Situational Crime Prevention and Comprehensive Treatment of
Social Order in China Mainland
YANG Xuefeng
Department of Public Security Fundamentals
National Police University of China
Shenyang, China
Abstract：With the rapid economic growth since 1980s, China Mainland has been experiencing
crime waves. In order to deal with the problem of crime, China advocates a paradigm called
“Comprehensive Treatment of Social order”, with a principle of “integrating fighting
withprevention, and prevention first”. Theoretically, the most effective way to reduce crime may
be a comprehensive approach to crime prevention which comprises a combination of different
kinds of programs including social development programs, situational prevention programs and
the like. However, considering the transitional nature of China Mainland, the situational crime
prevention programs should play an indispensable part in the comprehensive paradigm with
Chinese characteristics.
Key words: Comprehensive Treatment of Social Order; Situational Crime Prevention
Historically, China’s strategies against crime have long been influenced by Confucianism, Daoism,
legalist school, Buddhism, and so on. Generally speaking, Chinese emperors had developed two
lines of thoughts to control or prevent crime: rule by strict laws and rule by virtues. Confucius
contrasted both in the Analects in the 6th century B.C.,
If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishment, they will avoid
the punishment but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given
by rules of proper conduct they will have the sense of shame and moreover will be good. (Chen, 1990)
Since October 1st, 1949, especially since 1978, China Mainland has been experiencing a period of
unprecedented social and economic change. In recent 30 years, the gross domestic product has
been growing by double digits and in 2010 China exceeded Japan to become the second largest
economic entity in the world.
However, one of the negative concomitant phenomena is the rapid increase of crime in both
quantity and quality. For example, in 1978, China’s overall crime rate based on police statistics
was only 54 per 100,000, but in 1991, the crime rate jumped to 237 per 100,000, and in 2001, the
crime rate jumped again to 446 per 100,000. In recent years, the annual criminal incidence varies
roughly around 5 million.
However, traditional criminology as a field has provided little for Chinese justice system to the
professional world of crime control and prevention because the rules it provides often do not
commute. Traditionally, most of the criminological theories see the root causes of crime as lying
in the genetic inheritance of individual offenders, their psychological make-up, their homes and
1
upbringing and the social and economic circumstances of their lives. But, criminality does not
equal crime. Crime, as a form of behavior, occurs only when someone who is criminally
motivated finds or creates a criminal opportunity. In other words, both motivation and opportunity
are needed for crime to occur. It is now more widely recognized that most traditional
criminological theories are, in fact, theories of criminality or delinquency but not theories of crime
event. Traditional theories deal with the factors that cause people or groups to be disposed to
criminal action. In other words, they deal with behavioral criminal tendencies, not criminal
behavior itself.
To address the increasingly serious problem of crime, in 1991, the Communist Party and the
National People’s Congress respectively enacted the “Decision on Strengthening the
Comprehensive Treatment of Social Order”. Some scholars call it “Comprehensive Treatment”
paradigm with Chinese characteristics. In this paradigm, the fundamental guideline is “integrating
fight with prevention, and prevention first.” Since then, comprehensive crime strategy has become
the national policy for dealing with the problems of crime. It takes as its starting point the
mobilization of the whole society to fight and prevent crime, and the strategies include political,
economic, legal, cultural, and educational methods.
Since 1960s and 1970s, situational crime prevention, which was originally developed by Clarke
when he worked for the Home Office Research and Planning Unit in the U.K., has increasingly
gained its momentum in western developed countries. Although it originally departed from the
offender-based criminology, it is now moving into integration with traditional criminology and
makes an excellent complement to the broadly-defined social crime prevention strategies.
Similarly, in the “Comprehensive Treatment” paradigm with Chinese characteristics, situational
crime prevention should also play an important role and complements other preventative measures
so as to construct a comprehensive prevention system.
Definition of Situational Crime Prevention and Its Features
According to Clarke (1997), Situational crime prevention comprises opportunity-reducing
measures that (1) are directed at highly specific forms of crime; (2) involve the management,
design or manipulation of the immediate environment in as systematic and permanent way as
possible; (3) make crime more difficult and risky, or less rewarding and excusable as judged by a
wide range of offenders.
