Note Making

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/280837011
Beccaria and Situational Crime Prevention
Article in Criminal Justice Review · June 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0734016814550815
CITATIONS READS
7 1,134
1 author:
Joshua D. Freilich
City University of New York - John Jay College of Criminal Justice
105 PUBLICATIONS 1,377 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism View project
Offline-to-Online: A Large-Scale Assessment of Right-Wing Extremists’ Online Discourse around Key Events View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua D. Freilich on 18 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Criminal Justice Review
1-20
ª 2014 Georgia State University
Beccaria and Situational Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Crime Prevention DOI: 10.1177/0734016814550815
cjr.sagepub.com
Joshua D. Freilich1
Abstract
This article compares Beccaria’s and Situational Crime Prevention’s (SCP) claims across six
dimensions. Both perspectives question harsh penalties, embrace crime reduction as a goal, and
view some individuals as possessing agency and rationality. The latter two points distinguish them
from most other criminological theories that are not focused on crime reduction and downplay
offenders’ rationality. Both approaches have also been criticized for ignoring the root causes of
crime in society. Importantly though, the approaches also differ. The Classical School and SCP are
usually differentiated from positivistic approaches in their assumption of offender agency. This
article found, however, that SCP does not assume offender agency in all contexts. In fact, many
SCP interventions could be explained in positivistic terms. The analysis indicates that it is
sometimes unclear which causal mechanisms underlie each of SCP’s 25 techniques of crime
prevention. Clarifying the precise causal mechanism of each technique could lead to more effective
implementation. The article places these and other issues in context and outlines a series of
suggestions for future research to address to strengthen the SCP approach.
Keywords
individual theories of crime causation, crime/delinquency theory, crime prevention, law
enforcement/security, crime policy, courts/law
Introduction
This article compares Beccaria’s and Situational Crime Prevention’s (SCP) claims across six
dimensions. Beccaria is seen as the leading 18th-Century Classical School thinker and SCP is
often portrayed as an influential contemporary framework that follows the Classical School’s
approach. Recently, SCP has grown in popularity and a series of empirical studies have supported
its claims (Guerette & Bowers, 2009; Meier & Miethe, 1993; Weisburd et al., 2006). SCP plays a
key role in Great Britain and Scandinavian countries’ crime prevention policies, and it has influ-
enced crime fighting strategies in the United States and other nations across the globe (Felson,
1
Department of Criminal Justice and Program of Doctoral Studies in Criminal Justice, John Jay College, City University of
New York (CUNY), New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joshua D. Freilich, Department of Criminal Justice and Program of Doctoral Studies in Criminal Justice, John Jay College, Suite
2123 North Hall, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019, USA.
Email: jfreilich@jjay.cuny.edu
Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

2 Criminal Justice Review
2008; Knepper, 2009; Scott, Eck, Knutsson, & Goldstein, 2008). Despite SCP’s successes, critics
have questioned its theoretical underpinnings (Haywood, 2007). Indeed modest attention has been
paid to the conceptual foundations of SCP, a point noted over 15 years ago in one of the few
volumes to engage SCP’s theoretical underpinnings (Newman, Clarke, & Shoham, 1997).
This study extends Newman and Marongui’s (1997; Marongiu & Newman, 1997) study and
compares SCP to Beccaria’s work. The comparison uncovered similarities as well as important
differences between the two frameworks, including that SCP’s underlying theoretical orientation
is more developed than Beccaria’s approach. The paucity of attention given to the theoretical
foundations of SCP has possibly contributed to its oversimplification in mainstream criminology
which has sometimes portrayed it as only extending Beccaria’s punishment ideas. In his critique of
the criminal law and the legal system, Beccaria never questioned the belief that punishment could
be used to deter individuals from committing crime. In contrast, SCP mostly ignores punishment
because it is too far removed from crime scenes to influence offender behavior. Nor does it see
deterrence emanating from formal punishment as the most effective technique to prevent crime.
These differences are overlooked by many criminologists. Akers and Sellers’s (2009; see also
Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002, pp. 203–205) leading criminology theory text, for example, fails
to note SCP’s rejection of punishment generally, and prisons specifically, as a mechanism to
reduce crime as well as its recent extension to ‘‘soft’’ crime-reduction strategies (as recounted
below). The characterization of SCP as just a modern version of Beccaria’s punishment and deter-
rence arguments ignores the intellectual ferment within SCP (Cornish & Clarke, 2003; Cullen,
2011; Ekblom & Tilley, 2008; Newman, 2012).
Former American Society of Criminology President Robert J. Bursik (2009) recently lamented
criminology’s tendency to ignore earlier works. He argued that this practice resulted in certain con-
temporary arguments being viewed as novel, even though they were not. The discipline thus misses
out on the collective body of earlier knowledge that could contextualize contemporary arguments
and studies. The situation with Beccaria and SCP is slightly different. The field has tended to sim-
plify the contemporary SCP approach (Clarke, 2012; Cozens, 2008: 166; Felson, 2008). The result is
similar to Bursik’s (2009) critique because criminology’s failure to consider SCP’s novel arguments
and extensions of Beccaria’s ideas harms the discipline’s growth.
Relatedly, despite SCP’s more developed theoretical model, this study’s comparison of it to
Becarria’s ideas also uncovered ambiguities in the SCP framework that could be elaborated upon
to strengthen its underlying theoretical model. For example, SCP (like the Classical School) is usu-
ally differentiated from positivistic approaches in its assumption of offender agency and rationality
(Akers & Sellers, 2009; Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Vold et al., 2002). This article’s analysis, however,
demonstrates that SCP does not assume offender agency in all contexts and in fact many SCP inter-
ventions could also be explained in positivistic terms. It is argued that not enough has been made of
this issue in the SCP and rational choice perspective literature. The analysis also indicates that it is
not always clear which causal mechanisms underlie each of SCP’s 25 techniques of crime preven-
tion. SCP theorists must focus more directly on the relationship between the various mechanisms
used to reduce crime and each of the 25 techniques. Clarifying the precise causal mechanism of each
technique could lead to more effective implementation of crime prevention strategies.
The article unfolds in this way. It first outlines Beccaria’s views that have the most relevance for the
current neoclassical approaches. The article then discusses SCP and its underlying rational choice the-
ory framework. Next, Beccaria’s views and SCP’s assumptions are compared across six dimensions
that include ‘‘normalization’’ of the offender, offender agency and rationality, utilitarianism and crime
reduction, the mechanisms used to reduce crime, whether crime-reduction strategies should be imple-
mented distally or situationally, and who—that is, which entities—should be used to reduce crime. The
article concludes by discussing ambiguities in the SCP framework and outlines a number of issues that
could be addressed by future research to strengthen the SCP approach.

Freilich 3
Beccaria and the Classical School

Beccaria’s (1764) On Crimes and Punishments is seen as the seminal Classical School text that
helped create the academic discipline of criminology and criminal justice (Beirne, 1991; Newman,
1997). The enlightenment-influenced Classical School reform movement became the leading crim-
inology approach in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Many countries implemented the Classical
School’s ideas and until today many legal systems (e.g., the United States and some other nations)
are based upon it.
The Classical School emerged in response to views prevalent during the middle ages that
stressed obedience to monarchies and the church. These views argued for supernatural explana-
tions for how the world operated and saw criminals as influenced by such forces. In contrast, the
subsequent enlightenment embraced reason and objective scientific inquiry to make sense of the
natural world (Beccaria, 1764; Newman & Marongiu, 2009). The scientific approach, it was
argued, uncovered patterns of human behavior that could be used to craft policies to advance soci-
ety. Beccaria (1764) relied on these ideas to call for the scientific study of crime. While his argu-
ments were at times unclear and inconsistent (Newman & Marongiu, 1990, 2009), he called for
tempering the use of some harsh physical punishments (e.g., quartering and other mutilations of
the body) then used by European monarchies (Newman, 1985).
Similar to Hobbes and others, Becarria (1764) endorsed the ‘‘social contract’’ theory to explain
society’s birth.1 This framework contends that before societies were formed, people lived ‘‘natu-
rally.’’ In this ‘‘state of nature,’’ people had no limits placed upon them and acted to further their
own desires and interests. Since such a situation inevitably led to conflict (i.e., people’s interests
and desires were destined to clash), a mechanism was necessary to ensure order. The State—
government—emerged to prevent chaos and protect individuals from death or injury from others.
Social contract theory argued that individuals freely gave up a portion of their liberty to the
government. In exchange, the government regulated behavior through the creation of laws that
individuals were required to obey. All individuals in society were guaranteed safety by the gov-
ernment that upheld the law and maintained social order.
Important for this article are Beccaria’s (1764) assumptions that undergirded the beliefs just
listed. First, Beccaria assumed that individuals were naturally inclined to place their own interests
first and seek out what pleases them, while avoiding unpleasant situations. The significance of this
point is that it ‘‘normalizes’’ criminal offenders. Since most crime is committed to further an indi-
vidual’s desires, there is no need to explain where the motivation to commit crime originates.2 It is
natural to further ones’ interests and often this can be accomplished through offending. The offen-
der is not viewed as evil or different. This view separated Beccaria and the Classical School from
positivistic—especially biological and psychological—perspectives that highlight individual
characteristics that distinguish offenders from others.
Second, people are said to have ‘‘agency,’’ the ability to control their behaviors and to make
rational choices. Individuals evaluate the situations they encounter and consider the benefits and
costs of potential behaviors before committing them. Most people choose to commit acts that will
benefit them the most. Since individuals have agency, they are responsible for their actions and if
they offend the state has the right to punish them.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Beccaria’s (1764) focus was limited to punishment and the
formal criminal justice system (CJS). Beccaria examined the various stages of the CJS like the crim-
inal trial, and its determination of the offender’s innocence or guilt, and the subsequent punishment
stage. Beccaria wanted to ensure that punishment was only used against the guilty (as decided by a
court of law). As a deterrence proponent, he argued that the CJS should use punishment to reduce
crime in the future. These views were consistent with Beccaria’s utilitarian beliefs that sought to
maximize the public benefit by achieving the greatest amount of good for the most people (Newman,

