Difference between revisions of "Security issue: Mass killing"
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The motives for destroying objects by fanatics can mostly be found in the amount of attention that this yields. This motive gives a very good clue of who and what locations might be potential targets for fanatics: not only should an attack yield a fair amount of attention, but also it should be the kind of attention that would help the fanatics' 'cause'. Depending on the fanatics faction, this can entail a wide variety of reactions; for some factions, negative attention is not unwanted. We see this in the [[Wikipedia:World Trade Center#Destruction|11 September 2001 attack]] on the New York Trade Center. Although this generated almost uniformly negative responses in the western world, this was received with joy by the responsible faction (al-Qaeda). |
The motives for destroying objects by fanatics can mostly be found in the amount of attention that this yields. This motive gives a very good clue of who and what locations might be potential targets for fanatics: not only should an attack yield a fair amount of attention, but also it should be the kind of attention that would help the fanatics' 'cause'. Depending on the fanatics faction, this can entail a wide variety of reactions; for some factions, negative attention is not unwanted. We see this in the [[Wikipedia:World Trade Center#Destruction|11 September 2001 attack]] on the New York Trade Center. Although this generated almost uniformly negative responses in the western world, this was received with joy by the responsible faction (al-Qaeda). |
||
⚫ | The [[The economics of terrorist behaviour|roots of terrorism]] can also be found in certain poor or unfavourable conditions such as relative economic deprivation (manifested in poverty, income inequality, etc.), socio-economic change (fostered by the process of for example modernisation) and economic and political integration<ref>Schneider, F., T. Brück, and Karaisl, M. (2008). A survey of the Economics of Security. Economics of Security Working Paper 1.</ref>. ([[The economics of crime|The roots of) crime]] is closely related to poverty, social exclusion, wage and income inequality, cultural and family background, level of education and other economic and social factors<ref>Buananno, P. (2003). The Socioeconomic Determinantes of Crime. A Review of the Literature. Working Paper Series, No.63. University of Milan.</ref>. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
− | |||
⚫ | The presence of such an object in the vicinity of large groups of people can raise the attractiveness and attainability for an attack by fanatics and therefore increase the risk |
||
== Contributing circumstances == |
== Contributing circumstances == |
||
Line 20: | Line 16: | ||
! width=150 | Contributing Circumstance !!width=150| Influence !! Description |
! width=150 | Contributing Circumstance !!width=150| Influence !! Description |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | Presence of crowds or busy places. || Increases attractiveness || As the object of mass killing is to kill or injure as many people as possible, places where many people gather form an attractive target. The predictability of crowds adds to the attractiveness. |
||
− | | Attractive locations for robbery || Increases success rate of robbery || Some locations are by nature particularly suited for robbery, by the fact that they are relatively deserted, lack surveillance, have potential victims and offer many easy exits to flee the crime scene. Examples of such locations include parking lots and garages, parks, fields, playgrounds, and areas near public transportation<ref name="streetrobbery"/> and ATMs<ref name="tellermachines">>[http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_atms/ M. Scott (2001). Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Guide No.8. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.]</ref>. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | Presence of prominent objects and/or ideological associations. || Increases attractiveness || For an attack to have the desired effect (in the eyes of terrorists), it needs to attract wide attention and be associated with their 'cause'. Prominent objects will assure attention, objects which can be associated to their ideological beliefs will assure the 'right' message will be carried. One should realise that what constitutes a prominent or ideologically attractive object should be assessed from the viewpoint of the fanatic and these can either be very specific or general. |
||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
+ | |||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
⚫ | |||
− | | High levels of robbery in the vicinity. || Increases likelihood of targeting. || The distance to known places where offenders live matters. On average, robbers travel 2,1 km to commit their crimes<ref>Beauregarda Eric T, Proulxb Jean, D., Rossmoc Kim A., ''Spatial patterns of sex offenders: Theoretical, empirical, and practical issues'', Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 579–603</ref>, and the chance of a neighbourhood to be chosen reduces with every km distance from the offender's home. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
⚫ | |||
− | | High levels of unemployment || Increases likelihood of targetting || High levels of unemployment are correlated with higher levels of property crime <ref>Kepple NJ, Freisthler B., ''Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries.'',J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Jul;73(4):523-30</ref>. |
