Description
The Problem:
Select a crime problem that you are interested in and believe should be addressed. This problem may be one that you have in your community, one that you have read about in the news, or one that you have dealt with at work. Describe the problem in detail.
What law is being broken?
Who are the targets/victims?
Where/when is the crime occurring? (Is it spatially and/or temporally concentrated?)
What is the situation/context?
What are the mechanics of the crime (How does the offender go about committing the crime)?
Who are the offenders?
Situational Analysis based on Environmental Criminological Theory:
Analyze the situational conditions that permit or facilitate the commission of the crime.
Use routine activities theory and the crime triangle to explain how the necessary elements come together to create this crime problem, and the absent controller(s). Make sure you discuss whether this is a repeat victim, place, or offender problem.
Use the relevant Principles of Crime Opportunity to describe the opportunity structure of this crime.
Use rational choice theory to consider how these opportunity structures might be perceived by offenders as favorable for crime.
Systematic Analysis of Possible Interventions:
Systematically identify possible interventions based on the techniques of situational crime prevention and/or the elements of good design (if applicable). Be innovative! Be creative! Think about new and interesting ways to control this crime problem.
Anticipating Offender Adaptation:
Derive some hypotheses from environmental criminology regarding how offenders might adapt (i.e., displacement, diffusion of benefits) to your recommended interventions. Be sure to ground your predictions in theory. (Cornish & Clarke) (Eck) use there theoretical backgrounds to support hypothesis.
Assessment Plan:
Select the most promising intervention and provide a discussion of how you would assess its impact on the crime problem. Be specific. What data would you need? What type of research design would you use? If you are uncertain about how to address this section, please contact the Instructor.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
University of Texas at San Antonio
CRJ 6103 Seminar on Topics in Theory of Crime and Justice:
Environmental Criminology
Fall 20233
COURSE PAPER
This paper requires you to closely examine a recurring crime problem and develop a plan of action to address it.
You must produce a paper that is written as though you are presenting the problem and potential solutions based
on environmental criminological theory and research. Your paper should be a “stand alone” piece of work that
assumes the reader is unfamiliar with the crime problem and environmental criminology.
The Problem:
Select a crime problem that you are interested in and believe should be addressed. This problem may be one
that you have in your community, one that you have read about in the news, or one that you have dealt with
at work. Describe the problem in detail.
• What law is being broken?
• Who are the targets/victims?
• Where/when is the crime occurring? (Is it spatially and/or temporally concentrated?)
• What is the situation/context?
• What are the mechanics of the crime (How does the offender go about committing the crime)?
• Who are the offenders?
Situational Analysis based on Environmental Criminological Theory:
Analyze the situational conditions that permit or facilitate the commission of the crime.
• Use routine activities theory and the crime triangle to explain how the necessary elements come
together to create this crime problem, and the absent controller(s). Make sure you discuss whether
this is a repeat victim, place, or offender problem.
• Use the relevant Principles of Crime Opportunity to describe the opportunity structure of this crime.
• Use rational choice theory to consider how these opportunity structures might be perceived by
offenders as favorable for crime.
Systematic Analysis of Possible Interventions:
Systematically identify possible interventions based on the techniques of situational crime prevention and/or
the elements of good design (if applicable). Be innovative! Be creative! Think about new and interesting
ways to control this crime problem.
Anticipating Offender Adaptation:
Derive some hypotheses from environmental criminology regarding how offenders might adapt (i.e.,
displacement, diffusion of benefits) to your recommended interventions. Be sure to ground your predictions
in theory. (Cornish & Clarke) (Eck) use there theoretical backgrounds to support hypothesis.
Assessment Plan:
Select the most promising intervention and provide a discussion of how you would assess its impact on the
crime problem. Be specific. What data would you need? What type of research design would you use? If
you are uncertain about how to address this section, please contact the Instructor.
Additional paper requirements
The paper will be graded on organization, clarity of ideas, grammar/spelling/punctuation, and your ability to
appropriately describe and apply the relevant concepts.