1997; Newman & Margongiu, 1997). Since individuals rationally seek to avoid pain and maximize
pleasure, a system that rewards conformity and provides costs (i.e., painful punishments) for law
violations will result in most persons obeying the law. The mechanism used to achieve this confor-
mity is fear. Beccaria maintained that individuals will control themselves and obey laws when they
calculated that the potential costs—punishments—of offending outweigh any possible benefits to
them. In sum, Beccaria (1764) maintained that governments could use individuals’ fear of punish-
ments to keep them obedient.
Deterrence is achieved by making sure the implementation of punishment is certain, severe, and
swift and then publicized to the general public. Beccaria (1764) argued that punishments that were
more certain (i.e., the perpetrator’s apprehension is more likely), swift (little time passed between
apprehension of the offender and the punishment’s implementation), and severe (the magnitude
of the punishment was high) led to higher costs. It appears that the certainty of apprehension can
be achieved in a couple of ways. One possibility is to increase the likelihood that the offender will
be apprehended at the crime scene or immediately after the offense’s commission. Beccaria’s col-
league Bentham, for instance, famously called for the creation of Panopticon, an open air prison
designed for around-the-clock surveillance of inmates by guards and the superintendent (Marongiu
& Newman, 1997). While Bentham’s intention was humanitarian, the Panopticon’s constant surveil-
lance of inmates increased the likelihood that a transgression could immediately be identified. A sec-
ond possibility is that the certainty of apprehension can be increased by using reactive strategies that
increase the likelihood of arrest well after (such as weeks or months) a crime’s commission. The
certainty of punishment was thought to be most effective in deterring offenders. Publicizing these
increased certainty, severity, and swiftness costs increased fear in potential offenders and led to most
individuals obeying the law. Indeed, if the punishment scheme could be devised just right so that
perceived costs always outweighed benefits, crime could—in theory—be eliminated.
Fourth, Beccaria (1764) also realized that if punishment’s sole goal was to achieve conformity,
the result could be severe sanctions (e.g., life imprisonment) for minor offenses (e.g., jaywalking).
To counter this common critique of deterrence philosophy (Newman, 1985), Beccaria relied upon
retributive arguments (Newman & Marongiu, 2009). He contended that punishments had to
match—be proportionate with—the harm caused and not be excessively harsh or lenient. Finally,
although not a major focus of his book, Beccaria (1764) implied that social circumstances played
a role in creating crime and that improving these conditions would prevent crime too.
The Classical School declined in popularity in the early 1800s. Criminology instead embraced
positivism which assumed that most offenders’ agency and ability to freely make choices was con-
strained by factors beyond their control. At first, these factors were thought to be biological or
psychological in nature. Subsequently, it was assumed that social factors—both structural and cul-
tural—had the biggest impact on offending. Since then, positivistic approaches have dominated
criminology and continue to be the leading approaches in explaining the etiology of offending.
SCP and its Rational Choice Perspective

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, SCP and its accompanying rational choice perspective (Clarke,
1967; Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Cornish & Clarke, 1986), along with other neoclassical approaches
such as economically based criminology choice models (Becker, 1968), modern deterrence models
(Apel & Nagin, 2010), routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 2008), and crime
pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993) emerged in criminology.3 SCP is a practical,
policy-oriented approach whose goal is to reduce crime in the future (Clarke, 1980).4 It is uncon-
cerned with esoteric matters or grand initiatives to transform society (Freilich & Newman, 2015;
Tilley, 2004). This is why SCP, at least in the field of criminology, is uniquely concerned with how
offenders successfully commit their crimes. Understanding how the offender carries out the crime

Freilich 5
can be used to craft interventions to prevent offending. The rest of criminology is focused on why
perpetrators offend, what Clarke (2004) and others refer to as the dispositional bias.
Unlike other criminology frameworks, SCP’s focus on crime reduction has led to partnerships
between academics, police and practitioners where SCP principles have been used to guide prac-
tice (see e.g. Braga & Kennedy, 2012; Ratcliffe, 2008; Scott & Goldsten, 2012). SCP is associated
with problem-oriented policing, currently a leading policing strategy. Problem-oriented policing
calls for focusing on specific problems to devise proactive strategies to eliminate them (Goldstein,
2001). SCP proponents have also worked with private industry to design products, based upon the
principles of Design against Crime (DAC), that are resistant to theft and other crimes (Ekblom,
2008, 2012).
Ron Clarke, the founder of SCP, became interested in preventing illegal and antisocial acts while
studying for his PhD in cognitive psychology in the 1960s (Freilich & Natarajan, 2009). Clarke’s
doctoral dissertation investigated boys who ran away from borstal school. Unlike absconding studies
that focused on individual characteristics, Clarke’s (1967) work stressed the importance of situa-
tional attributes. Longer periods of darkness and shorter days provided more opportunities to
abscond. Subsequently, Clarke and his colleagues (Mayhew, Clarke, Hough, & Sturman, 1976) set
forth a detailed framework that introduced SCP and called for removing opportunities to prevent
crime (Clarke, 2012).
SCP calls for examining specific crime types (or problems) to identify the situational character-
istics that allow the perpetrator to successfully complete the crime. A corollary of this point is that
SCP sees the criminal law as too removed from potential crime scenes to influence situational deci-
sions. SCP also has little to say about the criminal trial and its innocence versus guilt determination.
Instead, SCP is focused on the criminal event. Its detailed situational analysis advocates use of the
‘‘script’’ method (Cornish, 1994) to identify possible intervention points to remove the identified
opportunities. Cornish and Clarke (2002, p. 47) explain that ‘‘crime [scripts] . . . involve such chains
of decisions and actions, separable into interdependent stages, involving the attainment of sub-goals
that serve the overall goals of the crime.’’ Once the opportunities and possible intervention points are
identified, the next step is to devise strategies to prevent the crime. This is accomplished by review-
ing the empirical literature to identify successful interventions that were used to combat similar
problems (Clarke & Eck, 2005) and the innovative crafting of new strategies (Eck, 2002a, 2002b;
Ekblom, 2012). Invariably, a series of potential crime-reduction strategies are identified. It is argued
that communities should choose the technique they are most comfortable with after balancing public
safety, individual rights, community concerns, and other factors (Felson & Clarke, 1997).
As SCP’s popularity and its use has increased, a growing number of strategies have been iden-
tified and implemented that have in fact reduced crime (Clarke, 1997; Guerette & Bowers, 2009;
Weisburd et al., 2009). There are currently five general strategies encompassing 25 techniques to
reduce crime. The techniques include both ‘‘hard’’ and soft interventions. Hard interventions include
making it impossible or more difficult for the crime to be committed and alert potential perpetrators
that they are likely to be apprehended if they transgress. Soft interventions reduce situational
prompts/cues that increase a person’s motivation to commit a crime during specific types of events
(Cornish and Clarke, 2003; Freilich & Chermak, 2009; Wortley, 2008).
As described by Newman and Freilich (2012; Freilich & Newman, 2014), SCP is dynamic and
encourages innovation, which is why the types of interventions have evolved and increased over
the years. Originally, Clarke and Mayhew (1980) set forth eight opportunity-reducing strategies.
SCP then relied upon routine activities (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 2008) and defensible space
perspectives (Poyner & Webb, 1991) to increase the number of strategies to 12 organized in three
categories of increasing the effort, increasing the risks, and reducing the rewards of offending
(Clarke, 1992). A fourth column (Clarke & Homel, 1997), removing excuses, was subsequently
added to prevent mundane nonviolent crimes (like speeding) that are commonly committed by

