JNL said:Another thing that you might want to think about is that problems (e.g. crime) may occur when certain types of land use that are adjacent may create opportunities for crime. But common sense tells us that, which is why you won't see too many schools next to pubs.
Hope this helps
Doitnow!! said:This way overall the small town was in a total mess.
This was a typical socio-economic problem I saw which existed but couldn't figure out whether the liqour was the problem or it was a vent for the frustrated workers.
There wasn't any visible crime( apart from petty thefts) but the overall impact on the society was tremendously negative.
Gedunker said:I think a generally accepted principal is that you are more likely to be a victim of a crime committed by someone you know than someone you do not know. Spousal abuse, child abuse, and so forth. In a dense residential neighborhood then, it would seem that there would be more statistical likelihood of being a victim of crime than in a sparsely settled area. Just my $0.02.
And about RT.13 in Delaware, are you so sure the creation of a "low class" has any affect on the crime rate? I mean the conditions of the area itself sounds like it would cause problems with communities of any income brackets, liquor and gunshops in close proximity. Also, I'd assume because it's a trailor park that lives on the highway, it's relatively far from normal city services.
Yes. As I said earlier in this thread, the book 'The Tipping Point' has case studies of exactly that.paulster said:Is there a way drastically to reverse crime reverse in a specific zone or area?
Although you basically have the right idea, I would note that "criminals" are human beings first. You cannot eradicate crime if you have already decided "They" are "criminals". "They" cannot stop being criminals until they and others see themselves first and foremost as human beings. When human beings are given the choice and the means to exercise self-control, they choose it surprisingly often. And teaching law and morality is not really the means to get there. Law and morality are still about external forces controlling people. As long as your mindset revolves around cramming the rules down the throats of "THOSE people" (the ones you think are dangerous, "bad", etc -- as if other people do not have the same potential for doing harm) you can count on a lack of cooperation. You might find the book "Riches for The Poor" enlightening on this very topic. In short, when you treat people with respect and give them personal power, they stop being...poor, criminals, outcasts, ______ (fill in the blank).Force is only the last resort. Crime prevention in criminals should be targeted first at personal transformation and self control, then social control by society, and if that fails, then we should use physical force. If men control themselves, we do not need jails and prisons.
Why not start by teaching law and morality in the schools so that we do not have to teach it in the prisons?
Doitnow!! said:What can be immensely useful is Mapping of crimes by:
-Location of crime
-Type of crime
-Time of crime
LauraBee said:What do you think about crime rates and land use relationship? Do you think there is more crime in dense and urbanized sites or it does not matter? I am doing a research on this topic. Thank you for your time.