1 / 42

Crime-Related Secondary Effects Of Sexually-Oriented Businesses Detroit City Council

Crime-Related Secondary Effects Of Sexually-Oriented Businesses Detroit City Council November 10 th , 2009 Richard McCleary, Ph.D. School of Social Ecology University of California, Irvine mccleary@uci.edu. Education: B.S., Wisconsin M.A., Northwestern Ph.D., Northwestern

maia
Download Presentation

Crime-Related Secondary Effects Of Sexually-Oriented Businesses Detroit City Council

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Crime-Related Secondary Effects Of Sexually-Oriented Businesses Detroit City Council November 10th, 2009 Richard McCleary, Ph.D. School of Social Ecology University of California, Irvine mccleary@uci.edu

  2. Education: B.S., Wisconsin M.A., Northwestern Ph.D., Northwestern Appointments:Professor, Criminology Professor, Environmental Health Science Professor, Planning Associations: Am Stat Assoc, 1977 Am Soc for Crim, 1977 Publications:5 books 75 articles JASA Criminology

  3. Editorial Boards: J of Crim Law and Crim J of Quant Crim J of Res Crime and Del Justice Q Law and Policy Q Soc Path Behav Assess Eval Stud Rev Ann New Dir Prog Eval Res Meth in Soc Rel Criminology:U California Irvine U Michigan SUNY Albany Arizona State U U Illinois

  4. Statistics: U California, Irvine U Minnesota U New Mexico U Michigan Arizona State U FBI National Academy Panels: NRC Comm on Justice NRC Comm on Nat Stat FBI BSSU U.S. Secret Serv Prot Intel U.S. Cens Bur U.S. Bur Just Stats Cal Youth Auth Cal Dept Corr and Rehab

  5. Consultant: U.S. Bur of Just Stats Cen Dis Cont Prev Nat Cent for Health Stats Nat Inst Mental Health Nat Inst Child Health Nat Labs State, local gov’ts Secondary Effects: ….

  6. SOB Facts

  7. SOB Facts • SOBs pose large, significantambient public safety hazards • “Victimless” crimes (prostitution, drugs, etc.) • Predatory crimes (robbery, auto theft, etc.) • Opportunistic crimes (vandalism, burglary, etc.) • The hazard applies to all SOB subclasses • Live entertainment • “Off-premise” bookstores • “On-premise” video Arcades • Crime risk rises after dark, peaks at “closing” • Darkness favors the criminal • Policing is less effect in darkness

  8. SOB Facts Alcohol aggravates the risk Lowered inhibition Clouded judgment Crime risk can be mitigated by regulation Distancing sensitive uses from the risk-point Target hardening Removing alcohol from the high-risk zone Limiting operation during high-risk times “Broken windows” enforcement The SOB-crime link is a scientific fact Predicted by strong theory Confirmed empirically

  9. Time, Place, Manner …

  10. Time … Hours of Operation Crime risk rises after dark, Peaking shortly after bar closing time Total ambient crime for 29 Greensboro businesses

  11. Place … Distance from Sensitive Uses

  12. Manner … Architecture and Behavior

  13. Historical Background

  14. Historical Background Boston’s “Combat Zone” Experiment (1955-65) Keeps “vice” out of other neighborhoods Focuses public safety resources Detroit’s Decentralization Experiment (1970) Public Hearings, Expert Testimony Young v. American Mini-Theatres, Inc. (1976) Code aims at “secondary effects” Litter Noise Crime

  15. Historical Background City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) Renton, WA had no SOBs Renton, WA relied on secondary effects studies conducted in Seattle Renton, WA passed a zoning code that prohibited SOBs in its downtown Two downtown theaters converted to XXX The Renton standard … Regulation must aim at secondary effects butGovernment can use any secondary effects evidence that it “reasonably believes” to be “reliable and relevant to the problem.”

  16. Criminological Theory

  17. Theory of Secondary Effects • Primary Effects Theories • SOB activities corrupt “good” people • SOB patrons are “bad” people • Secondary Effects Theories • SOBs attract patrons from wide catchment areas • SOB patrons are attractive, high-value targets • Disproportionately male • Open to vice overtures • Carry cash • Reluctant to involve the police

  18. Theory of Secondary Effects • Secondary Effects Theory • SOB patrons are “perfect” victims • Low risk to the offender • High pay-off to the offender • High density of high-value targets attracts … • Vice purveyors who dabble in crime • Predators who use vice to lure/lull victims • Ambient victimization risk • “Victimless” crime (prostitution, drugs, etc.) • Predatory crime (robbery, auto theft, etc.) • Opportunistic crime (vandalism, burglary, etc.)