otherwise law-abiding citizens. A fifth column, reducing provocation, was recently added, which
increased the number of techniques to 25 (Cornish and Clarke, 2003). The fourth and fifth columns
are sometimes referred to as soft SCP and respond to Wortley’s (1997, 2002) critique that certain
situations increase a person’s motivation to commit a crime. A complete and interactive listing of
the well-known 25 techniques is available at http://www.popcenter.org/25techniques/.
Interestingly, although SCP was set forth in the 1970s, and Clarke had already highlighted the
importance of situational factors a decade before, the rational choice perspective was not introduced
until the 1980s (Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). In other words, the rational
choice perspective was created after SCP’s emergence. This sequence makes sense since etiological
theorizing takes second place to SCP’s primary focus to reduce crime. Consistent with this focus,
rational choice theory has been described by its founders as a theory for practice5 (Cornish & Clarke,
2008, p. 37). Rational choice’s contributions to SCP are that it highlights agency and offender deci-
sion making to distinguish it from the positivistic models that still dominate criminology. A related
point is that the environment can be modified to prevent offenders from successfully carrying out
their intentions to commit crime6 (Newman & Freilich, 2012).
Comparison of SCP and Beccaria

Normalization of the offender. Beccaria viewed offenders and nonoffenders similarly. He saw individ-
uals as rational actors who possess agency and maximize their pleasure by avoiding costs while
obtaining benefits. All decisions—be it to offend or conform—are made for the same reasons and
offenders therefore did not differ from each other or conformists. For a long time, all classical-
oriented approaches, including SCP, held to this assumption. Indeed, this view separated the Clas-
sical School and SCP from many positivistic models that stressed differences between offenders and
others. Recently though SCP may have moved slightly away from this key claim.
As a result of Wortley’s (1998, 2001, 2008) SCP critique that offenders not only took advantage
of situational opportunities to commit crime but that certain event characteristics created, or
increased, an individual’s motivation to offend, Cornish and Clarke (2003) crafted a reply. This
reply concluded that offenders could be broken into three categories—mundane, provoked, and
predatory. This typology highlighted distinctions among offenders and between offenders and
nonoffenders. Cornish and Clarke (2003, p. 57), for example, describe predatory offenders as
‘‘antisocial, mostly free from moral scruples, and committed to particular types of crime as simply
the most satisfactory means to achieve their goal.’’
Wortley (2008) noted that this typology was ‘‘a new development in environmental criminology . . .
[since] individual differences have generally played little role in . . . [its] analysis of crime. The
offender has been treated as a constant.’’ Newman and Freilich (2012, p. 216) similarly concluded
that it was a significant development because it highlighted ‘‘individual differences, the hall-mark
of dispositional approaches.’’ The typology’s description of predatory offenders just quoted see-
mingly differentiates them from noncriminals. This differs from Beccaria’s (1764) characteriza-
tions that normalized the offender and saw him or her as no different than others. Further,
Cornish and Clarke’s arguments here differed from their other writings. For example, five years
later, they argued that ‘‘instead of viewing criminal behavior as the outcome of stable criminal moti-
vations, [they] view[ed] the desires, preferences, and motives of offenders and potential offenders as
similar to those of the rest of us’’ (Cornish & Clarke, 2008, p. 21; see also Felson, 2008, p. 75; New-
man, 1997, p. 16). It is for this reason that this difference is only tentatively noted.7
Offender rationality and agency. Beccaria and SCP assume that (most) individuals are rational actors
who possess agency and seek to maximize their pleasure while avoiding pain and costly actions.
Beccaria (1764) did not, however, unpack this concept of rationality. SCP provides more detail

Freilich 7
on how it conceives rationality. It argues that offenders possess limited or bounded rationality and
operationalizes it as subjective according to the offender’s perspective but taking into account objec-
tive elements8 (Cornish & Clarke, 2008; Newman, 1997, pp. 14–15). According to the concept of
limited rationality, offenders make decisions that they think—perhaps incorrectly—will benefit
them. Such rational but faulty decision making occurs due to the harried circumstances of the crim-
inal event and the resulting incorrect information that offenders at times rely upon (Cornish &
Clarke, 2008; Newman, 1997).
An understanding of rationality and agency is important since Beccaria’s and some of SCP’s
crime-reduction strategies (discussed below) are based on the assumption that offenders possess
these attributes. Beccaria claimed that increasing the certainty of apprehension (and thus the likeli-
hood of receiving punishment) and the severity of punishment would reduce offending. Beccaria
assumed that because individuals want to avoid negative outcomes, they will choose to conform
to avoid the costs of punishment. Similarly, hard SCP interventions that increase the likelihood
of apprehension (e.g., closed-circuit television [CCTV] camera) or that make it more difficult for
the crime to be committed (such as building a fence around a parking lot so that offenders must scale
it to gain entry) are based upon the assumption that persons will choose to conform because these
increased costs no longer make it ‘‘worthwhile’’ to commit the crime.
Significantly though, not all hard SCP techniques are based upon this assumption of offender
rationality or agency. Certain hard SCP strategies, the traditional version of SCP set forth in the
1970s, seek to thwart the offender by making it impossible for the crime to be committed no matter
what the motivation, mind-set, or emotions of the offender (Cornish & Clarke, 2008, p. 41). To some
extent, this is similar to punishment’s incapacitation philosophy. But, SCP’s target hardening does
not incapacitate the offender (Newman, 1985); rather it immobilizes or makes inaccessible the
offender’s intended target or victim!
Newman and Freilich (2012, p. 216) explain that ‘‘originally interventions were applied to the
situational environment without regard to offender motivation or behavior. For example, the con-
struction of physical barriers has nothing to do with the internal psychology of offenders. If it works,
it works and we know from countless studies that such hardening techniques work.’’ Rational choice
theory, in other words, is not needed to support this aspect of SCP. An effective hardening of the
target would just as easily thwart a (legally insane) offender acting under an irresistible impulse
(who did not possess agency), as it would a perfectly rational hedonistic offender who did possess
agency and chose to try to commit the offense.
SCP’s recently developed soft approaches also do not rely upon offender rationality or agency
to reduce crime. Soft SCP approaches remove environmental cues or prompts that create, or
increase, an individual’s motivation to commit crime. Wortley’s (1997, 2008) critique that called
for ‘‘soft approaches’’ turned to the psychological literature. He identified research findings that,
for instance, found that publicly displayed weapons (e.g., by a police officer or private security
guard) could cause some individuals to become violent. The assumption is that certain individuals
have dispositions that could be tapped into action by environmental stimuli (such as the visible
gun). Soft SCP thus endorses interventions that eliminate these cues and prompts. In terms of the
weapon example, a soft SCP policy would ensure that in certain circumstances a police officer’s
weapon not be publicly displayed. The take away from this illustration is that offender agency and
rationality are not assumed by soft SCP (Newman & Freilich, 2012).
Thus, unlike Beccaria’s views that mostly assumed offender agency and rationality, both hard
and SCP do not make this assumption in all contexts. The classical and positivist debate about
whether most offenders possess agency is irrelevant for SCP (Wortley, 2014). Indeed, many SCP
interventions could be explained in positivistic terms. Behaviorism, for example, is positivistic but
leads to many of the same conclusions about prevention as does SCP and the rational choice per-
spective. It appears that many SCP proponents are intentionally opaque on the issue of perpetrator

