This specific crime prevention strategy consists of dissuading potential criminal offenders, with regard to specific targets. The basis of this strategy is that denial of access to a target prevents crime. Examples of this tactic are security guards and home security systems. A would be offender, on encountering these systems, would hopefully perceive that the risk of apprehension would far outweigh any potential benefit. However, this strategy could result in a displacement of crime (Siegel & Welsh 79).
These measures endeavor to familiarize delinquents with the dire consequences that await criminal behavior. The rational criminal will be significantly deterred by the fear of punishment, and the realization that criminal activity could prove to be a costly affair. These strategies entail, aggressive policing, and compulsory sentencing. The difficulties envisaged by this group of strategies are that the offender may not fear punishment and the fact that the risk of being apprehended and punished is not very great (Siegel & Welsh 79).
This strategy involves the adoption of draconian measures. For instance, an offender will be punished with great severity; and this will be of such harshness that these criminals would not recidivate. This entails incarceration in detention centers or maximum security prisons. This strategy was on occasion, seen to increase rather than decrease future delinquency (Siegel & Welsh 79).
Another strategy to reduce crime, especially among the criminals who invariably recidivate, is to ensure that they do not obtain an opportunity to engage in crime. It can be achieved by imposing prison sentences that run for very long periods; and by incarcerating a much larger number of criminals. The difficulty involved with this strategy is that even non – dangerous offenders will be imprisoned for very long periods;