||
− | |- |
||
− | | High expected levels of drug- or alcohol abuse || Reduces inhibitions for crime || The presence of regular abusers of alcohol or drugs has a strong correlation with the occurrence of robbery, often thought to be caused by the need for financing an addiction. Studies show that about 35% of all robbery is committed under the influence of alcohol<ref>Greenfeld, Lawrence A, ''Alcohol and crime, an analysis of national data on the prevalence of alcohol involvement in crime'', U,.S. Department of Justice, Office of justice Programs, April 5-7 1998, Washington D.C.</ref>. |
||
− | |- |
||
− | | Presence of excitement or distractions|| Increases vulnerability of victims || A legitimate distraction enables the robber to gain contact with the victim without causing alarm. Street robbers could perceive people who are distracted (e.g., using a cell phone, drunk, and/or unfamiliar with their surroundings) as easier to approach and overpower. Distracting circumstances such as road works, which require a detour in unfamiliar surroundings, special events or holidays can also provide the distractions that aid robbers.<ref name="streetrobbery"/> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
− | |||
− | |||
− | * the predictable presence of large groups of people |
||
− | * the predictable presence of a group of people who's death or harm would have great impact |
||
− | * location perceived as attainable target |
||
− | |||
− | === Socio economic causes === |
||
⚫ | The [[The economics of terrorist behaviour|roots of terrorism]] can also be found in certain poor or unfavourable conditions such as relative economic deprivation (manifested in poverty, income inequality, etc.), socio-economic change (fostered by the process of for example modernisation) and economic and political integration<ref>Schneider, F., T. Brück, and Karaisl, M. (2008). A survey of the Economics of Security. Economics of Security Working Paper 1.</ref>. ([[The economics of crime|The roots of) crime]] is closely related to poverty, social exclusion, wage and income inequality, cultural and family background, level of education and other economic and social factors<ref>Buananno, P. (2003). The Socioeconomic Determinantes of Crime. A Review of the Literature. Working Paper Series, No.63. University of Milan.</ref>. |
||
== Impacts == |
== Impacts == |
||
Line 59: | Line 47: | ||
===Safety impact=== |
===Safety impact=== |
||
+ | A successful mass killing attack can do massive physical and/or bodily damage. The collateral damages from an attack can sometime be so great that they weaken structures and unsafe situation arise. Compared to the direct effects of a successful attack, these risks are usually minor. |
||
− | * deaths, wounded |
||
− | * physical damage to urban objects in the vicinity of the targeted group |
||
== Measures == |
== Measures == |
||
+ | *[[Measure: Target hardening|Target hardening]] can be done by making it harder to take weapons of mass destruction to a vulnerable location, e.g. by separating traffic flows so car bombs cannot come close to masses of people, or by separating locations where such weapons might possibly come from masses of people by hardened obstacles, reducing the effect of the weapon. For support on construction methods and materials that mitigate explosion effects and structural collapse one can use the [[Plan level tools]] and [[Detail level tools]]. |
||
− | *[[Measure: Target hardening|Target hardening]] |
||
+ | *[[Measure: Access control|Access control]], combined with [[Measure: Directing traffic flows|directing traffic flows]] can be used to assure all traffic entering and exiting a location passes at certain, predestined points. This allows for all traffic to be monitored (Surveillance) or even screened (see below). |
||
− | *[[Measure: Access control|Access control]] |
||
+ | *[[Measure: Surveillance|Surveillance]] can help to detect suspicious activities, like left luggage or groups of people monitoring the situation (in a preparation phase of the attack). |
||
− | *[[Measure: Directing traffic flows|Directing traffic flows]] |
||
+ | *[[Measure: Intervention force|Intervention force]]s can be used to act when suspicious activities have been detected. These intervention forces range from normal guards, who can investigate the seriousness of reports made by the public to bomb squads. |
||
− | *[[Measure: Removing means|Removing means]] |
||
+ | *[[Measure: Screening|Screening]] can be used to test a flow of traffic for suspicious signs. This can include metal detectors, trained personnel looking for people carrying suspicious luggage, random body searches, etcetera. The gravity of the measures taken should always be in balance with the threat and the nature of the location. |
||
− | *[[Measure: Surveillance|Surveillance]] |
||
+ | *[[Measure: Target removal|Target removal]] can be done by designing an area to be free of concentrations of people or by reducing the predictability of concentrations of people. |
||
− | *[[Measure: Intervention force|Intervention force]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Screening|Screening]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Target removal|Target removal]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Removal of crime motivator|Removal of crime motivator]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Controlling disinhibitors|Controlling disinhibitors]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Facilitating compliance|Facilitating compliance]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Deflection|Deflection]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Ownership|Ownership]] |