motivation because the issue of offender agency is immaterial to their primary (pragmatic) concern of
crime reduction (Newman & Freilich, 2012; Wilcox, Land, & Hunt, 2002, Wortley, 2014).
Crime reduction and other goals. Both Beccaria’s views and SCP’s arguments are forward-looking
utilitarian models designed to promote the public good (Marongiu & Newman, 1997). Since both
perspectives assume that crime undermines society and the public good, they embrace the goal of
reducing crime. Newman (1997) notes that the Classical School and SCP are unique in this regard
because many other criminology positivistic theories do not take a stand for or against crime so as
not to undermine their scientific neutrality. The assumptions made by both SCP and Beccaria
could also be classified as reformist approaches that embrace scientific principles to achieve
their goals and seek to temper harsh punishments of their times (Marongiu & Newman, 1997).
Beccaria (1764), although at times ambivalent and unclear in his writings, criticized punishments
that included mutilations of the body as too harsh (Newman & Marongiu, 1990, 2009). And as
described below, SCP proponents have questioned the increased use of prisons that also usually
include the unsanctioned collateral damages of physical violations of offenders to reduce crime
(Knepper, 2007; Newman, 1983, 1985).
Previously, we highlighted the dangers inherent in utilitarianism that could lead to the imple-
mentation of excessively harsh interventions to reduce offending (Marongiu & Newman, 1997).
Critics have been especially harsh on SCP, arguing that its interventions have led to a fortress soci-
ety or a culture of control (Garland, 2002; Haywood, 2007). SCP proponents and Beccaria have
both taken steps to guard against this possibility. Beccaria ‘‘borrowed’’ from retributive philoso-
phies to argue that punishments had to match the crimes committed and could not be overly harsh
or lenient (Newman, 1985; Newman & Marongui, 2009). SCP proponents have similarly noted
that a range of possible interventions are available to reduce most crime problems. Communities
are urged to select the crime-reduction strategy they are most comfortable with after balancing
community concerns, individual rights, and other factors. Both the burden of interventions and
their benefits and crime reduction are to be equitably distributed. Scott, Eck, Knutsson, and
Goldstein (2008, p. 227) explicate that the SCP influenced problem-oriented policing approach
‘‘[calls] for the response that equitably apportions the burdens placed upon various people and
groups for addressing the problem, as well as equitably apportioning the benefits of the new
responses to the problem’’ (see also Clarke, 2008, pp. 190–193; Felson & Clarke, 1997). Thus, the
selected intervention will not be overly harsh and will be among the most reasonable of the
available choices.
Both perspectives have also been criticized for ignoring the presumed root causes of crime such
as poverty (Haywood, 2007; Taylor, Walter, & Young, 1973). Beccaria implied that impoverished
social conditions could create crime. SCP similarly includes distal factors such as poverty in its
involvement model that explains why an individual could be open to offending. Clarke has also
noted that because such problems, as history has shown, are almost impossible to correct, it makes
more sense to focus on the situational aspects that have been effective in reducing crime (Clarke,
1980, 2004; Newman, 1997). It has also been argued that there is a division of labor where SCP
focuses on the crime event while the other criminological frameworks continue to study distal
factors (Clarke, 2008; Freilich & Newman, 2009; Knepper, 2009).
While SCP’s overriding goal is crime reduction, Beccaria primarily sought to reform the crim-
inal law and punishment and crime reduction was just one goal among his aims. Importantly, Bec-
caria implied that crime could not only be reduced but eliminated if just the right formula of costs/
punishments could be found through the legal system. SCP proponents are less ambitious and
assume that crime as a whole cannot be eliminated. While specific crime problems can be reduced
or even eliminated, SCP concludes that there is a never-ending supply of possible offenders. Over
time, offenders adapt and try new strategies to overcome successful crime-reduction interventions

Freilich 9
(Clarke, 2008, pp. 189–190; Clarke & Newman, 2006). This is why SCP proponents are usually so
focused on smaller piecemeal problems and interventions. They argue that there is usually a never
ending cycle of crime problems emerging, and successful interventions that reduce the crime prob-
lem, followed by offenders eventually adapting and innovatively trying new strategies (that begin
the cycle anew). Ekblom (2008, p. 213) explains that ‘‘crime prevention is a kind of arms
race . . . between crime preventers and adaptive offenders who innovate, exploit, change, and enjoy
the obsolescence of familiar crime prevention methods’’ (see also Knepper, 2007; Tilley, 2004).
How to reduce crime (mechanisms used to reduce crime)?. The discussion until now has in passing men-
tioned various techniques used by Beccaria and SCP to reduce crime. It is important to focus
directly on this point to illustrate that while SCP proponents rely on Beccaria’s mechanisms to
reduce crime, they also use additional ones. Beccaria (1764) endorsed deterrence principles that
called for increasing punishment’s certainty, severity, swiftness, and publicizing these increased
costs. Individuals contemplating crime would fear incurring these increased costs and would
choose to conform.
SCP proponents also rely upon these four mechanisms. As described (previously and subse-
quently) some SCP techniques, such as CCTV cameras, consistent with Beccaria’s certainty
claims, increase the likelihood of the perpetrator’s apprehension. Other SCP strategies somewhat
converge with Beccaria’s severity arguments. Beccaria called for increasing the magnitude of
punishment. SCP proponents, as described below, eschew the use of formal punishment and
instead rely upon situational interventions. Some of these interventions make it more difficult for
the crime to be committed. This is somewhat consistent with Beccaria’s severity of punishment
claims in that both raise the costs of crime commission to the offender. Although not widely
acknowledged, SCP strategies also converge with Beccaria’s swiftness arguments that for punish-
ment to deter, it should immediately follow the crime. The subsequent section illustrates that SCP
calls for interventions that impact the offender at the potential crime scene to influence the deci-
sion of whether or not to offend. SCP recognizes that interventions and offender decisions must
converge. Interventions that are temporally distant from crime scenes are usually (though not
always) ineffective. In this sense, SCP is faithful to Beccaria’s call for crime and punishment
(or in SCP’s case the intervention) to go together.
Both SCP proponents and Beccaria see a role for publicity to reduce crime. Beccaria (1764)
called for publicizing punishments to make individuals aware of the increased certainty, severity,
and swiftness of punishment. It was argued that this would ‘‘generally’’ deter all would-be offen-
ders. SCP proponents similarly rely upon publicity to achieve crime reductions. Bowers and
Johnson (2005) explain that publicity can be used to educate the public to take actions that raise
the costs of offending to a potential perpetrator by increasing their risk of apprehension. Publicity
can also be used to influence the offender’s perceptions of the difficulty/risks of committing a
crime and their likelihood of being caught. In addition, publicity could be used to both educate
the public to take actions to make them less vulnerable to victimization (Freilich & Chermak,
2013) and reassure them to reduce the fear of crime.
Publicity plays a role in both the diffusion of benefits (Clarke &Weisburd, 1994) and anticipa-
tory benefits (Smith, Clarke, & Pease, 2002) that have resulted from certain SCP interventions.
Diffusion of benefits refers to cases where an SCP intervention is implemented in a location, and
a crime reduction also occurs in nearby areas that have not received the intervention. Anticipatory
benefits refer to a crime reduction that occurs in an area while a proposed intervention is discussed
but before it is implemented. In both cases, publicity is the mechanism that results in crime reduc-
tion. It is thought that offenders hear about these proposed interventions and mistakenly (but con-
sistent with limited/bounded rationality) conclude that it has already been implemented in their
area. The offenders thus decide to conform (Bowers & Johnson, 2005).

