Measure type: Deflection

From Securipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deflection is the measure of reducing risk by creating circumstances that direct criminals to less critical objects or redirects the motivational causes into non-criminal means of expression.

Description

A fly drawn in a urinal, a deflection measure to prevent visitors from aiming at other 'targets'

This is the channelling of potentially criminal or aggressive behaviour in more pro-social directions by means of architectural, equipment, and related alterations.

Examples

  • Provision of graffiti boards and mural programs where graffiti artist may legally express themselves
  • Interesting wallpaper, daily newspaper, chalkboard on bathroom wall
  • Providing activity centres, sport halls or skateboard terrains for potentially loitering youth
  • Separating incompatible public by designing some areas to appeal to only one group and other areas to the other group

Effectiveness

Security issues where this measure can be effective and influenced by the urban planner, are:

Financial gain Boredom or compulsive behaviour Impulse Conflict in beliefs
Burglary{{#info:Burglary is the crime of illicitly entering a building with the intent to commit an offence, particularly (but not limited to) theft.}} Physical assault{{#info:Assault, is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear or to experience any type of violence, except for sexual violence}} Destruction by riots{{#info:Destruction by riots is the act of vandalism of property by organised groups for a shared rational or rationalised reason.}} Mass killing{{#info: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.}}
Ram-raiding{{#info:Ram raid is a particular technique for burglars to gain access to primarily commercial premises, by means of driving -usually stolen- vehicles into locked or closed entrances, exits or windows.}} Sexual assault{{#info:Sexual assault is assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent}} Destruction of property by fanatics{{#info:Destruction by fanatics is the crime of purposely causing damage in order to make a statement or to influence the public opinion.}}
Pickpocketing{{#info:Pickpocketing is a form of theft that involves the stealing of valuables from a victim without their noticing the theft at the time. }} Vandalism{{#info:Vandalism is the act of wilful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of property without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control.}}
Robbery{{#info:Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. It is used her exclusively for acts committed to individual persons.}} Graffiti{{#info:Grafitti is the defacement of property by means of writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed on a surface in a public place without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control. }}
Raid{{#info:Raid is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value from a commercial venue by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear.}} Antisocial Behaviour{{#info:Antisocial behaviour is an accumulation category of relatively small crimes that highly influence the security perception of citizens. }}
Vehicle theft{{#info:Vehicle theft is the crime of theft, or attempt of theft of or from a motor vehicle (automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, etc.).}}

Considerations

General considerations

As this measure does not actually reduce crime, but rather directs the crime to less critical targets, the measure is best suited for crimes that are (more or less) acceptable in specific places, such as vandalism or graffiti. For more serious crimes that would be unacceptable in any circumstance, this measure is not applicable.

Urban planning considerations

Safety/security considerations

Before redirecting crime to another target one should be well aware of the possible consequences for that new target and its surroundings. For example, opening a skateboard park to get rid of loitering youth can cause inconvenience at the skateboard park due to the noise of rolling skateboards, an increase of vandalism in the surroundings or harassments in the bus to and from the skateboard park.

Social considerations

Economic considerations

Deflection mitigates the chance of a security threat, but at the same time demands some kind of investment in time, capital and effort by private agents, companies/developers and the public authorities, exacting economic costs. Together these benefits and costs are referred to as economic impact of security measures. The costs of deflection contains the relatively straightforward direct expenditures on capital equipment and operational costs (both temporary and permanent), and in addition generate various types of secondary effects. Whether the costs are making sense from an economic point of view, depends on many factors, and can be answered by two distinct sets of questions:

  1. Are the envisioned measures cost effective from a socio-economic point of view, or are there better alternatives?
  2. Which specific agents (individuals, companies, sectors, authorities) are affected by the envisioned measures, and to which extend? How do the envisioned measures alter the behaviour of these agents, and of course the behaviour of criminals/terrorists?

Economic tools can help decision makers to answer these questions and to prevent wasteful expenditures on security (of course in collaboration with insights from criminology, sociology, etc.). In terms of benefit-cost ratio, deflection can be considered as a type of security measure which in a relatively subtle way increases security, in contrast to measures such as security guards, big concrete walls and barb wire that may be pervasive, but can also arouse feelings of fear and anxiety[1]. Hence, deflection is an example of the designing out approach, or as an aspect of sustainable design, which seeks a balanced consideration of social, economic, cultural and environmental aspects in urban design. In general, these measures demand larger investments than traditional security measures, but at the same time they are able to avoid future costs due to the long-term prevention of crime.

Mobility considerations

Ethics considerations

Deflection may involve risk of departure from normal liberal democratic standards (such as protection of liberties, separation of powers, and endorsement of checks and balances). Deflection may also come with ethics issues of distributive justice, such as risks of reifying uneven distribution of security in society. Architectural alterations to support deflection can contribute to selective delivery of security, making some groups of citizens more secure, and other groups of citizens more vulnerable. This may be, for example, the case in a situation where deflection in some area displaces crime to another community. This illustrates the need to provide norms and standards beyond frameworks for built infrastructure

In general, pinpointing specific ethics aspects in resilience-enhancing measures needs to consider, among other things, citizen security cultures and citizens' personal concerns. There are no ethics considerations that can be planned or implemented without prior identification and addressing of citizens' perceptions. To support this, VITRUV offers a commented list of methods to determine ethics aspects in relevant urban planning.

Legal considerations

Major legal aspects include balancing measures of deflection, that may be seen as compulsory to some extent, with freedom to act and other fundamental rights. VITRUV offers a summary checklist and a list of methods to assess legal aspects in resilience-enhancing urban planning.

Footnotes and references

  1. Coaffee, J., P. O’Hare, and M. Hawkesworth. The Visibility of (In)security: The Aesthetics of Planning Urban Defences Against Terrorism. Security Dialogue 2009 40:489.

Footnotes and references