Special Issue: Crime and Control in the Digital Era

Special Issue: Crime and Control in the Digital Era

Vania Ceccato ¹

Abstract

In the digital age, “eyes” are complemented by technologies such as smartphones, “apps,” or body worn cameras, giving expression to new ways of depicting what happens in public space. This special issue (SI) brings together five articles that characterize the nature of control, surveillance, and guar- dianship in the context of today’s technological advancements. The articles help inform criminology by reporting on examples and impacts of technologies as well as by providing a better understanding of how the massive use of these technologies and new practices might be just redefining public space.

Keywords

law enforcement/security, crime prevention, police processes

Aim and Objectives

This special issue (SI) aims at advancing interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding of the nature of control in the digital age and the potential effects of new technologies on both crime and crime prevention. This aim is achieved by:

 advancing our understanding of the nature of control, surveillance, and guardianship. Com- pared to the time-honored “eyes on the street,” today’s technological exercise of social control utilizes a number of other senses as well as sight, such as touch and sound, captured by photo, live streaming, and text—fast disseminated via social media—through the use of personal smartphones, apps, and body worn cameras (BWCs).

 demonstrating how the body of criminological theories applies to today’s exercises of control and guardianship that are redefined by rapid technological developments. Issues of individual integrity and accountability, lack of context, and commodification of security are relevant here.

 exemplifying how these technologies have become an integral part of social control, guar- dianship, and policing. Also, by investigating how these technologies impact the ways police work and by providing a nuanced understanding of the use of public space in relation to citizens’ rights.

1

Department of Urban Planning and Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 100 44, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Vania Ceccato, Department of Urban Planning and Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 10 A, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.

Email: vania.ceccato@abe.kth.se

Criminal Justice Review 1-6

ª 2019 Georgia State University Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016818818688

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

The Scope and Relevance

In this SI, the word “control” is designedly defined in a broad way; capturing the processes of individual monitoring (control from above), natural surveillance (mutual control), sousveillance (control from below), as acts of intervention for the purposes of crime prevention and control (Figure 1). The term sousveillance, coined by Mann (2004, p. 620), refers “both to hierarchical sousveillance, for example, citizens photographing police, shoppers photographing shopkeepers, as well as personal sousveillance, bringing devices down to eye level, for human-centered record- ing of personal experience.” This SI is therefore of relevance for current criminological research for the following reasons.

First, because control is key to understanding crime occurrence. As rapid technological devel- opments affect the types of and opportunities for control, current criminological theories are put to the test. For example, the traditional exercises of social control are being reevaluated since the accepted roles of offenders, victims, managers, guardians, and crime controllers are being recon- ceptualized. What is also new is that technological development (and Internet in particular) means that more and more individuals can participate in real time in this process (in front of or behind the sensor), imposing new frameworks for information gathering and diffusion. Second, the age of digital surveillance imposes a number of new empirical, methodological, and ethical challenges, which are well illustrated by articles in this SI. Third, while contributions to this SI are characterized by high-quality research by international renowned experts in this area, the SI adds a multidisci- plinary perspective to the topic that is crucial for a better understanding of phenomena that are at the border of criminology, policing, engineering, and urban planning. Furthermore, it includes both theoretical and empirical articles from a range of countries and is therefore highly relevant to both academics and practitioners around the world.

The Contribution

The notion of control has long been present in environmental criminology. We argue here that environmental criminology theories are still linked to the notion of surveillance and not on sous- veillance and on information diffusion in real time. The challenge ahead is to assess how these fit in with the current theories. We indicate briefly below some of the important theories in environmental criminology that are affected by old and new types of exercises of control.

Figure 1. Closed-circuit television, eyes, and apps on the streets: Centralized surveillance, natural surveillance

to crime sousveillance.

Social disorganization theory, for instance, suggests that crime breeds in areas characterized by poor social control. Similarly, in collective efficacy theory (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), control is expressed by individuals’ readiness to act upon a common good. According to this theory, social control is what allows community residents to create a safe and orderly environment. Some would relate the individual’s capacity to exercise social control with the quality of the urban environment, in particular how it is designed and maintained. For example, environments that promote natural surveillance (Figure 1) make it easier to prevent crime (Newman, 1972). Natural surveillance is one of the principles of crime prevention through environment design, a place-based set of strategies for reducing crime and improving perceived safety (e.g., Cozens, 2002; Iqbal &

Ceccato, 2016; Jeffery, 1977).