The discussion above pointed out that SCP proponents rely upon additional mechanisms to
reduce crime. SCP theorists endorse interventions that thwart the intended crime by making it
impossible to commit no matter what the offender’s motivation or mind-set is. SCP proponents also
seek to remove cues and prompts that can create or increase an individual’s motivation to offend at
the criminal event. In addition, SCP theorists recognize that people’s emotions and beliefs can some-
times be used to prevent offending. Some interventions seek to manipulate a person’s guilt (Wortley,
1996) or political ideology (Freilich & Chermak, 2009) during certain situations to prevent the com-
mission of crime. This is a key point. This acknowledgment that an individual’s emotions or political
beliefs could play a limited role in helping to craft interventions at the crime scene to reduce crime is
quite different from positivistic models that stress the distal importance of guilt or morality in
explaining the etiology of offending (see, e.g., Wikstrom, 2009).
When to intervene (distal vs. situational) to reduce crime? Beccaria’s certainty of punishment claims
anticipated SCP interventions (e.g. the use of CCTV cameras, the public deployment of police
officers, and environmental design initiatives to increase surveillance) that alert individuals that
if they offend they are likely to be immediately apprehended (Cozens, 2008; Jeffrey & Zahm,
1993). As a result, persons who are aware of these interventions will decide not to offend. SCP pro-
ponents agree with Beccaria, in other words, that proactive measures implemented at a crime scene
to alert would-be offenders that they are likely to be immediately arrested if they transgress will
deter them from offending. SCP theorists part ways from Beccaria, however, in that reactive police
actions that increase the certainty of apprehension long after the crime (such as police tactics that
solve most burglaries within a year and achieve a 90% clearance rate) are thought to be too far
removed from potential crime scenes to influence individuals.
SCP proponents similarly take issue with Beccaria’s reliance upon the criminal law and the
implementation of severe punishment at the conclusion of criminal trials to increase costs and fear
in potential offenders to reduce crime (Ekblom, 2007; Newman & Clarke, 2003, p. 9). SCP theorists
mostly concentrate on interventions that influence crime scenes. They claim that laws and punish-
ment are too distant a threat to influence most offenders’ decision making during the crime event
(Cornish & Clarke, 1986, 2008; Felson, 2008; Tilley, 2004). It is only possible to successfully use
an offender’s fear of increased costs (Braga & Kennedy, 2012; Cusson, 1993), other emotions such
as guilt (Clarke & Homel, 1997; Wortley, 1996), or their ideological beliefs (Freilich & Chermak,
2009) to deter them from committing crime if they are invoked situationally.
While such claims are familiar to SCP proponents, this difference is missed by many criminol-
ogists. SCP and its rational choice arguments (Cornish and Clarke’s, 1986, 2008) have been cited for
punishment/deterrence claims that are in fact not part of their argument (Bartholomew, 2012).
Pratt’s (2008) essay in Criminology and Public Policy, the discipline’s leading policy journal, for
instance, was titled ‘‘rational choice theory, crime control policy and criminological relevance.’’ The
essay highlighted that ‘‘One significant development in rational choice theory . . . involved efforts by
scholars to uncover the conditions under which sanctions [italics added] may be effective in deter-
ring criminal behavior.’’ Pratt like other criminologists only referred to the more general rational
choice traditions from economics and sociology. Pratt did not acknowledge that the law’s impact
on offenders play no role in the rational choice theory (associated with SCP) set forth by Clarke
and Cornish (1985; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Similarly, Akers and Sellers, (2009, p. 45) leading
criminological textbook after stating that most ‘‘general and specific rational choice models . . . are
basically expansions of deterrence theory’’ cites to a series of works including volumes by Cornish
and Clarke (1986) and Newman, Clarke, and Shoham (1997).
Of course, these books specifically note SCP’s rejection of punishment as an effective mechan-
ism to reduce crime. In addition, although certain SCP critics (Haywood, 2007) characterize it
as a conservative approach, SCP has rejected one of the political rights’ most controversial

Freilich 11
criminological positions, the use of prisons and increased incarceration to reduce crime through
deterrence and incapacitation mechanisms. SCP maintains that such strategies are ineffective and
a waste of resources because there is an endless supply of offenders, terrorists, and all other devi-
ants (Clarke & Newman, 2006; Newman, 1997). The effective response, according to SCP, is to
eschew many punishments as a strategy for reducing crime and instead concentrate on devising
situational measures to reduce the opportunities that allow crime to occur.
Who reduces crime and at what level? Another difference between the two frameworks is that SCP is
more encompassing in its collaborations with societal institutions to reduce crime. Both SCP and
Beccaria have had a significant impact on the CJS, most prominently the police and courts. Many
Western CJSs are based upon the Classical School and rely upon Beccaria’s ideas. Beccaria’s con-
clusions about increasing the certainty of punishment assumes a major role for the police and other
agencies tasked with apprehending offenders (for trial, and then punishment if convicted). SCP and
problem-oriented policing proponents similarly work closely together with law enforcement to
devise proactive solutions to reduce or eliminate specific crime problems.
Beccaria and SCP also anticipate a role for the media and similar entities. The media’s report-
ing (i.e., publicizing) of punishment according to Beccaria should result in general deterrence.
Similarly, according to SCP proponents publicizing interventions should alert offenders about
increased costs and influence the general public to take actions versus crime and reduce their own
vulnerability as well as help create the diffusion of benefits and anticipatory benefits just dis-
cussed. One example includes publicizing honey-spot websites to deter child pornographers who
use the Internet (Wortley, 2014). Both perspectives also recognize that in addition to the media,
word of mouth could be used to achieve these results (Bowers & Johnson, 2005).
Unlike Beccaria who mostly limited his focus to the legal and CJSs, SCP proponents in addition
to working with these agencies (Braga & Kennedy, 2012; Eck & Madensen, 2012; Wagers, Sousa, &
Kelling, 2008) also collaborate with corporations, private entities, and other nongovernmental orga-
nizations (Eck, 2002b; Ekblom, 2008, 2012) to reduce crime. We return to this point in the discus-
sion section below. SCP is also more wide-ranging in its focus, especially through individual
lifestyle and routine activities theories, on crime victims (Felson, 2008) who were mostly ignored
by Beccaria. Clarke and other SCP proponents played leading roles in creating systematic surveys
of crime victims and in studying repeat victimization to gather information to be used for crime pre-
vention strategies (Cozens, 2008; Mayhew & Hough, 2012; Pease, 1998). Further, SCP’s model
recognizes the different stages to the making of a criminal event (i.e., involvement, and event deci-
sions) and is thus more complex. Beccaria did not acknowledge this distinction and proposed the
same explanation for each decision made by the offender.
Another difference relates to how crime-reduction strategies are implemented. Beccaria was
more grandiose- and macrolevel—in both respects. Beccaria relied upon the criminal law to
respond to whole categories of crime simultaneously. For example, according to Beccaria and
many proponents of the CJS still today, the law and punishment against robbery should deter all
potential robberies even though robbery situations may vary from one another. The law is used in
overarching way. Or, as Bentham suggested, a series of detailed laws anticipating an almost infi-
nite categories of crimes and situations must be implemented. Newman and Marongiu (1997,
p. 142) noted though such a legal system becomes unwieldy and impossible to implement because
it assumes ‘‘a level of specificity in the law that it does not and can never have, except under the
most unusual circumstances.’’
On the other hand, one consistent theme of SCP and problem-oriented policing has been that
crime scenes—even the same crime type—differ. Robberies of bodegas in industrial areas of the city
at night could be quite different to robberies of convenience stores in the suburbs during daytime
hours (Clarke, 2008; Cornish & Clarke, 2008). SCP thus often calls for interventions to be as specific

as possible and to ‘‘drill down’’ to smaller crime problems. Knepper (2007, p. 36; see also Eck &
Madensen, 2012) explains that SCP should be used for problems that are ‘‘suitable for piecemeal
experiments to alleviate them.’’ In this sense, SCP is easier to implement than the Classical School.
Although SCP highlights a piecemeal approach, some of the most successful crime prevention
strategies have actually been large-scale interventions that greatly reduce the problem everywhere.
One prominent example was the elimination of carbon monoxide from the public gas supply in Great
Britain that resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of suicides. Intriguingly though, these large-
scale interventions are sometimes instituted for non-SCP reasons. Freilich and Newman (2015, p. 8)
explain that SCP continues to benefit from ‘‘interventions that were implemented for other reasons,
but also reduced crime or other harmful problems. Sometimes these interventions are subsequently
used elsewhere to intentionally reduce crime and other problems.’’
In addition, unlike Beccaria’s reliance on a more macrolevel intervention of a single law, or
class of laws, SCP argues that a series of likely varying interventions implemented in different
places by different entities would usually be needed to reduce all robberies. One way of viewing
the distinction is that Beccaria just relies upon the law to reduce crime, while SCP’s 25 strategies
lead to a multitude of possible interventions to reduce each specific crime problem. A comparison
of the two approaches for a single crime problem will usually result in Beccaria’s single interven-
tion (the law) compared to a series of SCP strategies that likely vary across locations with similar
crime problems.9
Finally, although both approaches have been criticized as ineffective because they have failed to
reduce crime, this critique misses the mark where SCP is concerned. A growing number of studies
have shown that SCP interventions almost always influence offenders (Freilich & Newman, 2014).
SCP interventions in fact have consistently been found to reduce crime. Even if displacement (i.e.,
crime is not eliminated because thwarted offenders respond by committing the same crime in a dif-
ferent location, at a different time, or by selecting a different target, or employing a different modus
operandi, or choosing to commit a different crime or are replaced by another offender) occurs, it is
usually less than the original crime reduction (Guerette & Bowers, 2009). Further, as noted SCP
interventions often have positive spillover effects through the diffusion of benefits and anticipatory
benefits that leads to crime reductions in locations beyond the target area (Guerette & Bowers, 2009;
Freilich & Newman, 2014; Weisburd et al., 2006).
Discussion and Conclusion