Clarke (1997) points out five features of the definition that should be noted. First, situational
crime prevention measures must be designed to highly specific categories of crime. Second,
almost everyone has some probability of committing crime depending on the circumstances in
which he/she finds himself/herself. Thus situational prevention does not draw hard distinctions
between criminals and others. Third, changing the environment is designed to affect assessments
made by potential offenders about the costs and benefits associated with committing particular
crimes. These judgments are dependent on specific features of the objective situation and
determine the likelihood of the offense occurring. This implies some rationality and a considerable
degree of adaptability on the part of offenders. Fourth, that the judgments made by potential
offenders include some evaluation of the moral costs of offending. Not all offenses are equally
2
reprehensible, even in the eyes of the most hardened offenders. This means that making it harder
to find excuses for criminal action may be sometimes be an effective opportunity-reduction
technique. It also means that differences in the moral acceptability of various offenses will impose
limits on the scope of displacement. Finally, the definition of situational prevention is deliberately
general in that it makes no mention of any particular category of crime. Rather, situational
prevention is assumed to be applicable to every kind of crime, not just to "opportunistic" or
acquisitive property offenses, but also to more calculated or deeply-motivated offenses.
Wortley (1998, 2001) describes a two-stage situational prevention model which attempts to give
fuller recognition to the complexity of the person-environment relationship. Wortley suggests that
a distinction should be made between situations which have a precipitating function for behavior
and situations which regulate behavior through the opportunity characteristics they pose. To date,
Wortley claims, little explicit recognition has been given in situational crime prevention to the role
of crime precipitators. It is the latter stage of the offending process -- the cost-benefit analysis –
which has been the traditional focus and which has provided the rationale for
opportunity-reduction strategies aimed at blocking offenders’ criminal behavior. The two-stage
situational prevention model extends the traditional opportunity-reduction model in two ways.
First, the model suggests that some criminal behavior may be entirely avoided by intervention at
the crime-precipitation stage without the need in these cases for opportunity reducing strategies.
Second, the model includes a feedback-loop whereby the excessive use of constraint is seen to
increase precipitating pressures on behavior.
Admitting the usefulness of Wortley's classification of precipitators for tackling the difficult
problem of reducing the motivation to offend in aversive capsule environments, Cornish and
Clarke (2003) examined the assumptions underlying the development of situational crime
prevention and further suggested some additions and revisions for the theoretical and technical
developments in situational crime prevention.
Theoretical Developments in Situational Crime Prevention
Since the situational approach to crime prevention was systematically developed in Britain in the
1960s and 1970s, there have been many criticisms on situational crime prevention strategy. Except
for the social and ethical objections which are invariably raised, there are two major theoretical
limitations of traditional situational crime prevention which relies largely on
opportunity-reduction strategies. First, some criminologists argued that situational crime
prevention fails to tackle the root causes of crime but will simply displace crime from one place to
another, from one time to another, from one target to another, or possibly from one kind of crime
to another. From this perspective, having an initial crime avenue blocked seems a rather trivial
setback for criminally motivated individuals and unlikely to dissuade them from simply trying
their luck elsewhere. The second theoretical difficulty with a narrow opportunity-reduction model
of crime prevention is its inability to adequately account for interventions which produce opposite
outcomes to those intended. It is often asserted that situational measures which physically restrict
or constrain potential offenders may be counter-productive and produce the very conditions which
support criminal behavior. Grabosky (1996) details a number of specific ways that situational
prevention can backfire. To respond all of these criticisms, environmental criminologists gradually
3
develop some theories and approaches as theoretical basis of situational crime prevention. They
include lifestyle exposure theory/routine activity theory, rational choice perspective,
environmental criminology, etc.