||
− | *[[Measure: Maintenance|Maintenance]] |
||
− | |||
− | * Intelligence |
||
− | * Surveillance (including CCTV) |
||
− | * Intervention force |
||
− | * Distribution of government assets, and compatibility of land uses |
||
− | * Physical protection (reinforced barriers, etc) - acess points for pedestrians and vehicles should have protective measures too |
||
− | * Prevent opportunities for hiding |
||
− | * Construction methods and materials that mitigate structural collapse - WP2 and WP4 |
||
− | * Restricted access to basement parking spaces associated with government and other buildings |
||
− | * Solid-to-void-ratios in the context of balancing aesthethics with adequate security |
||
− | * Advocate evacuation routes within building standards/regulations |
||
− | * Planning for emergency services - urban areas should be planned with emergency services requirements and access considered |
||
− | * Orientation of buildings with regard to roads, etc. (to prevent penetrative attacks and ram raiding). |
||
− | * Reinforced landscaping objects (bollards screened by planting, large trees, etc.) and traffic calming measures |
||
{{references}} |
{{references}} |
Revision as of 11:52, 3 April 2013
Mass killing is the crime of purposely causing harm or death to a group of (unknown) people in order to make a statement or to influence the public opinion. This threat is exerted out of wilful action by fanatics: terrorists or criminal activists.
Contents
Description
We see that the target of fanatics can be either persons, objects, or both. This category of security issues focusses on the threat directed towards people. When directed at objects, it falls under the category of destruction by fanatics.
The motives for destroying objects by fanatics can mostly be found in the amount of attention that this yields. This motive gives a very good clue of who and what locations might be potential targets for fanatics: not only should an attack yield a fair amount of attention, but also it should be the kind of attention that would help the fanatics' 'cause'. Depending on the fanatics faction, this can entail a wide variety of reactions; for some factions, negative attention is not unwanted. We see this in the 11 September 2001 attack on the New York Trade Center. Although this generated almost uniformly negative responses in the western world, this was received with joy by the responsible faction (al-Qaeda).
The roots of terrorism can also be found in certain poor or unfavourable conditions such as relative economic deprivation (manifested in poverty, income inequality, etc.), socio-economic change (fostered by the process of for example modernisation) and economic and political integration[1]. (The roots of) crime is closely related to poverty, social exclusion, wage and income inequality, cultural and family background, level of education and other economic and social factors[2].
Contributing circumstances
Known circumstances to influence the likelihood or effect of robbery are presented in the table below:
Contributing Circumstance | Influence | Description |
---|---|---|
Presence of crowds or busy places. | Increases attractiveness | As the object of mass killing is to kill or injure as many people as possible, places where many people gather form an attractive target. The predictability of crowds adds to the attractiveness. |
Presence of prominent objects and/or ideological associations. | Increases attractiveness | For an attack to have the desired effect (in the eyes of terrorists), it needs to attract wide attention and be associated with their 'cause'. Prominent objects will assure attention, objects which can be associated to their ideological beliefs will assure the 'right' message will be carried. One should realise that what constitutes a prominent or ideologically attractive object should be assessed from the viewpoint of the fanatic and these can either be very specific or general. |
Presence of safety threats that could be misused. | Increases attractiveness | Sometimes, an object is used as a force multiplier for an attack directed at people. This can be used on urban objects if:
The presence of such an object in the vicinity of large groups of people can raise the attractiveness and attainability for an attack by fanatics and therefore increase the risk. |
Lack of surveillance and attention. | Decreases risk of detection. | A low level of surveillance or attention, decreases the risk of detection (particularly in the preparation phase of an attack) for a perpetrator and thereby increases the attractiveness. |
Long reaction times or inadequate action of intervention force. | Decreases likelihood of apprehension | Untimely or inappropriate reactions to violence lead to a perception of little control, which will increase perceived risk for the public and decrease perceived risk for the perpetrators. |
Impacts
Social impact
- psychological trauma
- reduced perception of safety
Economic impact
The effects of mass killing in terms of economic consequences are complex. Terrorist events and violent crime not only lead to material and immaterial costs for those who have become victimized, but also forces local and national authorities to spend billions on the prevention of terrorism and the detection, prosecution and punishment of terrorists (the primary economic impact of terrorism).