This article compared the claims of SCP and Beccaria and identified a number of areas of agree-
ment. Both perspectives question harsh penalties, embrace crime reduction as a goal, and view
some individuals as possessing agency and rationality. The latter two points distinguish them from
most other criminology theories that are not focused on crime reduction and downplay offenders’
rationality. Both approaches have also been criticized, sometimes unfairly, for ignoring the root
causes of crime in society. Importantly though, the approaches differ in at least four important
ways. The article concludes by placing these differences in context and outlining suggestions for
future research.
First, Beccaria was concerned with punishment, the criminal law, and the CJS, while SCP mostly
ignores the criminal trial and punishment. As a result, Beccaria relies upon the criminal law, and the
(distally created) deterrence from punishment that SCP proponents have rejected as too far removed
from the crime scene to influence individual behavior. In contrast, the SCP perspective embraces a
wider range of strategies that are situationally invoked to prevent crime.
Beccaria’s punishment focus led him to argue against unbridled judicial discretion that resulted
in overly harsh punishments. Beccaria’s views move the offender’s trial (and finding of guilt vs.
innocence) to the forefront. As repeatedly noted, SCP’s social science approach has ignored this

Freilich 13
issue as irrelevant to its crime prevention mission. But, the difficulty in relying upon punishment
and the criminal law to reduce crime has led legal scholars and advocates of the Classical School
to seek other tools to fight crime. One strategy that has gained in popularity is the use of civil law
and government regulations to reduce crime. SCP proponents have also recognized the effective-
ness of civil abatement and regulatory mechanisms to reduce crime (Mazerolle & Roehl, 1998).
While many of these initiatives are effective, they are a marked departure from Beccaria’s ideals.
Government regulations and civil actions are not predicated upon a determination of offender guilt
or innocence. Things have thus come a long way from Beccaria’s preoccupation with and notions
of justice. Intriguingly, this evolution and increased reliance on civil law provides an opening for
SCP advocates and legal scholars to collaborate and harness the increased use of regulations for
crime prevention purposes.
Second, while Beccaria assumed that almost all offenders possessed agency and were rational actors,
and SCP is normally categorized similarly, this article demonstrates that an assumption of offender
agency is not necessary for SCP in all contexts. Many hard SCP strategies make it impossible for the
offender to reach the victim or target regardless of whether the offender acts freely or as a result of
an irresistible impulse. Soft SCP assumes that certain situational prompts or cues influence an offender
by creating or increasing their motivation to commit crime. Here too an assumption of an offender’s
agency or ability to choose is unnecessary. As noted, the classical and positivist debate about whether
most offenders possess agency is irrelevant for SCP. Many SCP interventions could also be explained in
positivistic terms. Behaviorism, for example, is positivistic but leads to many of the same conclusions
about prevention as does SCP and the rational choice perspective (Wortley, 2014).
Most SCP proponents though have not engaged this issue. There are two possible reasons for
this. SCP proponents may be interested in highlighting rationality and agency to distinguish their
claims from positivistic criminological theories that downplay agency. It may be that SCP propo-
nents are worried that engaging this issue will detract from their crime-reduction mission. It is
hoped that SCP fully engages these intriguing theoretical questions while staying true to its prac-
tical crime-reducing goals.
One possibility is for SCP theorists to focus directly on the relationship between the various
mechanisms used to reduce crime and each of SCP’s 25 techniques of crime prevention. At
times, it is clear which mechanism underlies a specific technique, such as raising the costs of crime
reliance upon deterrence’s severity principles, increasing the likelihood of arrest reliance upon
deterrence’s certainty principles, or the removal of excuses use of guilt to reduce crime. But, this
is not the case for all of the techniques. It could be that multiple mechanisms underlie the same
technique. Clarifying the precise causal mechanism of each of the 25 techniques could lead to the
more effective implementation of them.
Third, the two frameworks seem to diverge on whether perpetrators differ from each other and
from noncriminals. Beccaria is known for ‘‘normalizing’’ the offender while SCP has recently,
possibly, shifted in this regard. Future research must clarify this issue. SCP and Beccaria also part
ways as to how crime-reduction strategies should be implemented and how effective they are seen
in reducing crime. Beccaria was more grandiose in both respects. He relied upon the criminal law
to impact an almost endless variety of situations and implied that if the punishment scheme was
‘‘just right’’ crime could be eliminated. SCP proponents usually endorse more piecemeal strategies
and acknowledge that while crime can almost always be reduced it is impossible to eliminate.
As noted, SCP has also benefited from large-scale interventions that reduce the problem every-
where. Freilich and Newman (2015) explain that some of these interventions were implemented
for non-SCP reasons and crime reduction was an added benefit that resulted. They used only one
of SCP’s 25 techniques—harden targets—to develop a graded framework. This graded framework
identifies both piecemeal interventions that only reduce a specific local problem (e.g., installing a
CCTV camera to combat a local robbery problem) and large-scale responses that reduce the

problem everywhere (e.g., the Great Britain example that resulted in a decline in suicide in the
entire country).
Despite the promise that large-scale interventions may have for crime prevention, most SCP
scholars have not engaged this issue. This is not surprising because many SCP supporters are sus-
picious of grand initiatives. SCP scholars should, however, increase their openness to macrolevel
interventions because, as outlined above, the crime prevention benefits could be great. Future
research should extend Freilich and Newman’s (2015) framework that only focused on the
target-harden technique to SCP’s other 24 strategies. Such an analysis would use SCP’s techniques
to identify not only piecemeal strategies but responses more distant from the immediate event to
reduce the problem across society. This entails identifying the parties responsible for the problem
and ensuring they implement the necessary strategies. (This last point is elaborated upon sub-
sequently.) SCP proponents should also empirically evaluate Freilich and Newman’s (2015)
micro-/macro-graded interventions framework and other macrolevel interventions.
Fourth, SCP proponents work with more social institutions to reduce crime, and its strategies
are more effective than Beccaria’s deterrence model that only relies upon the CJS to achieve
their shared goal of reducing crime. SCP proponents have collaborated with corporations to devise
initiatives to reduce crime. This is exemplified by the DAC approach where academics, experts,
and corporations collaborate to identify products physical characteristics that could be modified to
make them less vulnerable to theft and other crimes. SCP scholars have similarly created the
problem-oriented policing (POP) center which popularizes SCP ideas among law enforcement.
SCP scholars seek to change how the police and private industry perceive their missions. SCP
scholars encourage the police to move away from solely relying upon reactive approaches like
increasing arrest and clearance rates. Similarly, corporations are urged to stop seeing the police
as the only party responsible for crime prevention. These two entities are instead encouraged
to identify problems and devise preventive solutions to reduce crime. In both cases though, SCP
proponents have encountered resistance. Some police departments’ are impervious to proactive
SCP strategies that they view as ‘‘not real police work’’ and as ‘‘social work.’’ Meanwhile, cor-
porations are often wary of the added costs that DAC may incur and may not see it as their
responsibility.
Until now, SCP has largely focused on sharing/publicizing successful crime prevention initia-
tives. More attention could be devoted to publicizing strategies that result in an initially recalcitrant
police department, corporation, or other entity embracing a proactive SCP strategy. DAC and the
POP initiatives have seemingly progressed on separate parallel tracks. It could be that interventions
that successfully influence a corporation to change its culture and behavior to adopt SCP strategies
may have applicability to influencing a police department in the same way and vice versa. In other
words, greater collaboration between DAC and POP initiatives to identify both successful interven-
tions and strategies that transform organizational cultures from initially suspicious of the SCP
approach to experimenting with it may pay useful crime-prevention dividends.
This article concludes by directly addressing the relationship between SCP and the CJS. This
issue has been touched upon in passing but the precise relationship between the CJS and SCP
remains vague. The goal here is to clarify this issue. SCP does not, of course, advocate the elimina-
tion of the CJS, but it does call for reducing its scope and modifying its mission. SCP also endorses
reconfiguring the crime prevention responsibility beyond the government to include other entities. In
short, SCP’s approach complements the CJS. Clarke (2005) explains that not only can SCP bolster
the CJS but the reverse is also true.
As repeatedly noted, SCP argues that law enforcement must move beyond arresting perpetra-
tors and a ‘‘take them all out’’ mind-set. Arresting perpetrators is insufficient because if the oppor-
tunity for crime remains, others will seize it and replace the arrested offenders. SCP similarly
questions the efficacy of punishment and specifically imprisonment as tools to reduce crime. Since