1) Address all parts of the paper thoroughly.
2) Papers MUST be 10-12 pages (excluding title page and references), double-spaced, Times New Roman,
12-point font with 1-inch margins.
3) Include a title page with the title of your paper, your name, and the date.
4) Papers should include an Introduction (with a thesis statement) and a Conclusion. Create sections using
headings (and subheadings, if appropriate) based on the five required elements of the paper.
5) Students must follow APA style of citation and referencing (including a reference page). Avoid using
direct quotes. Instead, paraphrase and cite the source. When direct quotes are used, page numbers are
required.
6) Papers should reference course readings when applying the course material to the specific paper topic.
The paper should also include additional references to relevant outside materials.
7) Papers should be grammatically correct and free of typos and other errors. Carefully proofread your
paper before submitting it. Students are strongly encouraged to take advantage of UTSA writing
resources.
8) Papers should be written in a formal tone.
9) The paper you submit should be YOUR WORK ONLY. Do not plagiarize.
COURSE PRESENTATION
Pretend as though you are presenting your work to interested stakeholders. Follow the outline of the paper (i.e.,
problem, situational analysis, possible interventions, offender adaptation, and assessment).
•
•
•
•
•
•
You have approximately 10 minutes (no more than 8 Powerpoint slides) for your presentation. We will
then have a few minutes after each presentation for questions.
Practice your presentation and make sure you are within the time limit.
Do not put lots of text on each slide and then read directly from your slides.
Proofread your slides.
Make your presentation and the slides neat and professional. Make them visually interesting and
appealing. Maps, pictures, charts, etc. are encouraged when appropriate.
Bring a hard copy of your presentation for me.
Drunk Driving by Minors
The University of Texas at San Antonio
1
Minor Drunk Driving
The Bureau of Justice Statistics explains that in 1986, more than 158 million persons held
drivers’ licenses in the United States – 86% of that population was 16 and over. Within that same
year, the FBI approximated 1.8 million arrests made by state and local police agencies for
driving under the influence. In addition, 40,056 motor vehicle fatalities occurred, 40% of them
were alcohol related (Greenfled, 1998). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2012)
explains that the rate of drinking and driving has decreased since then, especially amongst
teenagers (54% decrease since 1991), yet reports find that 1 in 10 teens drinks and drives. In the
state of Texas alone, 11.3% – 14.5% (one of the highest rates) of individuals aged 16 and older
reported drinking and driving. The goal of this paper is to identify the best intervention to
prevent minors from drinking and driving in the state of Texas.
The CDC (2012) explains that young drivers who are not legal to drink (ages 16-20) are
seventeen times more likely to die in a fatal car crash with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level
of .08 (establishes an illegal drunk driver) level as opposed to not drinking at all. Strict
enforcement of minimum legal drinking age laws made it illegal to sell and serve alcohol to
individuals under the age of twenty-one under the Uniform Minimum Age Drinking act of 1984,
reducing drinking and driving crashes in teens but not riding of it (2012). Research indicates that
high school teens still drink and drive 2.4 million times a month. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) points out that car crashes are the leading cause of death for
teens, a quarter of those crashes are attributed to an underage drunk driver (Yonder, 2017).
Furthermore, 85% of teens in high school have also reported binge drinking, which is defined as
having five or more drinks (CDC, 2012). Moreover, the CDC (2012) recognizes long term
consequences that are associated with underage drinking, some of these being social problems,
2
school problems, legal problems, abuse of other drugs, future alcohol abuse, and changes in brain
development. The CDC highlights that this is not just a delinquency issue, but is a robust public
health problem (2012).
Research indicates that underage drinking is associated with drug involvement,
depression, skipping school, self-inflicting pain, suicidal thoughts, behavioral problems, and
family dysfunction (Komro & Toomey, 2002). Underage drinking also plays a role in risky
sexual behavior (unwanted, unintended, and unprotected), increases the risk of academic failure,
alcohol poisoning, creates secondhand effects (e.g. violence, death), and is a risk factor for heavy
drinking later in life which can lead to health problems such as liver failure, pancreatitis, and
hemorrhagic stroke (Hingson & Kenkel, 2004).