Hinderlang et al (1978) developed a theory of personal victimization which argued that the
lifestyle and routine activity of an individual or group place them in social settings with higher or
lower risks of being victimized. In this sense, the alteration of the lifestyle of potential victims
would dramatically reduce the probability of their victimization. In their seminal work, Cohen and
Felson (1979) outlined the well-known crime triangle model, which says there are three minimal
elements for direct-contact predatory crime: a motivated offender, a suitable target or victim and
the absence of a capable guardian against crime. Originally, routine activity theory take the
motivated offender as a constant, but recently this approach has been expanded to integrate social
control theory (Hirschi, 1969). Felson (1986) was able to show that there are people in offenders'
lives—parents, relatives, spouses, teachers and coaches, for example—who, when present, will
prevent the offender from deviating. Felson called these people "handlers." While handlers act on
offenders and guardians act on targets, the third group, which Eck (1994) calls as controllers, acts
on places. The people who manage places—store clerks, life guards, park rangers, airline
attendants, and countless others—also control crime by regulating the behavior of place users. So
the crime triangle has become into problem analysis triangle as follows (see figure1). According to
Clarke R.V. and Eck J. E. (2003), for the target/victim, the capable guardians usually refer to those
protecting themselves, their own belongings or those of family members, friends, and co-workers.
Guardians also include public police and private security; for the offender, the handlers refer to
someone who knows the offender well and who is in a position to exert some control over his or
her actions. Handlers include parents, siblings, teachers, friends and spouses. Probation and parole
authorities often augment or substitute for normal handlers; for the place, the controller is the
manager, the owner or designee who has some responsibility for controlling behavior in the
specific location such as a bus driver or teacher in a school, bar owners in drinking establishments,
landlords in rental housing, or flight attendants on commercial airliners.
Figure 1. Problem Analysis Triangle
4
Adapted from Clarke R.V. and Eck J. E. 2003
As an outcome of the conference sponsored by the Home Office at Christ's College, Cambridge,
England, in July 1985, the chapters in Cornish and Clarke (1986) were designed to explore and
elaborate a decision-making approach to the explanation of crime. This perspective, rational
choice theory, was one adopted by a number of social scientists in disciplines such as economics
(Becker, 1968), psychology (Tversky, 1972; Kahneman et al., 1982), law (Posner, 1973) and
sociology (Coleman, 1973; Heath, 1976) and, of course, criminology. The authors integrated
insights provided by the various disciplines into a more comprehensive and satisfactory
representation of criminal behaviors. Its starting point was an assumption that offenders seek to
benefit themselves by their criminal behavior; that this involves the making of decisions and of
choices, however rudimentary on occasion these processes might be; and that these processes
exhibit a measure of rationality, albeit constrained by limits of time and ability and the availability
of relevant information. In other words, rational choice perspective suggested by Cornish and
Clarke recognized the bounded or limited rationality, so it is different to some extent from the
eighteenth century classical “free-will” idea of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.
A fundamental distinction was made between criminal involvement and criminal events in rational
choice perspective. Criminal involvement refers to the processes through which individuals
choose (i) to become initially involved in particular forms of crime, (ii) to continue, and (iii) to
desist. The decision process at each of these stages is influenced by a different set of factors and
needs to be separately modeled. In the same way, the decision processes involved in the
commission of a particular crime are dependent upon their own special categories of information.
Involvement decisions are characteristically multistage and extend over substantial periods of time.
Event decisions, on the other hand, are frequently shorter processes, utilizing more circumscribed
information largely relating to immediate circumstances and situations. More importantly, it was
further recognized that the decision processes and information utilized could vary greatly among
offenses. A number of implications follow from rational choice perspective. If crimes are as
supposed the result of broadly rational choices based on analyses of expected rewards and
punishments, it suggests that analysis of criminal behavior should be more crime-specific; and that
adequate attention should be paid to the criminal event itself and the situational factors that
influence its commission. Obviously, it is consistent with the definition and features of situational
crime prevention cited above.
Environmental criminology treats the characteristics of places and the target search process as key
variables in the committing of crime. As such, environmental criminology is a highly
interdisciplinary area of study, drawing upon insights from architecture, criminal justice,
geography, political science, psychology, sociology, and more. Environmental criminology studies
criminal events as products of the convergence of potential offenders with potential targets at
specific points in space-time under specific sets of limiting and facilitating conditions
(Brantingham, P. and Brantingham, P., 1991). Studies in this field have focused on spatial patterns
in offender and target movement against the backdrop of broader social routines. They have
generally demonstrated that offenders move around in predictable and routine ways like everyone
else. The journey to crime is similar to and subject to the same constraints as the journey to work
or the shopping trip. In this sense, at least, most criminals are not different from other
non-criminals. Geographical patterns in crime have been noted since the mid-19th century
5
pioneering work of Andre-Michel Guerry and ambert-Adolphe Quetelet who mapped, on a
national basis, violent and property offences and examined their spatial relationship to poverty.
