Fear of Crime As a Normalisation of Risks: The Czech Experience - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Fear of Crime As a Normalisation of Risks: The Czech Experience PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1523ce-NmZmZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Fear of Crime As a Normalisation of Risks: The Czech Experience

Description:

... adaptation of people to the increase of crime rates after 1989 ... Crime Rates in the CR Police statistics. Crime rates in thousands registered / explained ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:79
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: Jir123
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Fear of Crime As a Normalisation of Risks: The Czech Experience


1
Fear of Crime As a Normalisation of Risks
The Czech Experience
  • Jirí Buriánek
  • Charles University Prague
  • jiri.burianek_at_ff.cuni.cz

2
The Aim
  • To outline recent development in the security
    risks perception by the Czech public
  • To analyse the processes of the continuing fear
    reduction
  • To inspect and to examine so called paradox of
    fear and the role of victimization and of
    locality

3
Risk Normalisation (?)
  • Key concept of the Risk Normalisation includes
    both
  • the patient adaptation of people to the increase
    of crime rates after 1989
  • the differentiation of attitudes according to the
    local aspects (representing by city size),
  • The Problem the patience or the potential of
    adaptation is limited!
  • What is prevailing PARADOXES or REALISM?

4
The Frames of Reference
  • K. Sessars thesis on generalisation of risks,
    the role of social deprivation (in the social
    transition)
  • K. Boerss view stressing the role of the
    individual copying and of the social environment
    (community, locality, vulnerability)
  • See his interakcionist model presented at
    Strasbourg 2003 EC conference

5
Theoretical Background
  • No intention to enlarge the debate about fear of
    crime measurement troubles
  • We used
  • standard questions (How do you feel evenings)
  • concrete items battery (fear, probability)
  • experience items (How often did you feel really
    unsafe )

Experience R. exposition BEHAVIORAL
Risk probability COGNITIVE EVALUATION
Attitude Feeling EMOTIONAL
6
Data
  • Surveys Security risks carried out from 1999,
    F2F interviewing
  • Samples from 1999 to 2003 about 1400 respondents
    from 15, quota sampling
  • Survey Actor 2006 the same methodology, N
    1939
  • Security Risks 2007, N 1390.

7
Crime as the Problem No.1
8
Crime Rates in the CR Police statistics
Crime rates in thousands registered / explained
9
Personal Victim Experience
  • 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005
  • Prevalence 19 24 25 23 26 23
  • Victims reported the act
  • 2000 2002 2003 2006
  • 1. Yes, to the Police 53 56 56 52
  • 2. Yes, to the other organization 2 3 2 3
  • 3. No, only to the closest relatives
    24 17 17 16
  • 4. No, not at all 20 25 26 29

10
Feeling of Safety (evenings, outside home)
11
Local Differencies in the Fear of Crime/Feeling
Safe
12
Local Trends Differs
Up to 2 t. Up to 10 Up to 50 Up to 100
100 Prague
13
Validity of the Fear Measure
How often did you feel during last year the real
fear of crime ?
Gamma 0,66
14
Realism of Fear
  • Fear correlates with the risk exposition
    perception (experience)
  • Both Fear and Risk exposition correlate with
    victimization
  • Fear corresponds to the local conditions

15
Regression Analysis for the Fear Experience
16
Most Frequent Fears
  • 2002 2003 2006
  • Thefts 6,35 6,6 6,47
  • Burglary 6,29 6,3 6,05
  • Traffic accidents 6,07 6,1 -
  • Car theft 5,95 5,9 5,81
  • Fraud 5,71 5,6 5,1

Adequate evaluation, stabilisation
Means, scale 1 10
17
Probability of Criminal Acts (- Selected)
Estimation
  • 2001 2002 2003 2006
  • Car theft
  • 5,42 5,43 5,64 5,52
  • Burglary
  • 5,5 5,44 5,66 5,48
  • Robbery
  • 3,96 3,95 4,17 4,32
  • Violent attack
  • 3,71 3,60 3,69 3,84
  • Rape
  • 2,62 2,72 2,82 2,83

Means, scale 1 10
18
Status and Fear (Probability)
Means, scale 1 10
19
Trust in Institutions
20
Satisfaction with the Police
  • 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2006
  • Very satisfied 1 1 2 1 1 1
  • Rather sat. 24 22 23 27 28 23
  • It depends 53 51 54 51 49 48
  • Rather dissat. 19 22
    18 18 17 22
  • Very dissatisf. 3 5 4 3 5 5

2007
21
Conclusion
  • Perception of risks is not paradoxical, public
    opinion is realistic, fear tends to be
    differentiated
  • Even stronger influence of the local conditions
    /remember the concept of disorganisation/ should
    be supposed
  • The Czech society was during the transition
    patient, highly adaptive (general social
    expectations at work ?)
  • The trust in institution is stabilised now
  • The feeling of safety is still slightly
    increasing
  • only the Prague inhabitants are up to date!

22
(No Transcript)
About PowerShow.com