Studies have found that boredom, sensation seeking and thrill seeking were both
associated with underage drinking and driving amongst junior and senior high school males
(Arnett, 1989). Studies have also shown that decreased parental involvement can lead an
individual to engage in underage drinking, leading to the formation of bad habits (Komro &
Toomey, 2002). In addition, many teens report that it is easy to obtain alcohol from a licensed
establishment (Komro & Toomey, 2002). It is important that prevention strategies that include
deterrence for underage drinking and driving in addition to increased strategies for effective
parenting, and policies that do not tolerate the selling of alcohol to minors. To understand
underage drinking and its possible interventions this paper will be looking through the lens of
routine activities theory, rational choice theory and situational crime prevention.
Situational Analysis Based off Environmental Criminology
As mentioned previously, the legal age to drink in the United States is 21 years old
(CDC, 2012). The question that remains is how underage individuals are getting access to
3
alcohol. Researchers explain that drinking usually takes place in homes, bars, and restaurants but
also occur in other environments like workplaces, special events, or at a friends’ house
(Gruenewald et al, 1993). Gruenewald et.al (1993) also identifies that the different availabilities
to drink vary greatly in space and time and can be changed by the individual activities of
consumers. Moreover, routine activities has the ability to explain the availability and attainment
of alcohol (Gurenewald et.al, 1993).
Routine activities theory was originally coined by Cohen and Felson (1979) after
questioning why crime rates increased in urban areas in the 1960s. Tillyer and Eck (2009)
explain that routine activities theory has become heavily related to theories that pertain to
environmental criminology. Routine activities theory requires three elements to converge in time
and space: a motivated offender prepared to commit a crime, a suitable target (human or object),
and the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). It is important to note that the
view of this paper is that underage drinking and driving does not have a specific target/victim,
but is more broad in the sense that drinking and driving can lead to fatal car crashes – creating a
broader victim. The absence of one out of the three elements would be enough to prevent a crime
from occurring. In addition, Tillyer and Eck (2009) explain that Cohen and Felson suggested
that a crime should be thought of as an event that takes place in a specific location with specific
items and people. Tillyer and Eck (2009) bring to attention that the original theory by Cohen and
Felson argued that structural changes in society in terms of patterns of their everyday (routine)
activities can impact the likelihood of the convergence in time and space of the three necessary
elements. Simply put, crime patterns are a result of patterns in society which can lead to more
opportunities for crime (2009).
4
Routine activities theory has been developed by researchers Tillyer and Eck (2009), who
have recognized controllers as individuals who have the potential, and are necessary to stop a
criminal event. The first type of controller is a handler, who have personal connections and
informal social control over potential offenders. This includes parent chaperones at school
events, probation officers supervising clients, and school administrators. Next are guardians, who
protect suitable targets from any type of offender. This can include a child care provider, a friend
walking someone to their car in the back of a parking lot, or an owner of a vehicle who makes
sure to lock his/her car. Lastly are managers, these individuals supervise specific areas. For
instance, this could include an owner of a shop who increases surveillance by installing cameras,
or a park ranger enforcing rules like no littering (Eck, 2001; Tillyer & Eck, 2009).
Tillyer and Eck (2009) explain the crime triangle which displays a combined version of
routine activities theory. The inner triangle shows the necessary elements for a crime to occur
(target/victim, offender, place). The outer triangle represents controllers (guardian, manager,
handler), which would need to be lacking or incapable for a crime to occur. Moreover, an
individual’s tendency to prevent crime comes with four varying degrees of responsibility –
personal, assigned, diffuse, and general (2009). Routine activities theory, per Tillyer and Eck
(2009), suggests that the organization of routine activities in society create opportunities for
crime. For instance, routine activities such as going to and from work can impact physical
availability – it could be that an individual’s route can be filled with places that have high
alcohol sale densities and a lack of capable guardians (Gurenewald et.al, 1993). Routine
activities can shift and individuals can alter patterns, for example developing new friends and
networks who may have higher alcohol consumption – leading to different physical and social
availability (Gurenewald et.al, 1993). Researchers explain that the routine activities perspective
5
is important because activities can potentially bring consumers into situations with dangerous
circumstances like driving while intoxicated (Gurenewald et.al, 1993).