Empirical criminology began with Quetelet's (1842) observations of more crime in some parts of
France than in others. Spelman and Eck, (1989) argued that the concentration of crime in a few hot
places seemed greater when it was compared to the concentration of crime among individuals.
Brantingham, P. and Brantingham, P. (1993, 1995) analyzed crime patterns in terms of nodes,
paths, and edges. Nodes are important places to would-be offenders, such as places which they
live, work and socialize. Offenders are most likely to commit crimes around these nodes. Paths are
routes between nodes which are vulnerable to crime. Edges are boundaries or barriers between
different types land use. The most common example of edges is a street or an area which separates
an industrial zone from an urban residential neighborhood. Crime rates are often high in these
edges because of their environmental or social factors. Rossmo, D.K. (2000) reversed the model
from environmental criminology which predicts where criminals are likely to commit their crimes
to aid criminal investigations. Analyzed in light of journey to crime models, a set of linked crime
locations can point investigators to the offender’s main activity nodes and provide a useful tool for
prioritizing investigative leads.
To summarize, the theoretical developments in situational crime prevention suggest that the
offenders, victims/targets, places, handlers, guardians, managers do not distribute randomly.
Moreover, the willingness and ability of the handlers, guardians, managers to discourage crime by
situational crime prevention techniques influence the opportunity structure and further change the
rates and nature of crime.
Development in the Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention
Situational crime prevention works on the premise that the crime reduction is possible if the
opportunities for crime are significantly reduced. This objective can be achievable in various ways.
Nearly all situational crime prevention techniques may be implemented by a ‘multi-agencies
partnership’ of all basic community institutions such as school, municipals, health centres,
transport authority, business enterprise, communication departments, entertainment centres like
cinema, clubs, theatres etc.
Opportunity structure is the key factor in situational crime prevention techniques. Felson and
Clarke (1998) elaborated the opportunity and crime model by suggesting ten principles:
1. Opportunities play a role in causing all crime;
2. Crime opportunities are highly specific;
3. Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space;
4. Crime opportunities depend on everyday movements;
5. One crime produces opportunities for another;
6. Some products offer more tempting crime opportunities;
7. Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities;
8. Opportunities for crime can be reduced;
9. Reducing opportunities does not usually displace crime;
10. Focused opportunity reduction can produce wider declines in crime.
6
In Clarke, R.V. (1992), a classification of twelve opportunity-reducing techniques was introduced,
which itself was a modification of an earlier classification proposed by Hough et al. (1980). Five
years later, Clarke and Homel's (1997) further modification left eight of the original categories
untouched, modified the remaining four and added four new ones for a total of sixteen techniques.
In Cornish, Derek.B.and Clarke, R.V. (2003), the authors outlined five primary ways in which a
situation can be altered to reduce the likelihood of crime occurring. The five ways have been
developed into twenty-five techniques of situational crime prevention as follows:
1. Increase the effort for the offender to carry out the criminal act.
(1) Target harden
(2) Control access to facilities
(3) Screen exits
(4) Deflect offenders
(5) Control tools/weapons
2. Increase the risk for the offender.
(6) Extend guardianship
(7) Assist natural surveillance
(8) Reduce anonymity
(9) Use place managers
(10) Strengthen formal surveillance
3. Decrease the benefits the offender will achieve from the crime.
(11) Conceal targets
(12) Remove targets
(13) Identify property
(14) Disrupt markets
(15) Deny benefits
4. Reducing or avoiding the provocations that may tempt offenders into committing the act.
(16) Reduce frustrations and stress
(17) Avoid disputes
(18) Reduce arousal and temptation
(19) Neutralize peer pressure
(20) Discourage imitation
5. Remove the excuses from the offender so that they cannot justify their actions.
(21) Set rules
(22) Post instructions
(23) Alert conscience
(24) Assist compliance
(25) Control drugs and alcohol
As Clarke (1997) pointed out, the classification of opportunity-reducing techniques has constantly
been undergoing change. This is due to the developments (1) in theory which suggest new
ways of reducing opportunities, (2) in practice as new forms of crime are addressed by
situational prevention, and (3) in technology which opens up new vistas for prevention, just as
it does for crime. So it is reasonable for us to anticipate the increasingly refined classification
and techniques.
