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Criminal Justice Review
2015, Vol. 40(2) 131-150
Beccaria and Situational
ª 2014 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
Crime Prevention
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016814550815
cjr.sagepub.com
Joshua D. Freilich1
Abstract
This article compares Beccaria’s and Situational Crime Prevention’s (SCP) claims across six
dimensions. Both perspectives question harsh penalties, embrace crime reduction as a goal, and
view some individuals as possessing agency and rationality. The latter two points distinguish them
from most other criminological theories that are not focused on crime reduction and downplay
offenders’ rationality. Both approaches have also been criticized for ignoring the root causes of
crime in society. Importantly though, the approaches also differ. The Classical School and SCP are
usually differentiated from positivistic approaches in their assumption of offender agency. This
article found, however, that SCP does not assume offender agency in all contexts. In fact, many
SCP interventions could be explained in positivistic terms. The analysis indicates that it is
sometimes unclear which causal mechanisms underlie each of SCP’s 25 techniques of crime
prevention. Clarifying the precise causal mechanism of each technique could lead to more effective
implementation. The article places these and other issues in context and outlines a series of
suggestions for future research to address to strengthen the SCP approach.
Keywords
individual theories of crime causation, crime/delinquency theory, crime prevention, law
enforcement/security, crime policy, courts/law
Introduction
This article compares Beccaria’s and Situational Crime Prevention’s (SCP) claims across six
dimensions. Beccaria is seen as the leading 18th-Century Classical School thinker and SCP is
often portrayed as an influential contemporary framework that follows the Classical School’s
approach. Recently, SCP has grown in popularity and a series of empirical studies have supported
its claims (Guerette & Bowers, 2009; Meier & Miethe, 1993; Weisburd et al., 2006). SCP plays a
key role in Great Britain and Scandinavian countries’ crime prevention policies, and it has influ-
enced crime fighting strategies in the United States and other nations across the globe (Felson,
1 Department of Criminal Justice and Program of Doctoral Studies in Criminal Justice, John Jay College, City University of
New York (CUNY), New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joshua D. Freilich, Department of Criminal Justice and Program of Doctoral Studies in Criminal Justice, John Jay College, Suite
2123 North Hall, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019, USA.
Email: jfreilich@jjay.cuny.edu