The material costs (e.g. loss of productivity) and immaterial costs (e.g. suffering, pain, sorrow, and loss of enjoyment of life) of mass killing events are generally expressed in terms of the value per statistical life (VSL). "The value per statistical life represents an individual’s willingness to exchange income or wealth for small changes in the likelihood of survival, rather than purchasing other goods or services"[3]. The VSL ranges from € 1.4 million to € 2.1 million (2009 prices) in the EU[4]. However, according to Robinson et al. (2010)[5] “terrorism-related risks may be perceived as more dreaded and ambiguous, and less controllable and voluntary, than the workplace risks underlying many VSL estimates”. “These factors may increase the VSL appropriate for terrorism risks, possibly doubling the value”[6].
In addition to the primary economic impacts, terrorism and violent crime cause the disruption of economic entities, which have not been direct targets of the attack (the secondary economic impacts of terrorism)[7].
Mobility impact
- effects of measures (airport checks, etc.)
Safety impact
A successful mass killing attack can do massive physical and/or bodily damage. The collateral damages from an attack can sometime be so great that they weaken structures and unsafe situation arise. Compared to the direct effects of a successful attack, these risks are usually minor.
Measures
- Target hardening can be done by making it harder to take weapons of mass destruction to a vulnerable location, e.g. by separating traffic flows so car bombs cannot come close to masses of people, or by separating locations where such weapons might possibly come from masses of people by hardened obstacles, reducing the effect of the weapon. For support on construction methods and materials that mitigate explosion effects and structural collapse one can use the Plan level tools and Detail level tools.
- Access control, combined with directing traffic flows can be used to assure all traffic entering and exiting a location passes at certain, predestined points. This allows for all traffic to be monitored (Surveillance) or even screened (see below).
- Surveillance can help to detect suspicious activities, like left luggage or groups of people monitoring the situation (in a preparation phase of the attack).
- Intervention forces can be used to act when suspicious activities have been detected. These intervention forces range from normal guards, who can investigate the seriousness of reports made by the public to bomb squads.
- Screening can be used to test a flow of traffic for suspicious signs. This can include metal detectors, trained personnel looking for people carrying suspicious luggage, random body searches, etcetera. The gravity of the measures taken should always be in balance with the threat and the nature of the location.
- Target removal can be done by designing an area to be free of concentrations of people or by reducing the predictability of concentrations of people.
Footnotes and references
- ↑ Schneider, F., T. Brück, and Karaisl, M. (2008). A survey of the Economics of Security. Economics of Security Working Paper 1.
- ↑ Buananno, P. (2003). The Socioeconomic Determinantes of Crime. A Review of the Literature. Working Paper Series, No.63. University of Milan.
- ↑ Source: Robinson, L.A. et al. (2010). Valuing the Risk of Death from Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Vol.7, Issue 1, Article 14.
- ↑ Jost, G., Allsop, R., Steriu, M. & Popolizio, M. (2011). 2010 Road safety target outcome: 100,000 fewer deaths since 2001. 5th Road Safety PIN Report. European Transport Safety Council ETSC, Brussels.
- ↑ Robinson, L.A. et al. (2010). Valuing the Risk of Death from Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Vol.7, Issue 1, Article 14.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Source: Schneider, F., T. Brück and D. Meierrieks (2009). The Economics of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: A Survey.