7
Crime Waves in New China and Comprehensive Treatment
Police crime statistics show that China mainland has experienced five crime waves since 1950.
Especially since 1978, with the rapid development of industrialization and urbanization, crime
rates in China mainland are skyrocketing.
Table 1. Crime Incidence in China Mainland
Year
Crime incidence (per 100,000)
Year
Crime incidence (per 100,000)
1950
51.3461
1980
75.7104
1951
33.2741
1981
89.0281
1952
24.3003
1982
74.8476
1953
29.2308
1983
61.0478
1954
39.2229
1984
51.4369
1955
32.5829
1985
54.2005
1956
18.0075
1986
54.7115
1957
29.8031
1987
57.0439
1958
21.1068
1988
82.7594
1959
21.0025
1989
197.1901
1960
22.2734
1990
221.6997
1961
42.1934
1991
236.5709
1962
32.4639
1992
158.2695
1963
25.1226
1993
161.6879
1964
21.5352
1994
166.0734
1965
21.6125
1995
169.0407
1966
17.4678
1996
160.0676
1967
16.1377
1997
161.3629
1968
16.582
1998
198.607
1969
19.5691
1999
224.9319
1970
23.004
2000
363.7307
1971
32.3623
2001
445.7579
1972
40.2573
2002
433.6712
1973
53.582
2003
439.3893
1974
51.6419
2004
471.8122
1975
47.5432
2005
464.8401
1976
48.8813
2006
465.3265
1977
54.8415
2007
480.7517
1978
53.5698
2008
488.4960
1979
63.6222
2009
557.9915
Constructed by author from different data sources, including Wang Mu (2005) and Zhu Jingwen (2011).
Although it is well seen from table 1 that since 1990s the crime rates have been increasing sharply,
the rate still quite low compared with other developed countries such as the United States, even
8
with other economically developing countries. Another undeniable fact is there is a large dark
figure of crimes which are not discovered, reported or recorded for a variety of reasons, as in most
other countries. So, the crime rates cannot be seen as the real number of the crime incidence.
However, it is not the purpose here to discuss the accuracy or validity of the criminal statistics;
rather, it is enough to admit that crime rate has been increasing sharply in China since 1990s.
Generally, it is called the fifth wave of crime in New China.
To effectively deal with the exacerbating crime problem, China has adopted “Comprehensive
Treatment” paradigm since 1990s instead of “to fight severely against crime” campaign in the
1980s. In this paradigm, the fundamental guideline is “to combine fight with prevention, and
prevention first.” In other words, the “Comprehensive Treatment” emphasizes more than ever the
role of prevention in crime strategies, although in practice some preventative measures still cannot
be fulfilled deeply.
Since then, comprehensive crime strategy has become the national policy for dealing with both
symptoms and root causes of the crime problems. It takes as its starting point the mobilization of
the whole society to fight and prevent crime, and the adopted strategies include political,
economic, legal, cultural, and educational methods. The domains of “Comprehensive Treatment”
include six dimensions: fighting, prevention, education, management/administration, construction,
rehabilitation. Fighting against crime means that the criminal justice institutions reactively take
formal control measures to impose specific deterrence on actual offenders. Prevention in the
domains here has a specific meaning, for it just means to take some particular measures to prevent
potential crime from occurring. In contrast to this, the generalized term of prevention means both
prevention beforehand and control or punishment afterwards. Education not simply means
intellectual education but also includes ideological and political education，moral education and
law education so as to reduce the number of motivated offenders. Education is regarded as one of
the measures dealing with root causes of crime. Management/administration in “Comprehensive
Treatment” includes both internal management for any unit and public security administration for
police forces. The meaning of construction is so broad that it includes construction in ideology,
organization, legal and procedural systems and more. Rehabilitation is designed to gaizao or
ganhua the actual offenders to achieve individual self-improvement through proper institutional
guidance.