Freilich 15
both incapacitation and deterrence are ineffective, the CJS’s mission should be reframed and the
arrest and processing of offenders through the formal CJS reduced.10
SCP instead calls for a proactive approach that identifies potential problems and then crafts
interventions to prevent them. Importantly, SCP proponents see the CJS as just one part of this
mission. In addition to the police, corporations (through DAC), the courts (through civil actions),
other parts of government (through regulations, environmental and architectural design, crime
prevention publicity campaigns, as well as pressure placed on corporations), individual citizens
(through protective measures and other actions), and others are responsible for the crime preven-
tion mission. Often the success of the crime prevention initiative is dependent upon these entities
cooperating with each other (Clarke, 2005, pp. 218–219).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Notes
1. There are of course major differences between these theorists about the details of the social contract
(Newman & Marongui, 2009). This article collapses them together though to aid the comparison with SCP.
2. Beccaria’s views here are consistent with control theory (Hirschi, 1969).
3. The basic ideas of SCP emerged much earlier and predate the Classical School by thousands of years. Killias
(2006) notes, for example, that Aristotle discussed the relationship between opportunity and theft. Marongiu
and Newman (1997) point out that the ancient Romans relied upon SCP like interventions such as the use of
walls and building designs to safeguard installations, houses, and other structures. There is thus a collective
body of earlier knowledge on which SCP proponents and criminology can draw upon to reduce crime.
4. While SCP is consistent with routine activities and crime pattern theories, it differs from economic choice
models and modern deterrence theory. These differences are expanded upon subsequently. For now, suffice
to say that unlike deterrence and economic choice models, SCP does not rely upon formal punishment to
reduce crime. The criminal law is seen as too removed from potential crime scenes to influence situational
decisions. SCP also has little to say about the criminal trial. Unlike the economic choice models, it does not
limit offender goals to purely monetary rewards. Further, while SCP views offenders as making choices, it
assumes that often these decisions are hastily made due to pressing time considerations that exist during the
criminal event. Accordingly, the decisions offenders make during criminal events are commonly based
upon faulty information. Offenders are looked upon as possessing ‘‘bounded/limited’’ rationality (Cornish
& Clarke, 1986; Newman, 1997).
5. In the years before the rational choice theory’s introduction, SCP had been associated with learning the-
ories, and perhaps surprisingly, SCP proponents had cited favorably to aspects of the critical criminological
classic, The New Criminology (Clarke, 1980; Newman & Freilich, 2012; Taylor et al., 1973).
6. In brief, rational choice theory assumes that criminal behavior consists of six core concepts. The first two
are that offending is purposeful (i.e., deliberate acts based upon the offender’s agency) and rational. In
addition, rational choice theory eschews general theories of crime and argues that offenders’ decision mak-
ing is crime specific (the third concept) and, as noted above when discussing scripts, recognizes that crim-
inal events unfold in stages (concept number four). Finally, rational choice theory distinguishes between
decisions to become involved in crime and in decisions made during the criminal event as well as noting
that there are separate stages of involvement (Cornish & Clarke, 2008). SCP and rational choice theory

proponents have focused on the criminal event and mostly left the study of involvement decisions to the rest
of criminology that tends to investigate offenders and why they commit crime.
7. Newman and Freilich (2012) argued that despite Cornish and Clarke’s apparent concession to more
dispositional approaches, SCP’s focus on crime reduction by intervening at the crime scene would continue
to distinguish it from positivistic criminological theories.
8. Interestingly, as pointed out to me, Beccaria’s colleague Bentham (1789/1970) acknowledges that
the offender’s assessment is subjective and that his or her rationality is bounded. Bentham (1789/1970,
p. 51) claims that ‘‘the disposition which any one has to feel [a certain] quantity of pleasure or pain, upon
the application of a cause of given force, is what we term the degree or quantum of his sensibility . . . But, in
the same mind [certain] causes of pain or pleasure will produce more pain or pleasure than [certain] other
causes of pain or pleasure: And this proportion will in different minds be different.’’ The phrase ‘‘in
different minds’’ suggests subjectivity. Bentham also recognizes that certain individual factors such as, age,
health, bodily imperfections, intellectual powers, quantity and quality of knowledge, and frame of mind
could bias a person’s ‘‘quantum of sensibility.’’ These factors, in other words, can bind our rationality.
Thus, to the extent Beccaria and Bentham’s views are similar, so too are the perspectives of Beccaria and
SCP regarding bounded rationality.
9. One of SCP’s most fascinating attributes is that it is a general approach that results in a seemingly endless
number of specific strategies/interventions to reduce crime.
10. SCP recognizes, however, that punishment could serve other purposes such as retributive (especially for
serious violent crimes) and rehabilitative goals. This is why SCP does not seek to completely eliminate
the CJS. Interestingly, research has demonstrated that SCP can be used to maintain order inside prisons.
Prisons are in fact an ideal setting for using SCP. Earlier, we noted that one difficulty SCP has faced in
implementing its strategies is identifying the party responsible for (and solving) the problem and then
ensuring that the necessary interventions are made. This problem is less salient in prisons because their
controlled settings make it easier to implement SCP strategies (Wortley, 2002).
References
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation and application (5th ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Apel, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2010). General deterrence: A review of recent evidence. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia
(Eds.), Crime (4th ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartholomew, B. (2012). The utility of deterrence-based sanctions in the prevention of violence against
healthcare workers: Testing a mixed deterrence and backlash model. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.
Beccaria, C. (1764). On crimes and punishments (H. Paolucci, 1963, Trans.). New York, NY: Pearson Educa-
tion Limited.
Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
Bentham, J. (1789/1970). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. (J. H. Burns & H. L. A. Hart
(Eds.)) London, England: Athlone Press.
Beirne, P. (1991). Inventing criminology: The ‘‘Science of Man’’ in Cesare Beccaria’s Dei Delitti E Delle Pene
(1764). Criminology, 29, 777–820.
Braga, A., & Kennedy, D. (2012). Linking situational crime prevention and focused deterrence strategies.
In G. Farrell & N. Tilley (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honor of Ronald V. Clarke
(pp. 65–79). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory
of crime. In R. V. G. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), From routine activity and rational choice: Advances in
criminological theory (Vol. 5, pp. 259–294). New Brunswick, Canada: Transaction Publishers.
Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. (2005). Using publicity for preventive purposes. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of
crime prevention and community safety (pp. 329–354). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Freilich 17
Bursik, R. J., Jr., (2009). The Dead Sea Scrawls and criminological knowledge: 2008 Presidential address to
the American Society of Criminology. Criminology, 47, 5–16.
Clarke, R. V. G. (1967). Seasonal and other environmental aspects of absconding by approved school boys.
British Journal of Criminology, 7, 195–202.
Clarke, R. V. G. (1980). Situational crime prevention: theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20,
136–147.
Clarke, R. V. G. (Ed.). (1992). Situational crime prevention: Successful case Studies (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Harrow and Heston.
Clarke, R. V. G. (Ed.). (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press.
Clarke, R. V. G. (2004). Technology, criminology and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy
and Research, 10, 55–63.
Clarke, R. V. G. (2005). Crime prevention in international context. In M. Natarajan (Ed.), Introduction to
international criminal justice (pp. 217–224). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Publishing.
Clarke, R. V. G. (2008). Situational crime prevention. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental
criminology and crime analysis (pp. 178–194). Great Britain: Willan Publishing.
Clarke, R. V. G. (2012). Opportunity makes the thief. Really? And so what? Crime Science, 1, 3.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders decisions: A frame-work for research and policy.
In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 6, pp. 147–185) Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Eck, J. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington, DC:
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Homel, R. (1997). A revised classification of situational crime prevention techniques. In
S. P. Lab (Ed.), Crime prevention at a crossroads (pp. 17–30). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Mayhew, P. M. (1980). Designing out crime. London, England: HMSO.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Newman, G. R. (2006). Outsmarting the terrorists. New York, NY: Praeger.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of
displacement. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 165–182.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American
Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Cornish, D. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention. In R. V. G.
Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 3, pp. 151–196). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. G. (1986). (Eds.) The reasoning criminal. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. G. (2002). Analyzing organized crimes. In A. R. Piquero & S. G. Tibbetts (Eds.),
Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges (pp. 41–63). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. G. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators, and criminal decisions: A reply to
Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In M. J. Smith & D. B. Cornish (Guest Eds.), Theory
for practice in situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies (Vol. 16, pp. 41–96). Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. G. (2008). The rational choice perspective. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle
(Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 21–47). Great Britain: Willan Publishing.
Cozens, P. (2008). Crime prevention through environmental design. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.),
Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 153–177). Great Britain: Willan Publishing.
Cullen, F. T. (2011). Beyond adolescence limited criminology: Choosing our future–The American Society of
Criminology 2010 address. Criminology, 49, 287–330.
Cusson, M. (1993). Situational deterrence: Fear during the criminal event. Crime Prevention Studies, 1, 55–68.
Eck, J. E. (2002a). Preventing crime at places. In L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh, & D. Mackenzie (Eds.),
Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 241–294). New York, NY: Routledge.

