Crime Prevention and the Displacement Phenomenon

TLDR

Crime‑prevention programs that focus on opportunity reduction or increased risk are often argued to be ineffective because they simply displace crime to other forms, times, or locations. The study analyzes data from two empirical investigations of 146 robbers and burglars, examining how deterministic and opportunistic motives, personality, age, and crime type affect offenders’ displacement potential. Findings indicate that displacement is limited; opportunistic crimes do not simply relocate, and even when offenders shift, costs reduce overall crime, with the greatest limits for specific crime types, offenders, and locales, allowing displacement potential to be assessed and minimized.

Abstract

This article examines the argument that crime prevention programs which stress opportunity reduction or increased risk to offenders are without value because they merely displace crime—that is, shift its incidence to other forms, times, and locales. The paper is based in part on two empirical studies that examined the criminal histories of and interviews with 146 robbers and burglars. Determinsitic and opportunistic criminal behavior and the influence of personality, age, and crime type on the displace ment potential of various offenders are analyzed. The results suggest that there are definite limits to various displacement possibilities. Some crimes are so opportunistic that their pre vention in one circumstance will not lead to their occurrence in another. Even in instances where offenders blocked in one sphere would wish to operate in another, limits and costs will lessen the frequency of operation and therefore reduce the overall crime rate. The study further suggests that the limitations to displace ment are most salient for specific types of crimes, criminals, and geographic areas. Thus the displacement potential of an anticrime strategy can be gauged in advance and, in certain instances, be minimized.