Neighborhood Watch

The theory of Opportunity-Reduction supports Neighborhood Watch program. This theory assumes that the initiative of potential crime victims or the citizens could help reducing the risk of criminals’ attack (Kilpatrick, 2004). The Opportunity-Reduction model involves four categories such as (1) increasing perceived effort, (2) increasing perceived risks, (3) reducing anticipated rewards, and (4) inducing guilt or shame (or removing excuses, Clarke, 1997) (Clarke and Homel, 1997). The last category which is inducing guilt or shame was eventually omitted in the work of Wortley (2002) since the strategies under this category do not involve the reduction of criminal’s opportunity to attack but rather it encourages and gives the offender more chances of doing illegal actions (Wortley, 1997, 1998). Instead of inducing guilt or shame, Wortley replaces it with precipitation-control. Accordingly, this can be more effective in reducing permissibility for potential offenders or criminals. Wortley (2002) also adds another category which is increasing anticipated punishments which is based on the learning theory that views anticipated rewards can reduce crimes. This is an effective mean of overcoming crime problems and it is also applicable in real prison management (Severson, 2004). Opportunity-Reduction approach also supports Neighborhood Watch programs through crime prevention and self-defense training courses available for community police and citizens as well as focusing on quality of life by citizen participation   (Kilpatrick, 2004; Whittemore, 1989; Baker, Wolfer, & Zezza, 1999). The Canterchase residents should be able to create partnerships, support and collaborate with each other. They need to communicate effectively by reporting or sharing information, use security or warning devices, use detectors or watchdogs. They must also apply problem-oriented policing in order to discuss the nature of problems, assign citizens in taking their responsibilities on crime reduction and solving crime-related problems. Techniques like the SARA or scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (Baker, Wolfer, & Zezza, 1999; Wolfer, Zezza, 2001) are useful in community policing and crime prevention. References Baker, T. E., Wolfer, L., & Zezza, R. (1999) â€Å"Problem-Solving Policing Eliminating Hot Spots.† The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 68(11). Clarke, R. V. (ed.) (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston. Kilpatrick, D. G. (2004) Interpersonal Violence and Public Policy: What about the Victims?. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32(1), 73+. Whittemore, L. S. (1989) Appendix C the Success of Community Crime Prevention. Canadian Journal of Criminology 31(4), 489. Wortley, R. (1997) Reconsidering the role of opportunity in situational crime prevention. In G. Newman, R. V. Clarke and S. G. Shohan (eds.), Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, pp. 65–82. Wortley, R. (1998) A two-stage model of situational crime prevention. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 7, pp. 173–88. Wortley, R. (2002) Situational Prison Control: Crime Prevention in Correctional Institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.