Eck, J. E. (2002b). Learning from experience in problem-oriented policing and situational prevention: The
positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation
in Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies (Vol. 14, pp. 93–118). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. E., & Madensen, T. (2012). Situational crime prevention makes problem-oriented policing work: The
importance of interdependent theories for effective policing. In G. Farrell & N. Tilley (Eds.), The reasoning
criminologist: Essays in honor of Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 80–92). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ekblom, P. (2007). Making offenders richer. In G. Farrell, K. J. Bowers, S. D. Johnson, & M. Tonsley (Eds.),
Crime prevention studies (Vol. 21, pp. 41–57). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Ekblom, P. (2008). Designing products against crime. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental
criminology and crime analysis (pp. 195–220). Great Britain: Willan Publishing.
Ekblom, P. (2011). Crime prevention, security and community safety using the 5Is framework. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Mamillan.
Ekblom, P. (2012). Happy returns: Ideas brought back from situational crime prevention’s exploration of
design against crime. In G. Farrell & N. Tilley (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honor of
Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 52–64). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ekblom, P., & Tilley, N. (2000). Going equipped: Criminology, situational crime prevention and the resource-
ful offender. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 376–398.
Felson, M. (2008). Routine activity approach. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology
and crime analysis (pp. 70–77). Great Britain: Willan Publishing.
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1997). The ethics of situational crime prevention. In G. R. Newman, R. V.
Clarke, & S. G. Shoham (Eds.), Rational choice and situational crime prevention (pp. 197–218). Aldershot,
England: Ashgate Press.
Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2009). Preventing deadly encounters between law enforcement and Amer-
ican far-rightists. Crime Prevention Studies, 25, 141–172.
Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2013). Hate crimes. Problem-oriented guides for police, Problem-Specific
Guides Series, No. 72. Office of Community Oriented Policing Service. Washington, DC: US Department
of Justice.
Freilich, J. D., & Natarajan, M. (2009). Ronald Clarke. In K. Haywood, S. Maruna, & J. Mooney (Eds.), Fifty
key thinkers in criminology (pp. 238–242). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Freilich, J. D., & Newman, G. R. (2009). Introduction (special issue on SCP & terrorism). Crime Prevention
Studies, 25, 1–7.
Freilich, J. D., & Newman, G. R. (2014). Providing opportunities: A sixth column for the techniques of
situational crime prevention. In S. Caneppele & F. Calderoni (Eds.), Organized crime, corruption, and
crime prevention: Essays in honor of Ernesto Savona (pp. 33–42). New York, NY: Springer.
Freilich, J. D., & Newman, G. R. (2015). Transforming piecemeal social engineering into ‘‘grand’’ crime
prevention policy: Toward a new criminology of social control. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
105, In press.
Garland, D. (2002). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Goldstein, H. (2001). Problem oriented policing in a nutshell. Presentation at the International Problem
Oriented Policing Conference. San Diego.
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, 1331–1368.
Haywood, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the
‘‘culture of now.’’ Social Policy & Administration, 41, 232–250.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jeffrey, C., & Zahm, D. (1993). Crime prevention through environmental design, opportunity theory and
rational choice models. In R. V. G. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activities and rational choice.
Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5, pp. 323–350). New Jersey, NJ: Transaction Press.

Freilich 19
Killias, M. (2006). The opening and closing of breaches: A theory of crime waves, law creation and crime
prevention. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 11–31.
Knepper, P. (2007). Situational logic in social science inquiry: From economics to criminology. Review of
Austrian Economics, 20, 25–41.
Knepper, P. (2009). How Situational Crime Prevention contributes to social welfare. Liverpool Law Review,
30, 57–75.
Marongiu, P., & Newman, G. R. (1997). Situational crime prevention and the Utilitarian tradition. In G. Newman,
R. V. Clarke, & S. G. Shoham (Eds.), Rational choice and situational crime prevention (pp. 115–135).
Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Mayhew, P., & Hough, M. (2012). Situational crime prevention: The home office origins. In G. Farrell & N.
Tilley (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honor of Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 30–55). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Mayhew, P., Clarke, R. V., Hough, M., & Sturman, A. (1976). Crime as Opportunity. Home Office Research
Study No. 34. London, England: HMSO.
Mazerolle, L. G., & Roehl, J. (Guest Eds.). (1998). Crime Prevention Studies, 9, 1–346 (Special Issue on Civil
Remedies and Crime Prevention).
Meier, R., & Miethe, T. (1993). Understanding theories of crime victimization. Crime and Justice, 17, 459–499.
Newman, G. R. (1983). Just and painful: A case for the corporal punishment of criminals. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Newman, G. R. (1985). The punishment response. Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston.
Newman, G. R. (1997). Introduction: Toward a theory of situational crime prevention. In G. Newman, R. V.
England: Ashgate Publishing.
Newman, G. R. (2012). Designing markets for crime reduction. Crime Prevention Studies, 27, 87–106.
Newman, G. R., & Clarke, R. V. G. (2003). Superhighway robbery: Preventing E-commerce crime. Portland,
OR: Willan Publishing.
Newman, G., Clarke, R. V., & Shoham, S. G. (Eds.). (1997). Rational choice and situational crime prevention
(pp. 1–23). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Newman, G. R., & Freilich, J. D. (2012). Extending the reach of situational crime prevention. In G. Farrell & N.
Tilley (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honor of Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 212–225). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Newman, G. R., & Marongiu, P. (1990). Penological reform and the myth of Beccaria. Criminology, 28,
325–346.
Newman, G. R., & Marongiu, P. (1997). Situational crime prevention and the Utilitarian theories of Jeremy
Bentham. In G. Newman, R. V. Clarke, & S. G. Shoham (Eds.), Rational choice and situational crime
prevention (pp. 137–162). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Newman, G. R., & Marongiu, P. (2009). On crimes and punishments-Cesare Beccaria. New annotated
translation with Introduction. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: Taking stock. (Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 90.)
London, England: Home Office.
Poyner, B., & Webb, B. (1991). Situational crime prevention in two parking facilities. Security Journal,
2, 96–101.
Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy and criminological relevance. Criminology and
Public Policy, 7, 43–52.
Ratcliffe, J. H. (2008). Intelligence-led policing. Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.
Scott, M., Eck, J., Knutsson, J., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Problem oriented policing and environmental
criminology. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis
(pp. 221–246). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.

Scott, M., & Goldstein, H. (2012). Ron Clarke’s contribution to improving policing: A diffusion of benefits.
In G. Farrell & N. Tilley (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honor of Ronald V. Clarke (pp.
93–107). New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith, M. J., Clarke, R. V. G., & Pease, K. (2002). Anticipatory benefits in crime reduction. Crime Prevention
Studies, 13, 71–88.
Taylor, T., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Tilley, N. (2004). Karl Popper: A philosopher for Ronald Clarke’s situational crime prevention. Israel Studies
in Criminology, 8, 39–56.
Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2002). Theoretical criminology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Wagers, M., Sousa, W., & Kelling, G. (2008). Broken windows. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle. (Eds.),
Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 247–262). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.
Weisburd, D., Wycoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., & Hinkle, J. C. (2006). Does crime just move around the
corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology,
44, 549–592.
Wilcox, P., Land, K., & Hunt, S. (2002). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multicontextual criminal oppor-
tunity theory. New York, NY: Aldine Transaction.
Wikstrom, P. O. (2009). Violence as situational action. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3,
75–96.
Wortley, R. (1996). Guilt, shame and situational crime prevention. In R. Homel (Ed.), The politics and practice
of situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies (Vol. 5, pp. 115–132). Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.
Wortley, R. (1997). Reconsidering the role of opportunity in situational crime prevention. In: G. Newman, R. V.
England: Ashgate Publishing.
Wortley, R. (1998). A two-stage model of situational crime prevention. Studies on Crime and Crime Preven-
tion, 7, 173–188.
Wortley, R. K. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime. Security
Journal, 14, 63–82.
Wortley, R. K. (2002). Situational prison control: Crime prevention in correctional institutions. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Wortley, R. K. (2008). Situational precipitators of crime. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental
criminology and crime analysis (pp. 48–69). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.
Wortley, R. W. (2014). Personal correspondence. March 2nd.
Author Biography
Joshua D. Freilich is a member of the Criminal Justice Department and the Criminal Justice PhD Program at
John Jay College, City University of New York. His research focuses on the causes of and responses to terror-
ism as well as criminology theory, especially environmental criminology and crime prevention.
View publication stats

Note Making

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Note Making

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note Making

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Beccaria and Situational Crime Prevention

Article in Criminal Justice Review · June 2015

Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Beccaria and the Classical School

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

SCP and its Rational Choice Perspective

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Comparison of SCP and Beccaria

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Discussion and Conclusion

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at JOHN JAY COLLEGE on August 18, 2015

View publication stats

You might also like