In short, the “Comprehensive Treatment” paradigm with Chinese characteristics is the product of
experiences and lessons which the Chinese Communist Party and governments at all levels have
learnt from addressing the complex problems of crime. It focuses on the symptoms and causes of
crime and emphasizes the mobilization of every class of the whole society. Since 1990s, it has
become the national strategy for dealing with the increasing serious problem of crime. However,
on the one hand, the characteristics of comprehensiveness is crucial to achieve much success in
reducing crime, on the other hand, it is most difficult to integrate many different programs into
such a sole paradigm.
Roles of Situational Crime Prevention in Comprehensive Treatment
Theoretically, the most effective way to reduce crime may be a comprehensive approach to crime
prevention which comprises a combination of different kinds of programs including social
9
development programs, situational prevention programs, community programs, legislative
programs, police programs and so on. However, in practice, the comprehensive approach is
difficult to implement, and as a consequence, it is hardly to fully achieve the expected outcomes.
On the other hand, as discussed above, situational crime prevention has now been efficiently
established in many western countries so as to make up an important component of crime
prevention strategies, as a result, there is no sound reason to doubt its effectiveness in the
“Comprehensive Treatment” paradigm with Chinese characteristics in that China is experiencing
the similar crime trends like other developed countries in the process of modernization and
industrialization. The underlying utilitarian philosophy and cost-benefit calculation behind
situational crime prevention are consistent with the principles of marketing economy. So at least
for the time being, situational crime prevention should play a key role in the “Comprehensive
Treatment” paradigm with Chinese characteristics. I would like to make some suggestions in this
area:
1. To empirically test the theoretical bases of situational crime prevention in Chinese context.
Criminology in China has gained much development since 1980s, but it is known that the
criminologists in China are good at reasoning abstractly but not at testing empirically. So far, the
rational choice perspective, routine activity theory and environmental criminology underlying
situational crime prevention have not been truly tested in Chinese context. For example, the
effects of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits should be carefully examined. Moreover,
the philosophical and ethical issues such as the potential of “fortress society” or a “big brother”
state should also be subject to scrutiny.
2. To empirically evaluate and compare the efficiency and usefulness of various programs
including situational crime prevention initiatives in Chinese context. As a matter of fact, there is
scarcely evaluation program for “Comprehensive Treatment” paradigm. Consequently, we do not
have much evidence-based support for or against the various crime prevention initiatives.
Traditionally, the task of criminology in China seems to be simply to propagandize the various
projects addressing crime problems designed by the government. For example, the closed circuit
television (CCTV) system as a method of controlling and investigating criminal incidence has
been widely adopted, but its potential intrusion on individual freedom has not been seriously
explored.
3. To develop the crime-specific analysis system. As situational crime prevention has a highly
crime-specific focus, one should follow the problem analysis triangle to analyze the specific crime
problems and make rather finer distinctions than those commonly made in criminology. Empirical
studies suggested that the kinds of individuals involved in different forms of residential burglary,
such as burglaries committed in middle-class suburbs, in public housing, and in wealthy
residential enclaves, their motivations, and their methods all vary considerably (Cornish and
Clarke, 1986).
4. To grant officially for research and development of various situational techniques. As Clarke
(1997) points out, many successful situational prevention initiatives were propose by hard-pressed
managers seeking practical ways to solve troublesome crime problems confronting their
businesses or agencies. Only rarely were they assisted by traditional criminologists and
governments at a variety of levels. Even in the United States and Canada, the situational crime
10
prevention programs have not gained funding support from the federal governments until recently.
To maintain the sustainable development of social economy, both Chinese central government and
local governments should provide more funding for research and development of various crime
prevention programs including situational techniques.
5. To develop findings of criminology that can commute. As Brantingham said in the foreword of
Rossmo (2000), while most criminals live in poor neighborhoods, most poor people are not
criminal. While most burglars are youthful, most youths do not commit burglaries. While most
serious child abusers were themselves abused as children, most abused children do not become
child abusers. That is to say, these rules do not commute. In contrast to this, the models derived
from opportunity theories are to a large extent commutative and have a crime-specific focus, so
situational crime prevention programs as cost-effective and practice-oriented alternatives should
be developed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to refer once more to the fact: the most effective way to reduce crime
may be a comprehensive approach to crime prevention which comprises a combination of
different kinds of programs including social development programs, situational prevention
programs and the like. So the “Comprehensive Treatment of Social Order” paradigm rather than
merely “Getting Tough on Crime” (Williams, 2000) is one of the wisest choices in dealing with
crime. And considering the transitional nature of China Mainland, the situational crime prevention
programs should play an indispensable part in this paradigm with Chinese characteristics.
