CRIME MAPPING

• Crime mapping is a technique used in forensic science and criminal

justice to visualize the locations and patterns of criminal activity. It
involves using geographical information systems (GIS) to analyze
spatial data related to crimes, helping investigators identify trends,
hotspots, and correlations between various factors.
• Crime mapping involves the representation of crime data in a spatial
format that helps to visualize and analyze the complex relationships
between crime and its environment (Brantingham and Brantingham
1984).
• Crime mapping is a set of techniques that allows the identification of
where crimes occur, how often they occur, and any relationships with
other geographic variables (Chainey and Ratcliffe 2005).
• The practice of crime mapping involves analyzing and displaying
crime data geographically to support crime prevention strategies and
enhance law enforcement effectiveness (Bowers and Johnson 2005).
• Crime mapping has long been an integral part of the process known
today as crime analysis.
 Crime Analysis
• Crime analysis is a systematic process that involves the collection,
analysis, and interpretation of data related to criminal activity.
• The primary purpose is to enhance the understanding of crime patterns,
trends, and the factors influencing criminal behavior.
• Crime analysis involves the examination of crime data to identify
patterns and trends over time and across different geographic areas.
• It helps law enforcement agencies understand the nature of crime in
their communities and make informed decisions.
 History of Crime Analysis
• The history of crime analysis is a fascinating evolution reflecting
changes in law enforcement, technology, and societal
understanding of crime.
• Early Foundations (Pre-20th Century)
• Statistical Methods: In the 19th century, the use of statistics
began to emerge in criminology. Scholars like Cesare Lombroso
analyzed crime patterns, laying the groundwork for later
analytical methods.
• Geographic Mapping: The use of maps to understand crime
distribution began, with early police departments tracking crime
locations to identify patterns.
• 20th Century Developments
• Emergence of Modern Crime Analysis: In the mid-20th
century, crime analysis started to take shape as a formal practice.
The establishment of centralized police records allowed for
better data collection and analysis.
• Law Enforcement Agencies: In the 1960s and 1970s, various
police departments in the U.S. began employing analysts to
interpret crime data, using statistical tools to inform policing
strategies.
• CompStat: Introduced by the New York City Police Department
in the 1990s, CompStat was a pivotal moment, using computer-
generated crime data to hold precincts accountable and allocate
resources effectively.
• Technological Advancements (Late 20th to Early 21st
Century)
• GIS Technology: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) became
integral for visualizing crime data, allowing analysts to map
crime hotspots and trends.
• Predictive Policing: The 2000s saw the rise of predictive
policing, where algorithms analyze past crime data to forecast
future crime locations and types, influencing patrol strategies.
• Contemporary Trends
• Data-Driven Policing: Many police agencies now rely heavily on
data analytics to inform policies, engage with communities, and
enhance transparency.
• Community Policing: Modern crime analysis often emphasises
collaboration with community stakeholders to address root causes
of crime.
• Ethics and Privacy Concerns: The increasing reliance on data
analytics has sparked debates about privacy, racial bias, and the
ethical implications of surveillance technologies.
• Future Directions
• Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: These
technologies are increasingly used to enhance predictive
capabilities and analyze complex datasets.
• Holistic Approaches: Future crime analysis may integrate social,
economic, and environmental data to address broader issues
related to crime and community safety.
Social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay)
• Social disorganization theory assumes that crime rates are constant in
areas with certain environmental conditions, such as high
unemployment, population fluctuation or material decay.
• Such conditions prevent social organization and cohesion in the
neighbourhood and thus informal social control of delinquency.
• Once crime is widespread, criminal norms and values that compete
with normative values are culturally transmitted and passed on to new
residents.
• As a result, crime rates in certain areas are constant regardless of the
specific population.
• People are therefore influenced in their actions by a certain
environment.
• The theory of social disorganization was developed by Clifford Shaw
in 1929 and published in 1942 in collaboration with his assistant
Henry McKay.
• In 1929, as part of his study “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”
in Chicago, Shaw investigated the places of residence of 60,000 young
males who had been registered by the city, the police or the courts as
school truants or offenders. He called the areas in which a large
number of the young men under investigation lived “delinquency
areas”.
• Shaw introduced another concept, that of “natural areas”, areas that are
distinguished from their surroundings by particular geographical,