---

132
Criminal Justice Review 40(2)
2008; Knepper, 2009; Scott, Eck, Knutsson, & Goldstein, 2008). Despite SCP’s successes, critics
have questioned its theoretical underpinnings (Haywood, 2007). Indeed modest attention has been
paid to the conceptual foundations of SCP, a point noted over 15 years ago in one of the few
volumes to engage SCP’s theoretical underpinnings (Newman, Clarke, & Shoham, 1997).
This study extends Newman and Marongui’s (1997; Marongiu & Newman, 1997) study and
compares SCP to Beccaria’s work. The comparison uncovered similarities as well as important
differences between the two frameworks, including that SCP’s underlying theoretical orientation
is more developed than Beccaria’s approach. The paucity of attention given to the theoretical
foundations of SCP has possibly contributed to its oversimplification in mainstream criminology
which has sometimes portrayed it as only extending Beccaria’s punishment ideas. In his critique of
the criminal law and the legal system, Beccaria never questioned the belief that punishment could
be used to deter individuals from committing crime. In contrast, SCP mostly ignores punishment
because it is too far removed from crime scenes to influence offender behavior. Nor does it see
deterrence emanating from formal punishment as the most effective technique to prevent crime.
These differences are overlooked by many criminologists. Akers and Sellers’s (2009; see also
Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002, pp. 203–205) leading criminology theory text, for example, fails
to note SCP’s rejection of punishment generally, and prisons specifically, as a mechanism to
reduce crime as well as its recent extension to ‘‘soft’’ crime-reduction strategies (as recounted
below). The characterization of SCP as just a modern version of Beccaria’s punishment and deter-
rence arguments ignores the intellectual ferment within SCP (Cornish & Clarke, 2003; Cullen,
2011; Ekblom & Tilley, 2008; Newman, 2012).
Former American Society of Criminology President Robert J. Bursik (2009) recently lamented
criminology’s tendency to ignore earlier works. He argued that this practice resulted in certain con-
temporary arguments being viewed as novel, even though they were not. The discipline thus misses
out on the collective body of earlier knowledge that could contextualize contemporary arguments
and studies. The situation with Beccaria and SCP is slightly different. The field has tended to sim-
plify the contemporary SCP approach (Clarke, 2012; Cozens, 2008: 166; Felson, 2008). The result is
similar to Bursik’s (2009) critique because criminology’s failure to consider SCP’s novel arguments
and extensions of Beccaria’s ideas harms the discipline’s growth.
Relatedly, despite SCP’s more developed theoretical model, this study’s comparison of it to
Becarria’s ideas also uncovered ambiguities in the SCP framework that could be elaborated upon
to strengthen its underlying theoretical model. For example, SCP (like the Classical School) is usu-
ally differentiated from positivistic approaches in its assumption of offender agency and rationality
(Akers & Sellers, 2009; Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Vold et al., 2002). This article’s analysis, however,
demonstrates that SCP does not assume offender agency in all contexts and in fact many SCP inter-
ventions could also be explained in positivistic terms. It is argued that not enough has been made of
this issue in the SCP and rational choice perspective literature. The analysis also indicates that it is
not always clear which causal mechanisms underlie each of SCP’s 25 techniques of crime preven-
tion. SCP theorists must focus more directly on the relationship between the various mechanisms
used to reduce crime and each of the 25 techniques. Clarifying the precise causal mechanism of each
technique could lead to more effective implementation of crime prevention strategies.
The article unfolds in this way. It first outlines Beccaria’s views that have the most relevance for the
current neoclassical approaches. The article then discusses SCP and its underlying rational choice the-
ory framework. Next, Beccaria’s views and SCP’s assumptions are compared across six dimensions
that include ‘‘normalization’’ of the offender, offender agency and rationality, utilitarianism and crime
reduction, the mechanisms used to reduce crime, whether crime-reduction strategies should be imple-
mented distally or situationally, and who—that is, which entities—should be used to reduce crime. The
article concludes by discussing ambiguities in the SCP framework and outlines a number of issues that
could be addressed by future research to strengthen the SCP approach.

---

Freilich
133
Beccaria and the Classical School
Beccaria’s (1764) On Crimes and Punishments is seen as the seminal Classical School text that
helped create the academic discipline of criminology and criminal justice (Beirne, 1991; Newman,
1997). The enlightenment-influenced Classical School reform movement became the leading crim-
inology approach in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Many countries implemented the Classical
School’s ideas and until today many legal systems (e.g., the United States and some other nations)
are based upon it.
The Classical School emerged in response to views prevalent during the middle ages that
stressed obedience to monarchies and the church. These views argued for supernatural explana-
tions for how the world operated and saw criminals as influenced by such forces. In contrast, the
subsequent enlightenment embraced reason and objective scientific inquiry to make sense of the
natural world (Beccaria, 1764; Newman & Marongiu, 2009). The scientific approach, it was
argued, uncovered patterns of human behavior that could be used to craft policies to advance soci-
ety. Beccaria (1764) relied on these ideas to call for the scientific study of crime. While his argu-
ments were at times unclear and inconsistent (Newman & Marongiu, 1990, 2009), he called for
tempering the use of some harsh physical punishments (e.g., quartering and other mutilations of
the body) then used by European monarchies (Newman, 1985).
Similar to Hobbes and others, Becarria (1764) endorsed the ‘‘social contract’’ theory to explain
society’s birth.1 This framework contends that before societies were formed, people lived ‘‘natu-
rally.’’ In this ‘‘state of nature,’’ people had no limits placed upon them and acted to further their
own desires and interests. Since such a situation inevitably led to conflict (i.e., people’s interests
and desires were destined to clash), a mechanism was necessary to ensure order. The State—
government—emerged to prevent chaos and protect individuals from death or injury from others.
Social contract theory argued that individuals freely gave up a portion of their liberty to the
government. In exchange, the government regulated behavior...