11
References
Beavon, D.J.K, Brantingham, P.L., and Brantingham, P.J. (1994). The Influence of Street
Networks on the Patterning of Property Offenses. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 115-148. New
York, Criminal Justice Press.
Becker, G. (1968), Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, Journal of Political Economy,
76:169-217.
Brantingham, P. J.and Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Notes on the Geometry of Crime. In P. J.
Brantingham and P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental Criminology (pp. 27-54). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Brantingham, P. L.and Brantingham, P. J. (1991), Environmental Criminology, Prospect Heights:
Waveland Press.
Brantingham, P. L.and Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, Paths, and Edges: Considerations on
Complexity of Crime and the Physical Environment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13,
3-28.
Brantingham, P. L.and Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, Routine, and Situation: Toward a
Pattern Theory in Crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity and Rational
Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 5 (pp. 259-294). New Burnswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Brantingham, P. L.and Brantingham, P. J. (1995). Criminality of Place: Crime Generators and
Crime Attractors. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 3:5-26.
Chen, J. (1990). Confucius as a Teacher. Beijing: Foreign Languages.
Clarke, R.V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (second edition),
Albany: Harrow and Heston.
Clarke R.V. and Eck J. E. (2003). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.Department of Justice.
Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity
Approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588-608.
Coleman, J. (1973). The Mathematics of Collective Action, London: Heinemann.
Cornish,D.B. and Clarke,R.V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cornish, Derek.B.and Clarke, R.V. (2003). Opportunities, Precipitators and Criminal Decisions: A
Reply to Wortley’s Critique of Situational Crime Prevention, Crime Preventions Studies, vol.16,
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J.E. (1994).Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial Structure of
Illicit Drug Dealing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park
Felson, M. (1986). Linking Criminal Choices, Routine Activities, Informal Control, and Criminal
12
Outcomes. In: Cornish D. and Clarke R.V. (eds.), The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice
Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Felson, M.and Clarke R.V. (1998). Opportunity Makes the Thief. Crime Detection and Prevention
Series, Paper 98. Police Research Group. London: Home Office
Gottfredson,M. and Hirschi,T.(1990). A General Theory of Crime. Berkeley, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Grabosky, P. (1996). Unintended Consequences of Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies,
vol. 5, New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Heath, A. (1976). Rational Choice and Social Exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinderlang,M., Gottfredson,M., and Garofalo,J. (1978). Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical
Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.
Hirschi, T. (1969).Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hough, J. M., Clarke, R. V and Mayhew, P. (1980), Introduction. In Clarke R. V. and Mayhew P.
(eds), Designing Out Crime, London: HMSO.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases, London: Cambridge University Press.
Posner, R. A. (1973). Economic Analysis of Law, Boston: Little Brown Press.
Quetelet, A.J. (1842). A Treatise of Man. Gainesville, Florida: Scholar's Facsimilies and Reprints
(1969 ed.).
Rossmo, D.K.(2000). Geographic Profiling. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Tversky,A.(1972). Elimination by Aspects: a Theory of Choice, Psychological Review,
79:281-299.
Von Hirsch, Andrew, David Garland and Alison Wakefield (2000). Ethical and Social Perspectives
on Situational Crime Prevention. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Wang Mu (2005). New Criminology. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (in Chinese)
Williams,J. (2000). Getting Tough on Crime: Will It Win the War? Agenda, Vol. 7, No.1: 33-45.
Wortley, R.(1998). A Two-Stage Model of Situational Crime Prevention. Studies on Crime and
Crime Prevention, 7, 173-188.
Wortley, R.(2001). A Classification of Techniques for Controlling Situational Precipitators of
Crime. Security Journal, 14(4), 63-82.
Zhu Jingwen (2011). Report on China Law Development. Press of Renmin University of China.
(in Chinese)
13