The American Medical Association found that nearly half of teens aged 13-18 reported
obtaining alcohol at some point (Brewer & Swahn, 2005). Two out of three teens said it is easy
to get alcohol from their homes without their parents knowing, and increased by 40% when it is
from a friend’s parent. When applying this research to routine activities, it seems that the
environment underage individuals are drinking in are lacking parents or chaperones who serve as
capable guardians, fostering the environment for drinking and driving. In addition, a capable
guardian could also be the absence of a friend who stays sober and drives safely. The motivated
offender in this scenario is the underage individual who is enticed to drink – but is not
necessarily motivated to offend, but is negligent of the consequences. Given that underage
drinking happens mainly in homes or at establishments that serve alcohol to minors, the absence
of a capable guardians/controllers in this cause could also be managers who own establishments
that sell alcohol, whose employees are not checking for identification (e.g. liquor store, bar, club,
event).
According to Felson and Clarke (1998), the ten principles of opportunity in crime help
develop an understanding of the opportunity structure of this crime. The viewpoint of this paper
is that there are three principles that best explain the stricture of underage drinking. The first
principle explains that opportunities play a role in causing all crime. As mentioned previously,
many teens are reporting taking alcohol from their own homes when their parents are unaware
(Brewer & Swahn, 2005). This requires an opportunity, when a parent isn’t home or a friends’
parent isn’t home (lack of guardian) – underage drinking can take place, leading to driving. The
next principle is that crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space – crime
6
opportunities are not equally distributed. Felson and Clarke (1998) explain that many locations
are unfavorable for a crime to occur. For instance, a minor will prefer to drink alcohol on a street
where police officers are frequently passing by, or a crowded event with strict enforcement rules.
On the flip side, if there is a location that has a lack of capable guardians – that place may serve
as a crime generator (e.g. a restaurant that frequently serves minors, a minors house whose
parents are never home, college party) – making it preferable to drink and potentially drive. The
third principle is that one crime produces opportunities for another crime. For instance, underage
drinking may lead to drinking and driving – having the potential to turn into a crash. In addition,
underage drinking at a party may lead to exposure and indulgence in other substances. Also,
drinking in certain amounts leads to misread social cues and slower judgement, which can lead to
aggression and fights, unwanted sexual behavior, or alcohol poisoning (Brewer & Swahn, 2005).
Rational choice theory created by Clarke and Cornish helps offer a way of examining
offending that is present-centered and accounts for the influence of the environment on behavior.
This theory has six core concepts; criminal behavior is purposive, criminal behavior is rational,
criminal decision making is crime specific, criminal choices falls into “involvement” and “event”
decisions, there are separate stages of involvement, and criminal events unfold in a sequence of
stages and decisions. Looking through the lens of the offender, Clarke and Cornish (2008)
explains that often criminal behavior has “bounded rationality”, meaning decisions can be made
in less than perfect circumstances. In relation to underage drinking, many minors may think that
drinking at someone’s house party is safe but do not account for the drive home, think that the
police may show up to shut down a party, or account for adverse long term consequences.