social and cultural characteristics and areas that have formed in the
course of natural urban growth.
• Shaw was referring to the work of Canadian sociologist Ernest
Burgees. Together with his colleague Robert Ezra Park, he coined a
socio-ecological approach within urban sociology in 1925.
• Using the city of Chicago as an example, Burgees and Park developed
a concentric zone model that divides the city into 5 zones.
• Zone 1 represents the city center with the inner city. The business
districts are mainly located here and the industrial areas are
located on the edge of this first zone.
• Zone 2 is described by the authors as a transit zone between
business/industrial districts and residential areas.
• Zone 3 contains the residential areas for workers.
• Zone 4 contains the residential areas of the middle classes.
• Zone 5 contains the suburbs. This is where commuters live who
commute between their homes on the outskirts of the city and
their place of work in the city.
• In their study, Shaw and McKay found that the delinquency of the
young people studied is not evenly distributed across the city, but is
concentrated in individual areas.
• The ‘delinquency areas’ with particularly high crime rates largely
coincide with the ‘natural areas’ identified by Burgees and Park.
• The researchers found the highest crime rate in transition zone 2, with
the crime rate decreasing outwards.
• In the 1930s, Shaw and McKay extended their investigations to four
other North American cities and examined the places of residence of
juvenile suspects and delinquents aged 16 to 18.
• They found that their study results from Chicago were also confirmed
here.
• In each of these cities, there were areas with particularly high crime
rates. They characterized these ‘delinquency areas’ as follows:
1. higher delinquency and truancy rates,
2. high infant mortality,
3. high number of tuberculosis patients,
4. Overpopulation,
5. high number of families living on state support,
6. unfavorable social structure, due to a lack of leisure
activities, but also to high population mobility.
•They also concluded that the high crime rates should be
viewed independently of the ethnic makeup of the population,
suggesting that the area itself is the source of the crime.
•This could lead to the conclusion that certain factors have
been present in these areas for decades, and that these factors
keep “infecting” young people with crime, regardless of the
culture and values of the people who live there.
• A second explanatory approach would be to assume that space attracts
criminals. –
• The crime areas were located where the neighborhoods were the
most run-down and attracted mainly poor people due to low rents.
In these neighborhoods, under the pressure of socially
disintegrating forces, social ties were dissolved and therefore crime
was higher (low social control).
• With regard to the different social structures, several rings were
formed around the inner city. According to this distribution from
the inside to the outside, the number of crimes decreased.
• Cultural Transmission
• The high crime rates are independent of the ethnic composition of the
residents.
• The crime-ridden areas were mainly inhabited by different ethnic
groups. Despite the population fluctuation, crime in the areas studied
remained relatively constant.
• The areas to which the original inhabitants moved did not record an
increase in crime. This led the authors to assume that the area itself
produces crime.
• Concluded from this that certain factors exist in these areas over
decades that repeatedly “infect” young people with crime.
• The Deviant normative attitudes and delinquent traditions of youth
groups are passed on from generation to generation.
• A second explanation is the assumption of spatial attraction.
• Crime-ridden areas were located where the neighborhoods were the
most run-down and, due to the low rents, mainly attracted people
affected by poverty.
• In these residential areas, social ties were dissolved under the pressure
of socially disintegrating forces. This dissolution of informal social
control leads to an increase in crime.
• Social Disorganization Theory
• Definition: Social disorganization theory posits that a breakdown in social structures and
community cohesion leads to increased crime rates. It emphasizes the role of neighborhood
characteristics in influencing behavior.
• Key Factors:
• Poverty: Higher poverty levels often correlate with crime due to limited access to
resources and opportunities.
• Residential Mobility: Frequent moves can disrupt community ties, weakening social
networks and collective efficacy.
• Ethnic Heterogeneity: Diverse communities may face challenges in establishing
shared norms and values, leading to social fragmentation.
• Collective Efficacy: This concept refers to the ability of community members to work
together to achieve common goals, including crime prevention. Areas with strong
collective efficacy tend to have lower crime rates.
 Implication of the theory
• To tackle social disorganization, proponents of the theory propose
measures that promote social integration, improve education and
stabilize economic conditions.
• By strengthening social ties and control mechanisms, the aim is to
reduce susceptibility to criminal behavior.
• The realization that crime can emanate from a space is also a starting
point for urban crime prevention programs.
 Spatial Patterns of City Growth and Social Disorganization
