Using Crime Analysis to Improve Security

The crime triangle is a theory that was authored by two criminologists. Moreover, it states that a crime happens when an offender comes together with a victim in a particular time and space. The theory can assist in realizing that the solution of crimes problems is not a response from police. This paper brings out the significance of the crime triangle by providing a clear purpose, offering critique and giving recommendations on how to improve security.

Learning about the crime triangle is of great importance. It helps to form a clear picture of crime and have a clear understanding of it. In the crime triangle, an outer triangle surrounds an inner triangle consisting of a victim, an offender and a place (Greene, 2007).  It is worth noting that every offender has a handler, every place has a manager and every victim has a guardian. In the crime triangle, the outer triangle controls the elements of the inner triangle. An offender commits a crime, and an affected person of the act is a victim. A location is the platform on which crime occurs.

By understanding the crime triangle, it helps the crime prevention bodies and the general public to eliminate the components of crime (Shinder & Cross, 2008). For example, some cases occur that victims themselves or police are a guardian of a sufferer, and a handler of an offender is a family or a probation officer and a manager of the place is the property owner or a probation officer. Elimination of location from the triangle makes an offender not to reach out to a victim. Likewise, eliminating either an offender or a victim prevents crime. The brightest idea is to eliminate two legs of the triangle instead of one.

Concentrating on elimination of offenders opens doors to new offenders to replace the eliminated one. The cycle of elimination and replacement of criminals continue as long as there is an opportunity (Shinder & Cross, 2008). For instance, when the crime is occurring, there is always the presence of the inner triangle, but the outer circle is absent or very weak. However, in the case where potential offenders are present constantly, but crime usually occurs when a guardian is not present then rescheduling the guardians might be the best solution (Greene, 2007). Understanding how problems are created by opportunities helps in knowing how to prevent offenders from offending again. Moreover, victims are also helped from reducing their probability of being targeted. Apparently, changing of places where problems occur is also a way of eliminating the crime.

Chesterton identifies motive, capability and opportunity as the aspects that enhance a crime. He argues that a crime starts with the desire of an offender to commit a crime, which is not preventable by the most powerful crime prevention body. The security professionals argue that a crime is only preventable through removing motivation and blocking opportunity (Greene, 2007). The crime target is what brings about motivation. Conversely, people, property and information are the named assets that the prevention bodies strive to protect against crime. These are the targets to offenders. For organizations to operate, they require assets in the form of human resource, data and technical machinery (Vellani, 2007). It is, therefore, impossible to do away with motivation as a way of crime prevention. The only option to prevent crimes that remain standing in the crime triangle is blocking the opportunity.

The article, ‘Police Beat: The Crime Triangle – Exterior’, states that since it is impossible to take the desire of the thief away, we should aim at decreasing it. By lighting up our homes, we keep off thieves since they fear light. Nonetheless, installation of security systems, for example, alarms, keeps thieves away thus reducing chances of crime occurrence. Moreover, homeowners who place sticker notes around their homes indicating the availability of a security system in the home reduce chance of burglary.

Construction of fences around homes is another strategy to keep crime at bay. According to the article, ‘Police Beat: The Crime Triangle — Opportunity’, the general public should ensure they cease any opportunity for crime to happen. Citizens should carefully handle their property to reduce the rate of crime. When they leave their property lying carelessly, they empower the thief to take advantage of the opportunity, and they become victims of a theft. It is unfortunate that some cases reported to the police cannot be investigated since the occurrence was due to carelessness.

The two articles are in agreement that the responsibility of preventing crime like thefts lies with citizens. It is almost impossible to do away with thieves, but it is the actions of the target that keep them away.

It is important to learn how and why offenders commit crime. In addition, interviewing them may help one to understand how they commit their goals without being caught. As a result, offenders expected to react to the perception of opportunities. Nevertheless, changing the perception of crime opportunities to an offender may be preventive measures. Mostly, the further crime activities are deterred through preventive measures (Greene, 2007). The measures to prevent crime can cause a reduction of crime beyond what was expected. Furthermore, it can stop crime before implementation. It is worth noting that not all preventive measures achieve desired effects. This is because offenders may not be aware of the intervention that has been put in place. For instance, offenders can increase their offense in the face of covert face because they might not perceive an increment in the risk of being caught. On the other hand, an offender may negatively adjust to preventive measures.

A big player in the crime triangle is the society (Lemieux, 2014). Mostly, opportunities afforded by the social and physical arrangements determine the crimes levels in society. This is because of dispositions and attitudes of the populations. However, there is a loss of confidence in the security personnel by citizens. Rather than being of help to the general public, officials are identified in most incidents as collaborators with criminals (Arrington, 2006). The security personnel give their machinery to criminals to enable them carry out activities of crime. An example is when police gang down armed robbers and the weapons recovered from the criminals have identification numbers of the security personnel. The same weapons provided to help curb crime are used to establish the criminal activities further (Eck & Clarke, 2014).

My recommendations for preventing crime lay in observing honesty and integrity. By reporting incidents of crime, we discourage offenders (Vellani, 2007). We know who the offenders are; they are our brothers, sisters, parents, guardians, classmates, neighbors and employers. By hiding their identities from the disciplining bodies, we put ourselves at risk. A big player in the crime triangle is the society (Lemieux, 2014). Rather than expecting the security personnel to offer protection, we should strive to volunteer information that is resourceful towards arresting the offenders (Arrington, 2006).

In conclusion, the crime triangle also known as the problem analysis triangle is a very useful tool for understanding the crime. The society should take part in crime control by reporting offenders to the law enforcers.