Rational choice theory also talks about involvement and initiation into committing a
crime – explaining that behavior includes decisions about initial involvement continued over
7
time. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism explains that peer pressure is one
of the leading reasons why teens engage in drinking (NIAAA, 2017). This could explain
initiation into the crime – it has been shown boys may be more pressured to drink and drive
(CDC, 2012). Moreover, Clarke and Cornish (2008) explain that initiation is also guided by
sociological and psychological background factors. Some of these factors include gender,
genetics, upbringing, and current routine. In addition, those that see their parents or family
members drink in copious amounts, or come from broken homes may be more enticed to drink
(CDC, 2012). Driving home from a college party or friends house after drinking may seem
harmless to someone who does not have a capable guardian around to tell them no, or present the
consequences. It is the view of this study that due to the lack of capable guardians and the
absence of a set victim, and a variety of places it can take place – underage drinking and driving
is a repeat offender problem. In all, the combination of social, environmental, and behavioral
factors help explain why underage individuals may engage in underage drinking and why the
opportunity may be perceived as easy to minors.
Systematic Analysis of Possible Interventions
Cornish and Clarke (2003) claim that situational crime prevention has provided a
systematic and comprehensive review of methods of environmental crime prevention to aid in
guiding practical efforts to reduce offending. There are twenty-five techniques identified by
Clarke and Cornish (2003) to prevent crime – some are consistent with interventions that would
be appropriate for preventing underage drinking. Researchers Komro and Toomey (2002)
recognize that alcohol is the most commonly used drug among adolescents – leading to social,
emotional, and behavioral problems (e.g. using illegal drugs, fighting, sealing, drunk driving,
skipping school, depression, and self-infliction of pain). The first strategy proposed is consistent
8
with the (2003) techniques of reducing emotional arousal, and neutralizing peer pressure. This
study proposes training for parents on how to effectively monitor their kids, and classes on
effective communication. As a supplement, classrooms should be implementing curriculum
addressing drugs and drinking, exposing minors to the consequences. In addition, parent – child
interventions involving sessions about effective parenting have been shown to reduce levels of
underage drinking (Komro & Toomey, 2002). Though that is not the sole focus of the paper, it is
important to understand that preventing underage drinking ultimately prevents underage drunk
driving. Neutralizing peer pressure informs students that it is okay to say no, and will discourage
any criminal engagement. In addition, using positive reinforcement for good behavior may serve
as a deterrent. The caveat with this intervention is that it is not applicable to older minor
populations who do not live with a guardian.
Drawing on Clarke and Cornish’s (2003) situational prevention techniques of controlling
tools/weapons, disrupting markets, utilizing place managers, setting rules, and controlling drug
and alcohol sales, this study proposes the utilization of extended training for bar staff, ignition
interlocks, and random breath checks as prevention interventions in the state of Texas. First,
training for bar staff would include advanced training implemented at establishments selling
alcoholic beverages to identify fake identification. In addition, there should be manager
surveillance to see if the staff is enforcing ID checks on days and times that are known to be
common for drinking to occur. This would need the use of scanners to verify ID’s. Research
displays reports that were provided by purchase attempt studies that directly tested the propensity
of establishments to sell alcohol too underage individuals without asking for identification.
Results revealed that young buyers could purchase alcohol without identification about 50% of
the time (Forster et.al, 1995). To address this, law enforcement should do compliance checks,
9
and have consequences for establishments that are not complying (e.g. suspended license).
Refusing to serve alcohol to minors and confiscating fake ID’s could prevent drunk driving, and
deter it in other instances. Limitations of this would be ill enforcement of the policy, and not
enough compliance checks.
Ignition interlocks are also a proposed intervention that would consist of a minor to blow
into a breathalyzer to start their vehicle. If the breathalyzer reads over the preset BAC level
(.02% – .04%), the car will not start to prevent driving for five minutes, and then re-test. If results
are the same or higher, the car will not start. This method has been proven to be effective for
those with previous drunk driving records, showing a 15-65% decrease in DWI recidivism
(Coben & Larkin, 1998). This intervention should be imposed on drivers under the age of 21
each time they want to enter their vehicle in the state of Texas. This would prevent a minor from
getting behind the wheel if intoxicated, and perhaps motivate them to call a taxi service or have a
sober friend drive them home. The last intervention proposed is random breath testing around
popular bars, college campuses, and neighborhoods located near high schools. In this, officers
would have the authority to stop an individual for a random breath test. This may deter a minor
from drinking and driving, driven by the fear of a license suspension, or getting in trouble with
their parents. According to Grube and Nygaard (2001), this method has been effective on adults
(40% decrease of crashes) but no studies exist of underage drivers. Any of these interventions in
conjunction with situational crime prevention is expected to deter underage drunk driving.
