Abstract
Technology is one of the most important influences upon crime. It can increase or reduce the supply of crime opportunities, and the effect may be intentional or unintentional. With respect to intentional opportunity reduction, security technology has caused much of the major reductions in crime experienced in recent decades. An important aspect is that the best security does not produce a fortress society but, instead, also improves our quality of life. In many modern cars, for example, a suite of highly effective yet unobtrusive security is automatically engaged when the driver departs. The characteristics of such elegant security are captured by the acronym DAPPER wherein security is the Default, Aesthetically neutral, has a Powerful preventive mechanism, is Principled and acceptable to all except offenders, Effortless to engage, and Rewarding in cost–benefit terms. It is increasingly apparent that the best security technology reduces crime while enhancing the liberty of individuals and the community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brown, R. (2013a). Reviewing the effectiveness of electronic vehicle immobilisation: Evidence from four countries. Security Journal, 1–25. DOI: 10.1057/sj.2012.55.
Brown, R. (2013b). Regulating crime prevention design into consumer products: Learning the lessons from electronic vehicle immobilisation. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 453. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Clarke, R. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. Police research series paper 112. London: Home Office.
Clarke, R. V. (2012). Opportunity makes the thief. Really? And so what? Crime Science, 1(3), 1–9.
Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. (2005). Modifying criminogenic products: What role for government? In R. Clarke & G. Newman (Eds.), Designing out crime from products and systems (Crime prevention studies, Vol. 18, pp. 7–83). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 41–96.
Eck, J. E., & Eck, E. B. (2012). Crime place and pollution: Expanding crime reduction options through a regulatory approach. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 281–316.
Ekblom, P. (1999). Can we make crime prevention adaptive by learning from other evolutionary struggles? Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 27–51.
Farrell, G., Tilley, N., Tseloni, A., & Mailley, J. (2011). The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 147–175.
Farrell, G., Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2014). Why the crime drop? In M. Tonry (Ed.), Why crime rates fall and why they don’t, volume 43 of crime and justice (pp. 221–290). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., & Tilley, N. (2011). The effectiveness of car security devices and their role in the crime drop. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(1), 21–35.
Laycock, G. (2004). The U.K. car theft index: An example of government leverage. In M. G. Maxfield & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Understanding and preventing car theft, crime prevention studies (Vol. 17). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Newman, G. (2004). Car safety and car security: An historical comparison. In M. G. Maxfield & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Understanding and preventing car theft (Crime prevention studies, Vol. 17, pp. 217–248). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Perry, H. W. (1910). Anti joy ride devices. Scientific American. 49, 58, 70.
Tilley, N., Farrell, G., Grove, L. E., Thompson, R., & Tseloni, A. (2015). Do burglar alarms increase burglary risk? A counterintuitive finding and possible explanation. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 17(1), 1–19.
Tilley, N., Farrell, G., & Clarke, R. V. (2015). Target suitability and the crime drop. In M. A. Andresen & G. Farrell (Eds.), The criminal act: The role and influence of routine activities theory (pp. 59–76). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tseloni, A., & Thompson, R. (2015). Securing the premises (pp. 32–35). February: Significance.
Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L. E., Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (2014). The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal. doi:10.1057/sj.2014.30.
Webb, B., Smith, M., & Laycock, G. (2004). Designing out crime through vehicle licensing and registration systems. In M. G. Maxfield & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Understanding and preventing car theft (Crime prevention studies, Vol. 17, pp. 67–84). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Whitehead, S., & Farrell, G. (2008). Policing and corporate social responsibility: Anticipating mobile phone “smart wallet” crime. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2(2), 210–217.
Wortley, R. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime. Security Journal, 14, 63–82.
Wortley, R. (2008). Situational precipitators of crime. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 48–69). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Farrell, G., Tilley, N. (2017). Technology for Crime and Crime Prevention: A Supply Side Analysis. In: LeClerc, B., Savona, E. (eds) Crime Prevention in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27793-6_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27793-6_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27791-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27793-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)