A detailed discussion of the situational approach to crime prevention, presented further on, shifts accents from social context of crime prevention to a more subjective nature of crime. Prior social context was considered by the crime prevention theorists as a determinant one; starting from 80s more subjective and situational aspects were considered (Lawrence, 2000). Moreover, there is made an attempt to find similarities and differences between these two approaches, to evaluate their efficiency in modern practices of crime prevention.
Chicago School is a famous developer of social approach to crime prevention. The main suggestion of Chicago School is that crime is always caused by social force (Melville, Morgan, Norris and Walkington, 2006, p. 70). The primary goal of this theory was to develop welfare in the society through the expansion of welfare states, where no triggers of crime existed (Garland and Sparks, 2000, p. 195). Chicago School has made a significant contribution to crime prevention practices. Social theoretical approach applied by this school, made this study an outstanding laboratory for sociological research in the context of social relationships and influence caused by urbanism.
Chicago School made an emphasis on the contextual considerations of crime. In terms of socio-cultural context crime can appear and can be prevented as well. Park and Burgess are sociologists who worked out basic claims of social crime prevention. Their main idea is a concurrent existence of five concentric zones in the process of cities’ development (The Chicago School I). The most risky zone is the “zone in transition” (Garland and Sparks, 2000, p. 189). Another claim of these sociologists can’t be discussed without arguing. Chicago School sociologists underline that well-being of the society is determined by their living conditions. In other