Anticipating Offender Adaptation
A common concern of interventions for target problems led by situational crime
prevention is displacement, which is defined as the response of offenders to the blocking of
criminal opportunities (Eck, 1993); Gurette & Bowers, 2009). Eck (1993) highlights that
10
displacement can be a threat, but is unlikely to trump the crime prevention effort that took place.
Studies examining displacement have not found high levels of displacement (Guerette &
Bowers, 2009; Wiesburd et.al, 2006). With respect to underage drinking and driving and
prevention strategies, displacement can be possible in some aspects, but the view of this paper
does not anticipate displacement to occur in the aggregate. For instance, implementing
curriculum in schools and parent – child interventions are preventative in nature, and is not
targeting criminals in one place. Moreover, this specific intervention anticipates a diffusion of
benefits which is a reduction in crime that is achieved in areas that are close to the crime
prevention intervention (Guerette & Bowers, 2009). For instance, an individual who has gone
through the curriculum and parent-child intervention may tell their friends who drink to stop, and
inform them about the adverse consequences. Parents may motivate their friends to partake in
these with their child.
The proposed interventions of training for servers, random breath tests, and ignition
interlocks have the potential to cause some displacement. Guerette and Bowers (2009) explain
that per routine activities theory, displacement may occur in the aftermath of a situational
intervention where there are other convergences of crime opportunity. For instance, if the usual
spots that did not check for valid identification are now being supervised and adhering to strict
standards with consequences for both the server and drinker, the underage drinker can go to a
friend’s house to drink, or find an establishment that is not strict (spatial/method displacement).
If random breath checks are frequently occurring near certain bars or areas, an underage drinker
can simply go somewhere else, or drive another route home (spatial displacement). Also, if an
ignition interlock is present in a minor’s vehicle, the offender could adapt by borrowing a
friends’ car, or having a sober friend breathe in the breathalyzer for them (method displacement).
11
Eck (1993) explains that displacement may not occur depending on the costs and gains of
the crime target. Rational choice theory sees criminal activities as the choices of individuals, and
because it is a choice it is possible to deter offenders if the proper mixture of incentives can be
conveyed to potential criminals (Eck, 1993). Though random breath checks, training for servers,
and ignition interlocks could anticipate some displacement, there could also be a reverse effect
that could lead to an anticipatory diffusion of benefits. For instance, if random breath checks are
implemented in random locations, this may deter underage drinkers from drinking especially if
they are not in their own home. In addition, this could influence those that are legal to drink to
not drink and drive so they do not run the risk of getting a driving while intoxicated offense. In
addition, the fear of getting in trouble by getting caught purchasing alcohol as a minor may cause
many minors to refrain from drinking when they are out – which will also lead to a reduction in
drinking and driving amongst underage individuals. In all, the proposed interventions could
cause offender adaptation and lead to displacement, but is not anticipated to be at a level where
the intervention is rendered meaningless.
Assessment
It is the view of this paper that the most promising intervention is the implementation of
ignition interlocks. According to a meta-analysis by Coben and Larkin (1999), ignition interlocks
significantly reduced DWI recidivism. If implementing this in Bexar County, San Antonio (TX)
a pre-test post-test evaluation would be the most appropriate. The data would require information
on the number of licensed drivers who are minors, underage drunk drivers that were pulled over
by police officers, as well as the number of car crashes that were caused by underage minors
driving from December 2015 to December 2017 for the pre-test. In January of 2018, ignition
interlocks would be implanted in vehicles in Bexar County that belong to those who are licensed
12
and under the age of 21, and the same information would be required for the time from of
January 2018 – January 2020. The chip from the ignition interlock will be collected, and traffic
statistics will be recorded. If significant reductions in underage drinking and driving, and car
crashes are found, then this would be proposed to the state of Texas legislation to implement for
all licensed drivers who own a vehicle that are under the age of 21. Funding for this would come
from the taxpayers, and would be proposed as important for the public good to help increase
safety on the roads. In addition, this would help increase informal guardianship.