The notion of control can also be found in both routine activity approach (Cohen & Felson, 1979)—in which guardianship is a key concept—and in situational crime prevention theory (Clarke, 1983)—which is about identifying ways to make criminal opportunities more difficult and less attractive to potential offenders. Yet, the absence of guardians and making targets less attractive to potential offenders are not sufficient conditions to explain why individuals choose to commit crime. Situation action theory (Wikstro¨m, 2006) offers a process-based explanation of offending, in which the notion of control is present. However, the theory does not illustrate how this process takes shape when sousveillance is the trigger mechanism that leads the individual to choose not to commit the crime.

The age of digital surveillance imposes a number of new empirical, methodological, and ethical challenges as illustrated in this SI. The first set of challenges relates to the ways we capture and interpret “reality.” An incident that happens on the street is still local (attached to a physical place) but can now be seen by far-away eyes as soon it is shared over the Internet, perhaps in real time.

When information about an event is available online, information sharing and provision of mutual support may even help resolving the problem. However, a random scene posted on YouTube can be misinterpreted, as “a crime” for instance, generating a cascade of behaviors, including harassment and threats against those involved (see, e.g., Malle´n, 2016.).

The second set of challenges refers to the nature of data and data sharing. Methods to store and analyze these complex volumes of data are being developed. Nowadays, technology offers countless opportunities to understand human activities and monitor them over time, explore human interaction with the local environment and improve safety. For the first time, it is possible to capture snapshots of events in tiny slices of time through for example, social media. In this SI, we offer examples of state-of-the-art research in this area, using these new types of data and advanced methodologies to improve policing as well as to capture the way citizens take to the streets and interact with law enforcement agents. Issues of individual integrity and accountability as well as commodification of security and information diffusion are also important issues that must be considered as current and future research frontiers.

This special issue is therefore a contribution to the rapidly expanding research field on crime and control in the digital age. For example, recent books by Schneider and Altheide (2016) and Taylor and Rooney (2016) as well as articles by Ariel et al. (2016), Cerezo (2013), Reynald (2010), Reynald

& Elffers (2009) are advancing the state of the art. Surveillance & Society also presented a double issue on “Surveillance and the Global Turn to Authoritarianism” (Wood, 2017) with 31 shorter pieces covering 25 countries.

This interdisciplinary SI includes both qualitative and quantitative empirical research from

around the world, as well as innovative theoretical papers. It brings together international scholars

from different disciplines and countries to discuss the nature of social control in the digital age and

the potential effects of these new technologies have on crime and crime prevention. The contribu-

tions are characterized by high-quality research produced by five renowned experts from case

studies from Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the United States. The articles also look forward and

discuss future research agendas and policy recommendations that arise from this international and multidisciplinary take on crime and control in the digital age. Thus, we believe that a special issue like this one appeals to a wider scientific community beyond criminology and sociology, such as media and communications, law, anthropology, geography and urban planning. Furthermore, although the SI is directed to an academic audience, it can also inform government agency representatives, policy makers, and those involved in policing.

The Articles

The first article of this SI is by Reynald who looks back at her long experience in the field to predict and reflect upon the potential to extend guardianship using new digital crime prevention appli- cations (apps) that have been developed as a result of technological advancements in information communication technology and social engagement. This theoretical piece also highlights concerns and risks that need to be considered amid the proliferation of these new technologies for crime control. This article is followed by two pieces of a more empirical nature that focus on the use of apps to call for emergency services and to report crime. They both critically discuss the implica- tions of these civic technologies for social engagement and exercise of social control. The first of the two articles, by Ceccato, draws from a case study in Sweden to reflect upon the nature of the data from an app and assess the pros and cons of these new ways of exercising social control, while the second, by Solymosi, explores spatial patterns in active guardianship of public space through mapping people’s participation in a platform for reporting neighborhood concerns—a form of digitally enabled guardianship.

