Análisis de los casos de los usuarios que realizan un ejercicio abusivo del

To minimise the opportunities for security threats to take place, a variety of procedures and practices need to be in position and activated. Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) is based on this principle which locates ‘physical barriers between the opportunistic criminal and the object of the crime’ (Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.16). The building of new railway stations or the refurbishment of existing stations aim to from the planning stage to design out crime, this is demonstrated in the SIDOS (2012) guidance, which is discussed in detail in this chapter and Chapter Seven.

The prevention measures, which are appropriate to the railway station, will be examined in the greatest depth will be those based on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and SCP measures. These forms of prevention measure are founded on altering ‘the immediate conditions in which crimes are committed’ (Tilley, 2009, p.103), rather than concentrating on tackling societal causes of crime (Tilley, 2009, p.103). Prevention measures are founded on ‘altering the physical and social environment so as to influence behaviours’

(Cochrane and Talbot, 2008, p.16). CPMs became increasingly popular during the 1980s when they were perceived to complement existing policing strategies and could potentially

offer a reduction in crime figures and the penal population (Tilley, 2002). Furthermore, the cornerstone of many CTMs, such as target hardening are based fundamentally on existing crime prevention strategies (Fussey, 2007, p.174) and are discussed as such within this review. Additionally, there is a lack of research which considers the duality of these measures (Fussey, 2011). These measures should be individually considered in terms of potential impact, conflict and benefits (Kappia, et al., 2009), this is because duality of function does not necessarily mean they ‘should-be used in the same way’ (Fussey, 2007, p.187).

CPMs as with the definition of crime are temporal, spatial, as shifting threats and targets shape discourse, and political agendas surrounding prevention measures. CPMs can be defined under the broad terminology of the ‘geographies of crime’ (McLaughlin, 2006, p.185), which aim to understand the multifaceted and intricate connections which are

‘constructed through crime, space and place’ and how individuals behave in public and their connection with city spaces (McLaughlin, 2006). Undoubtedly, crime rates within cities are higher than other environments, thus cities

bring together large numbers of people, some of whom wish to commit crime, large numbers of crime targets of various kinds, and a relatively high level of anonymity.

(Tilley, 2009, p.8)

Given the nature, size, and location of many larger railway stations, the above observation is highly significant and appropriate to SPIRS and other Category A railway stations in England and Wales and the risk of security threats.

For a crime to occur the following elements are required, ‘space, time, victims, targets and offenders’ (Tilley, 2009, p.8), thus by removing or limiting one of these elements reduces the opportunity for crimes to occur (Tilley, 2009, p.8). Routine Activity Theory (RAT) is also based on similar principles, for a crime to happen, three elements need to be in place, a target, an offender, and the lack of a capable guardian. Rational choice perspective is based on similar principles and argues criminals make reasoned decisions and can ‘use offenders’

accounts of their criminal activities to build step by step descriptions of how offenders commit their crimes’ (Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.13). Therefore, the theories claim to prevent crimes from occurring, one these elements need to be addressed to reduce the opportunity for a crime to occur (Hopkins Burke, 2005). Consequently, CPMs are relatively

simple to initiate once patterns of crime have been established, given crime ‘is not randomly distributed’ (Tilley, 2009, p.8) and these patterns have been acknowledged.

However, CPMs are advocated for crimes committed in the public sphere and not those committed in the private sphere, for example, child or domestic abuse (Walklate, 1996).

Consequently, for this literature review and subsequent chapters within the thesis, CPMs will be considered only in terms of deterrence and protection, and not the reformation of criminal (Hughes, 1998, p.18) behaviours or qualities.

Nevertheless, within in the discipline of criminology, there are many conflicting frameworks and typologies concerning crime prevention, frequently based on targets of successes (Hughes, 1998, p.18). Therefore, the concept of crime prevention is extremely obscure, with diverse meanings for different sections of society, and at different points in time.

Consequently, as new crimes evolve, so too CPMs must develop and progress to face these.

Hughes (1998, p.13) claims crime prevention is ‘a chameleon concept’. Walklate (1996, p.297) endeavours to encapsulate the nature of crime prevention by proposing they are based on ‘predicting an outcome and intervening in that process to change this predicted outcome’. Concomitantly to this, Hughes (1998, p.24) endeavours to summarise a crime prevention as

the specific and changing institutional practices and ideological components of changing discourses of crime control structured around the symbolic and politically useful notion of prevention.

According to McLaughlin (2006, p.186), CPMs stem from geographical criminology and that the built environment through appropriate and adequate planning and usage, and the utilisation of surveillance systems can benefit from ‘a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and improvement in the quality of urban life’. As already discussed in this chapter, the fear of crime impacts on passengers and the public’s perception of the railway station. It is recognised in relation to the railway station, designers and planners should be challenged to have a greater and more detailed appreciation of ‘environmental criminology and patterns and trends in crime as they relate to the built environment’ (Cozens, 2011, p.482 and Brantingham and Brantingham, 1998, p.53).

Moreover, the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) propose a comparable stance when

responding to crime, disorder, and fear in the railway station, based on their four ‘Es’ principles:

1. Engineering (similar to SCP) 2. Enforcement

3. Education 4. Enabling

(Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.12)

These can be seen as implementation processes, ‘with the need to develop avenues of co-operation and partnerships with the community and its agencies’ (Morgan and Cornish, 2006, p.12-13).