Difference between revisions of "Antisocial behaviour"
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Antisocial behaviour leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and a indirect ([[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime|secondary]]) way<ref>Primary economic impact (or direct effects) are generally defined as the initial, immediate economic output generated by a specific cause (in this case a criminal offence). Secondary economic impact (or indirect effects) are generated each time a subsequent transaction is made, for example, the impact of crime on the real estate value in the neighborhood.</ref>. Direct costs of antisocial behaviour come in the form of: |
Antisocial behaviour leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and a indirect ([[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime|secondary]]) way<ref>Primary economic impact (or direct effects) are generally defined as the initial, immediate economic output generated by a specific cause (in this case a criminal offence). Secondary economic impact (or indirect effects) are generated each time a subsequent transaction is made, for example, the impact of crime on the real estate value in the neighborhood.</ref>. Direct costs of antisocial behaviour come in the form of: |
||
* preventive costs in anticipation of antisocial behaviour (e.g. security and insurance costs); |
* preventive costs in anticipation of antisocial behaviour (e.g. security and insurance costs); |
||
| − | * material and immaterial costs as a consequence of antisocial behaviour (e.g. physical damage, repairments, health costs ); and |
+ | * material and immaterial costs as a consequence of antisocial behaviour (e.g. physical damage, repairments, health costs, mental harm); and |
* responsive costs to antisocial behaviour (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, persecution, trial etc.). |
* responsive costs to antisocial behaviour (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, persecution, trial etc.). |
||
Revision as of 09:34, 4 December 2012
Contents
Antisocial behaviour
Antisocial behaviour is an accumulation category of relatively small crimes that highly influence the security perception of citizens.
Description
The exact crimes that fall in this category vary from nation to nation, with the ruling law there, but examples of crimes that fall within this category are:
- Breach of the peace
- Conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress
- Affray (extending to both groups and single persons)
- Violent disorder
- Drunk and disorderly behaviour
- Drunk and incapable behaviour
- Breach of local banning orders
- Substance misuse such as glue sniffing
- Drinking alcohol on the streets /in public areas where banned
- Excessive noise coming from business / alarms / pubs and clubs
- Begging
- Prostitution related activity such as curb crawling and loitering
- Vehicle nuisance such as revving engines, racing, wheel and horn sounding
- Environmental damage such as littering/dumping
- Pubs or clubs serving alcohol after hours
- Hate incidents where abuse involves race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability
Attributing circumstances
Circumstances that attribute to the occurance of antisocial behaviour, are [1]:
- Low standards of living
- Low levels of social cohesion
- low levels of social involvement
- Low amounts or quality of reaction on incidents
- Presence of young people
Impacts
The impacts of antisocial behaviour are diverse and can be very relevant to the security perception of citizens, but are usually minor in direct impact (such as costs, deaths and wounded resulting directly from the incident) but can amount to major indirect impacts (such as feelings of unsafety, loss of commercial enterprise, depreciation of immovables, etcetera).
Social impacts
Known social impacts of antisocial behaviour include changing citzens perception of (in)security and fear of crime. This usually happens in a way that has an effect on the gap between "felt" and "factual" security, since individuals tend to make - correct or incorrect - reasoning on societal security as a whole based on immediate environmentla clues. This is known as the "broken glass phenomenon".
Economic impact
Antisocial behaviour leads to considerable costs in both a direct (primary) and a indirect (secondary) way[2]. Direct costs of antisocial behaviour come in the form of:
- preventive costs in anticipation of antisocial behaviour (e.g. security and insurance costs);
- material and immaterial costs as a consequence of antisocial behaviour (e.g. physical damage, repairments, health costs, mental harm); and
- responsive costs to antisocial behaviour (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, persecution, trial etc.).
Moreover, antisocial behaviour can be a major detriment to the image of a neighbourhood, and as a result trigger indirect economic effects on, for example, property value, local businesses, tourism etc.
Measures
Potential measures that can mitigate the likelihood or impact of assault, are:
- Surveillance
- Reaction force
- designing out crime
- Directing flows of people
Footnotes and references
- ↑ To be underpinned with literature references
- ↑ Primary economic impact (or direct effects) are generally defined as the initial, immediate economic output generated by a specific cause (in this case a criminal offence). Secondary economic impact (or indirect effects) are generated each time a subsequent transaction is made, for example, the impact of crime on the real estate value in the neighborhood.
MAP
<websiteFrame> website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?concept=Security issue: Antisocial behaviour width=100% border=0 scroll=auto align=middle </websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