By bringing devices down to eye-level, the studies by Wood and Groff and Ariel explore the use of BWCs as a crime control measure. Wood and Groff found in their pilot study in Philadelphia that BWCs could provide a tool for police officers to emphasize their role as guardians. The SI ends with the study by Ariel and colleagues who also found encouraging evidence of the effect of use of BWCs on violence against staff members in transit environments (train operating compa- nies) in the UK.

Thanks to all authors who submitted interesting articles to this SI. Also, on behalf of all involved with this SI, I wish to acknowledge the guidance and the support of the editor-in-chief, Professor Leah E. Daigle, at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University, and the voluntary contribution from anonymous referees, for their constructive comments that greatly improved the articles. Finally, I would like to thank colleagues, students, and friends from my own Department of Urban Planning and Environment, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, in particular Lisandra Vazquez for her support with article formatting. I am pleased to share with you the knowledge gathered in these five articles.

Enjoy!

Acknowledgments

This special issue was born at the 2017 autumn seminar, “Eyes & apps on the streets: From

natural surveillance to crime sousveillance”; a gathering that brought together scholars and

practitioners to discuss the issues of crime and crime prevention in the digital era. Nearly all

the authors of this special issue were present at that seminar, which took place at the School of

Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm,

Sweden, and which was organized by the Safeplaces network (https://www.sakraplatser.a-

be.kth.se/en/), sponsored by The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsfo¨re-

byggande ra˚det—BRA ˚ ). There is no doubt that the seminar was fundamental, both to stress the

need for more research in this field, and to make the current research findings and reflections

available to a wider audience.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., & Sykes, J., . . . Henderson, R. (2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 744–755. doi:10.1177/

1477370816643734

Cerezo, A. (2013). CCTV and crime displacement: A quasi-experimental evaluation. European Journal of Criminology, 10, 222–236. doi:10.1177/1477370812468379

Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Cozens, P. M. (2002). Sustainable urban development and crime prevention through environmental design for the British city. Towards an effective urban environmentalism for the 21st Century. Cities, 19, 129–137. doi:

10.1016/S0264-2751(02)00008-2

Iqbal, A., & Ceccato, V. (2016). Is CPTED useful to guide the inventory of safety in parks? A study case in Stockholm, Sweden. International Criminal Justice Review, 26, 150–168. doi:10.1177/1057567716639353 Jeffery, C. R. (1977). Crime prevention through environmental design. (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Malle´n, A. (2016). Stirring up virtual punishment: A case of citizen journalism, authenticity and shaming.

Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 17, 3–18. doi:10.1080/14043858.

2016.1157940

Mann, S. C. (2004). New York 1016 October, ACM Press, 620-627. Sousveillance: Inverse surveillance in multimedia imaging. Paper presented at the International multimedia conference: proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, New York. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://

idtrail.org/content/view/135/42/

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space—Crime prevention through urban design. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Reynald, D. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 358–390. doi:10.1177/0022427810365904

Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s defensible space theory: Linking defensible space and the routine activities of place. European Journal of Criminology, 6, 25–46. doi:10.1177/

1477370808098103

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.918

Schneider, C. J., & Altheide, D. A. (2016). Policing and social media: Social control in an era of new media.

Lanham, MD: Lexington books.

Taylor, E. & Rooney, T. (Eds.). (2016). Surveillance futures: Social and ethical implications of new technol- ogies for children and young people. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Wikstro¨m, P. O. (2006). Individuals, settings and acts of crime: Situational mechanisms and the explanation of

crime. In P. O. W. R. J. Sampson (Ed.), Individuals, settings and acts of crime: Situational mechanisms and

the explanation of crime (pp. 61–107). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, D. M. (2017). Surveillance and the global turn to authoritarianism—Special issue. Surveillance and society, 15, 357–370.

Author biography

Vania Ceccato is a professor at the Department of Urban Planning and Environment, School of Architecture

and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Ceccato’s research is on

the situational conditions of crime and crime prevention in urban and rural environments. She is interested in

the relationship between the built environment and crime and perceived safety, in particular, the space-time

dynamics of crime and people’s routine activity. Gendered safety and the intersectionality of victimization are

essential components in her research. Main research areas are transit safety, crime geography, housing and

community safety, rural crime, retail crime. She has published several books and articles in journals of

Criminology, Geography and Urban Planning.