Investigating the applicability of situational crime prevention to the public mass violence context

• Author: Brent R. Klein,Steven M. Chermak,Joshua D. Freilich
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12480
• Date: 01 February 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12480

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

COUNTERING MASS VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Investigating the applicability of situational crime

prevention to the public mass violence context

Joshua D. Freilich1Steven M. Chermak2Brent R. Klein2

1John Jay College, CUNY

2Michigan State University

Correspondence

JoshuaD. Freilich, Criminal Justice Depar t-

ment& Doctoral Program in Cr iminal Justice,

JohnJay College, CUNY, Haaren Hall, Room

636.11524 West 59th Street, New York,NY

10019-1093.

Email:jfreilich@jjay.cuny.edu

Wethank Graeme Newman, Ronald Clarke,

EmilyGreene-Colozzi, and Jason Silva for

helpfulcomments on earlier drafts of t his arti-

cle.In addition, we thank the guest editors and

the other participants at the April 2019 National

ScienceFoundation–sponsored workshop on

massviolence at George Mason University for

their helpful critiques of an earlier daft. Finally,

wethank the peer reviewers for their valuable

commentsand suggestions.

Research Summary: In this article, we argue that situ-

ational crime prevention (SCP) strategies can be used to

prevent public mass violence, as well as to mitigate the

harms caused from those attacks that still occur. We draw

from the SCP perspective generally, and its application

to terrorism particularly, as well as from the public mass

violence literature. We focus on the pillars of opportunity

that include target selection, weapon selection, tools used,

and conditions that facilitate public mass violence attacks.

Policy Implications: We conclude that SCP’s EVIL

DONE risk assessment template could be refined for the

public mass violence context. We argue that the exposed,

occupied, nearer, and easy dimensions, along with a newly

created personal grievance dimension, could be used to

identify more at-risk settings that should receive more

situational interventions to prevent these attacks. We

similarly conclude that SCP’s other pillars could be used

to prevent these attacks. We outline specific hard and soft

interventions that could thwart these attacks. Importantly,

we use examples to illustrate that SCP’s strategies could

effectively mitigate the harms caused by public mass

violence attacks that do occur. We also set forth research

strategies to test our claims.

KEYWORDS

environmental criminology, mass shootings, preventing mass violence,

situational crime prevention, terrorism

Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19:271–293. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2019 American Society of Criminology 271

272 FREILICH ET AL.

In this article, we argue that situational crime prevention (SCP) can be used to further our understand-

ing of where and when public mass violence is likely to occur. Facilities, locations, and times that are

more at risk for public mass violence should receive more situational interventions to prevent these

attacks from occurring. We draw from the SCP perspective generally, and its application to terrorism

particularly (Clarke & Newman, 2006; Freilich & Newman, 2009; Freilich, Gruenewald, & Mandala,

2019; Perry, Apel, Newman, & Clarke, 2017), as wellas from the public mass shootings/mass violence

literature. We focuson target selection and maintain that certain locations and facilities are more attrac-

tive and/or more vulnerable targets to attack. We also briefly engage weapon selection, tools, and the

conditions that can facilitate public mass violence attacks. In addition, we explain how SCP strategies

could prevent or reduce the number of mass violence attacks, as well as mitigate the harm caused from

those attacks that still occur.

Criminologists have mostly ignored public mass violence until recently, and important gaps in our

knowledge base remain (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; see also Bowers, Holmes, & Rhom, 2010; DeLisi &

Scherer, 2006; Gill, Silver, Horgan, & Corner, 2017; Huff-Corzine et al., 2014; Liwerant, 2007). The

recent increased attention to this issue is partially a result of rising levels of public concern that coincide

with a growing number of high-profile incidents (Duwe, 2000, 2004, 2007; Goode & Ben-Yehuda,

2009). Unfortunately,public mass violence is not new as cases date to the early twentieth century. Some

conclude that the frequency of mass shooting homicides has increased (Bjelopera, Bagalman, Caldwell,

Finklea, & McCallion, 2013; Follman, Pan, & Aronsen, 2019; Huff-Corzine et al., 2014). Capellan and

Gomez (2018; see also Blair & Schweit, 2014; Silva, 2019) found that public mass shootings doubled

from the 1984–1999 period to the 2000–2016 period. Others have countered that the number of mass

shootings each year is barely a handful and that this number has remained stable. Because the number

of public mass violence attacks is much fewer than the more than 14,000–15,000 homicides that occur

each year in the United States, it is important to be cautious about interpreting yearly fluctuations.

This debate about the actual scope of the problem is partially a result of definitional issues (dis-

cussed in more detail later). Public mass violence events, however, receive celebrated publicity (Bjel-

opera et al., 2013; Chermak, 1995; Duwe, 2000, 2007; Gill et al., 2017; Meloy et al., 2004; Silva,

2019), and their impact on victims, communities, and the public policy debates over mental illness,

gun control, and other proposed interventions is significant. Although policy makers, law enforcement

personnel, and other officials have proposed solutions and recommendations on how best to respond

to this seemingly growing social problem, the existing research findings have revealed little in terms

of evidence-based solutions.

Only recently have researchers begun to unpack the characteristics of public mass shooting or mass

violence incidents and perpetrators. Although some researchers have examined the characteristics of

perpetrators of mass shootings (Fox & DeLateurr, 2014; Gill et al., 2017; Hempel, Meloy,& Richards,

1999; Lankford, 2012; Meloy et al., 2004; Schildkraut & Elsass, 2016), there has been limited effort

to understand the characteristics of environments where mass violence events occur. Hindered by the

absence of systematically collected empirical data, researchers to date have mostly overlooked the

situational factors for mass violence, thus, stunting efforts to evaluate the efficacy of both situational

etiological claims and their proposed policy interventions.

In this article, we begin to address this research gap. We first define the key terms of public mass

violence. Second, we briefly review SCP arguments in general. Third, we highlight the growing liter-

ature on the application of SCP to the terrorism context. We discuss the lessons learned and illustrate

how SCP could be used to identify which settings are more at risk for public mass violence. Fourth, we

briefly discuss weapon selection, tools, and the conditions that facilitate public mass violence attacks.

Fifth, we explain how SCP strategies could be used to both prevent public mass violence and mitigate

the harm caused by those attacks that continue to occur. We conclude by pointing out original data