  19. Theory of Secondary Effects • Corollary 1: Alcohol aggravates ambient risk • Lowered inhibition • Clouded judgment • Corollary 2: Darkness aggravates ambient risk • Darkness favors the predator • Policing is less effectiveness in darkness • Resources are thin at “closing” time • Corollary 3: All SOBs are “hotspots” • Corollary 4: “Time, manner, place” regulations • can mitigate ambient risk

  20. Secondary Effects Evidence

  21. Secondary Effects Evidence Anecdotal Evidence Public testimony Expert opinions Police experience Court Decisions/Findings of Fact Court decisions Legislative records Official/Public Records Crime incidents/Police calls Planning documents “Scientific/Empirical” Studies

  22. Empirical Corroboration

  23. a Before/After

  24. a Before/After

  25. Adult Cabarets

  26. Google “strip club homicide 2009” 21 Jan 2009: “City Police investigating first murder of 2009 after strip club shooting” 5 Feb 2009: “Exotic dancer set afire in Tarzana; two attackers sought” 6 Feb 2009 - “Killa City: Police investigating double homicide outside strip club” 28 Jun 2009 - “No arrests in strip-club shooting: one man dead, two wounded” 14 Apr 2009 - “City to look at closing strip club after killing”

  27. Google “strip club homicide 2009” 17 Apr 2009 - “Two men shot, killed outside strip club” 19 May 2009 - “Cops probing Surrey strip club murder face more mysteries” 31 May 2009 - “One dead, five seriously injured in shooting rampage at Springfield strip club” 1 Jun 2009 - “Mass. man pleads not guilty in strip club shooting spree that killed one, hurt four” 30 Jun 2009 - “One man charged with murder in Aylmer strip club shooting”

  28. Adult Cabarets: Greensboro 911 Calls Linz and Yao, 2003, Tables 14-19

  29. Adult Cabarets: Daytona Beach 911 Calls Linz, Fisher, and Yao, 2004, Tables 7-19

  30. Adult Cabarets: Palm Beach County UCRs

  31. Peep Shows

  32. Peep Shows: Centralia, WA A bookstore with video viewing booths opens in Centralia. Total “serious” crime rises by 70 percent. Over the same period, total “serious” crime in other areas drops.

  33. Peep Shows: San Diego, CA When the Linz-Paul effect estimate is corrected for the reliability of 911 calls, it becomes statistically significant.

  34. “Take-Out” Book/Video Stores

  35. Adult Super Store: Montrose, IL* OR = 1.61; t =2.06; p < .03 Rural Hotspots. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2008, 19:153-163

  36. Lingerie Boutique: Sioux City, IA* *Do ‘off-site’ SOBs have secondary effects? Law and Policy, 2009, 31:217-235

  37. Industry Arguments

  38. Methodological Rigor “Government-sponsored studies find effects only because they are methodologically flawed.” All non-experimental studies are flawed; most flaws have benign effects; no single flaw explains the broad consensus finding of this literature. “Industry-sponsored studies satisfy the highest methodological standards; these ‘better’ studies find either no effect or, often, a salutary effect.” Industry-sponsored studies are designed to support industry arguments; but even then, these studies almost always find effects.

  39. Methodological Rigor “All ‘peer-reviewed’ secondary effect studies show that SOBs have either no effect or a salutary effect. False. No “peer-reviewed” secondary effect study shows anything other than an adverse effect. “‘Anecdotal’ evidence of secondary effects isn’t reliable.” False. A scientific theory has to explain all relevant facts, including ‘anecdotal’ facts. If a trained, experienced police officer observes criminal activity at an SOB site, the police officer’s report, though ‘anecdotal’ is strong evidence of secondary effects at the site.

  40. Generalizability “Studies conducted ______ years ago in ______ are irrelevant to SOBs in Detroit today.” The criminological theory of ambient crime risk is 200 years old and applies to every city and every time-frame. “Criminological theory says that a ______-type of SOB shouldn’t have secondary effects.” False. If the ______-type SOB draws “soft” targets to its site, it will attract predatory criminals to the neighborhood, generating a large, significant ambient crime risk

  41. Generalizability “But no study has ever proved that ____-type SOBs pose ambient crime risks.” Even if true, this argument is irrelevant. “To prove that SOBs in Detroit have secondary effects, you have to do a study in Detroit.” False. There is no reason to believe that the underlying hotspot mechanism works every except Detroit.

  42. Effect Size “Maybe SOBs do have secondary effects; but they’re no larger than the secondary effects of bread stores, gas stations, etc.” Criminological theory predicts that gas stations and bread stores will have secondary effects; but the patrons of gas stations and bread stores are not “soft” targets. “If the secondary effect isn’t statistically significant, that proves that there is no secondary effect.” False. Negativa non sunt probanda!

More Related