• The spatial patterns of city growth and social disorganization are key
concepts in criminology, particularly in understanding crime distribution
in urban areas.
• Spatial Patterns of City Growth
• Urbanization: Rapid urban growth can lead to overcrowded areas,
often resulting in increased poverty and social strain. As cities
expand, certain neighborhoods may become more isolated or
neglected.
• Suburbanization: Movement to suburbs can create disparities
between urban and suburban areas, affecting resources, community
cohesion, and policing.
• Zoning and Land Use: Different zoning laws can influence the
types of businesses and housing in an area, impacting social
• Interconnections
• Urban Growth and Disorganization: Rapid growth can exacerbate
social disorganization. As neighborhoods change, established social
ties may weaken, making it harder for communities to respond to
crime.
• Crime Patterns: Areas undergoing significant change often see
fluctuating crime rates. New businesses or gentrification can lead to
initial spikes in crime as social dynamics shift.
• Policy Implications: Understanding these patterns can inform urban
planning and crime prevention strategies, emphasizing the importance
of community engagement and resource allocation to strengthen social
ties.
 Routine Activity Theory
• Routine Activity Theory (RAT) is a key framework in criminology that
helps analyze crime through the lens of daily activities and social
interactions.
• Originally formulated by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979.
• Routine activities theory postulates that crime is the product of a
convergence of three types of variables: motivated offenders, suitable
targets (i.e., potential crime victims), and capable guardians (i.e.,
individuals, including the police, witnesses, and even potential crime
victims, who can act to prevent or foil a crime against person or
property).
• The risk of crime increases when you have in the same place at the
same time a person or persons motivated to commit a crime along with
a person or persons who are viable targets, but an absence of
‘guardians’.
• Cohen and Felson maintain that since World War II, people’s routine
activities (i.e., their daily work, school, or leisure activities) have
increasingly taken them away from home and into the public sphere,
thus increasing their chances of victimization.
• Routine activities theory focuses primarily on victims rather than
offenders, assuming simply that motivated offenders always exist.
• Routine activities theory also implies that the more a person stays at
home, the lower that person’s chances of becoming a crime victim.
• Females are more likely to be victimized by people they know in their
own homes than by strangers in public places.
• The routine activity theory is the hypothesis that the probability of a
violation, namely direct-contact predatory crime, occurring at any
specific time and place might be taken as a function of the
convergence of three minimal elements: (1) a likely offender, (2) a
suitable target, and (3) the absence of a capable guardian against crime
(Clarke & Felson, 1993).
• D. Kim Rossmo (2000, p. 112) states that “for a direct-contact
predatory crime to occur, the paths of the offender and victim must
intersect in time and space, within an environment appropriate for
criminal activity”.
• Core Principles of Routine Activity Theory
• Crime Occurs When Three Elements Converge:
• Motivated Offender: Individuals with the inclination to commit a
crime.
• Suitable Target: Objects or persons that are perceived as valuable and
vulnerable.
• Lack of Capable Guardianship: Absence of individuals or mechanisms
(like police or security) that can deter criminal behavior.
• Daily Activities Influence Crime: The routine activities of individuals
shape the opportunities for crime. Changes in social behavior, urban design,
and technology can alter these routines and, consequently, crime patterns.
• Temporal and Spatial Considerations: The likelihood of crime is affected
by time and location. Certain times (e.g., nights, weekends) and places (e.g.,
isolated areas) are more conducive to criminal activities.
• Applications in Crime Analysis
• Target Hardening: Understanding suitable targets allows law
enforcement and communities to implement measures that make
targets less accessible or appealing (e.g., better lighting, surveillance
cameras).
• Environmental Design: Concepts from RAT can inform Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies,
focusing on urban planning to reduce opportunities for crime.
• Predictive Policing: By analyzing patterns in routine activities, law
enforcement agencies can deploy resources more effectively,
anticipating where crimes are likely to occur based on shifts in
community behavior.
• Crime Mapping: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be used
to visualize where motivated offenders and suitable targets overlap,
helping to identify hotspots for focused interventions.
• Limitations
• While RAT provides valuable insights, it has limitations:

• Neglects Social Factors: It doesn’t fully account for the social and
economic conditions that motivate individuals to commit crimes.

• Focus on Opportunity: The theory emphasizes opportunity over

the motivations and backgrounds of offenders, which are also
crucial for understanding criminal behavior.
Rational Choice Theory