The intervention proposed does not go without limitations. First, a driver could have their
sober friend blow into the breathalyzer and proceed to drive if not set on a random interval
schedule. In addition, it does not fully solve the issue of underage drinking, but does target the
problem of drinking and driving. Also, funding for this to get passed would likely be a longer
and complicated process, and wouldn’t necessarily be feasible. Lastly, results from Bexar
County may not be representative of other cities in Texas due to different demographics. These
locks have only been used on offenders that have already been convicted, but is expected to
serve as a deterrent for minors who drink and drive, ultimately reducing serious traffic incidents
involving underage drinking and driving.
In sum, through the lens of routine activities theory, rational choice theory, and
situational crime prevention this study identifies how drinking and driving takes place, why
engaging in it may seem attractive based on opportunities, and what the best prevention
technique is. This is important because teens are far more likely to be involved in fatal car
crashes with BAC levels of .08 (CDC, 2012). By implementing ignition locks, drunk driving
could be deterred and prevent traffic fatalities. This is not only a crime problem, but a public
health problem that needs to be sufficiently addressed by policy makers and the government.
13
References
Arnett, J. (1990). Drunk driving, sensation seeking, and egocentrism among adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 11(6), 541-546.
Brewer, R. D., & Swahn, M. H. (2005). Binge drinking and violence. Jama, 294(5), 616-618.
CDC. (2012). Teen drinking and driving. Retrieved April 11, 2017, from
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/teendrinkinganddriving/
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.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2008). The rational choice perspective. Environmental
criminology and crime analysis, 21.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American sociological review, 588-608.
Coben, J. H., & Larkin, G. L. (1999). Effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing
drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(1), 81-87.
Eck, J. E. (1993,). The threat of crime displacement. In Criminal Justice Abstracts. 25,3. 527546.
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. Police research series, paper,
98.
Forster, J. L., Murray, D. M., Wolfson, M., & Wagenaar, A. C. (1995). Commercial availability
of alcohol to young people: results of alcohol purchase attempts. Preventive Medicine,
24(4), 342-347.
14
Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and
diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology,
47(4), 1331-1368.
Greenfled, L. A. (1998). Special report: Drunk driving. Washington, DC: US Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Gruenewald, P. J., Millar, A. B., & Treno, A. J. (1993). Alcohol availability and the ecology of
drinking behavior. Alcohol Research and Health, 17(1), 39.
Grube, J. W., & Nygaard, P. (2001). Adolescent drinking and alcohol policy. Contemporary
Drug Problems, 28(1), 87-131.
Hingson, R., & Kenkel, D. (2004). Social, health, and economic consequences of underage
drinking. Reducing underage drinking: A collective responsibility, 351-382.
Komro, K. A., & Toomey, T. L. (2002). Strategies to prevent underage drinking. Alcohol
Research and Health, 26(1), 5-14.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2017). Underage Drinking. National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse.
Tillyer, M. S., & Eck, J. E. (2009). Routine activities. 21st century criminology: A reference
handbook, 279-287.
Yoder, J. (2017). Drunk driving. Retrieved April 9, 2017, from https://www.nhtsa.gov/riskydriving/drunk-driving#5056
PREDATORY PROPERTY CRIME AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PERSPECTIVE
POPE FIVE AS A POTENTIAL HOT SPOT
Introduction
Environment criminology is multidisciplinary approach that is predominately concerned
with the person-situation interaction and how it produces criminal opportunity (Felson & Clarke,
1998). Crime prevention through
