Crime-Related Secondary EffectsOf Sexually-Oriented Businesses
Detroit City CouncilNovember 10th, 2009
Richard McCleary, Ph.D.School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine
Education: B.S., WisconsinM.A., NorthwesternPh.D., Northwestern
Appointments: Professor, CriminologyProfessor, Environmental
Health ScienceProfessor, Planning
Associations: Am Stat Assoc, 1977Am Soc for Crim, 1977
Publications: 5 books75 articlesJASACriminology
Editorial Boards: J of Crim Law and CrimJ of Quant CrimJ of Res Crime and DelJustice QLaw and Policy QSoc PathBehav AssessEval Stud Rev AnnNew Dir Prog EvalRes Meth in Soc Rel
Criminology: U California IrvineU MichiganSUNY AlbanyArizona State UU Illinois
Statistics: U California, IrvineU MinnesotaU New MexicoU MichiganArizona State UFBI National Academy
Panels: NRC Comm on JusticeNRC Comm on Nat Stat
FBI BSSUU.S. Secret Serv Prot IntelU.S. Cens BurU.S. Bur Just StatsCal Youth AuthCal Dept Corr and Rehab
Consultant: U.S. Bur of Just StatsCen Dis Cont PrevNat Cent for Health StatsNat Inst Mental HealthNat Inst Child HealthNat LabsState, local gov’ts
Secondary Effects: ….
SOB Facts
SOBs pose large, significant ambient public safety hazards
“Victimless” crimes (prostitution, drugs, etc.)Predatory crimes (robbery, auto theft, etc.)Opportunistic crimes (vandalism, burglary, etc.)
The hazard applies to all SOB subclasses
Live entertainment“Off-premise” bookstores“On-premise” video Arcades
Crime risk rises after dark, peaks at “closing”Darkness favors the criminalPolicing is less effect in darkness
SOB Facts
Alcohol aggravates the riskLowered inhibitionClouded judgment
Crime risk can be mitigated by regulation
Distancing sensitive uses from the risk-pointTarget hardeningRemoving alcohol from the high-risk zoneLimiting operation during high-risk times“Broken windows” enforcement
The SOB-crime link is a scientific fact Predicted by strong theoryConfirmed empirically
SOB Facts
Time, Place, Manner …
Time … Hours of Operation
6 12 18 24 60
1
2
3
4
5
6 Crime risk rises after dark,Peaking shortly after barclosing time
Total ambient crime for29 Greensboro businesses
500 1000 1500 20000
1
2
3
4
5
Secondary Effectfor Robberies
Distance in feet from an SOB
29 Greensboro SOB Addresses
Place … Distance from Sensitive Uses
Manner … Architecture and Behavior
Architecture Lighting
Visibility
Line of sight
Raised stage
Booths/Rooms
Parking
Behavior No touch
Licensing
Historical Background
Historical Background
Boston’s “Combat Zone” Experiment (1955-65)
Keeps “vice” out of other neighborhoodsFocuses public safety resources
Detroit’s Decentralization Experiment (1970)
Public Hearings, Expert TestimonyYoung v. American Mini-Theatres, Inc. (1976)Code aims at “secondary effects”
LitterNoiseCrime
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986)
Renton, WA had no SOBs Renton, WA relied on secondary effects studies conducted in Seattle
Renton, WA passed a zoning code that prohibited SOBs in its downtown
Two downtown theaters converted to XXX
The Renton standard …
Regulation must aim at secondary effects but Government can use any secondary effects evidence
that it “reasonably believes” to be “reliable andrelevant to the problem.”
Historical Background
Criminological Theory
Theory of Secondary Effects
Primary Effects Theories
SOB activities corrupt “good” peopleSOB patrons are “bad” people
Secondary Effects Theories
SOBs attract patrons from wide catchment areas
SOB patrons are attractive, high-value targets
Disproportionately maleOpen to vice overtures
Carry cashReluctant to involve the police
Secondary Effects Theory
SOB patrons are “perfect” victims
Low risk to the offenderHigh pay-off to the offender
High density of high-value targets attracts …
Vice purveyors who dabble in crimePredators who use vice to lure/lull victims
Ambient victimization risk
“Victimless” crime (prostitution, drugs, etc.)Predatory crime (robbery, auto theft, etc.)Opportunistic crime (vandalism, burglary,
etc.)
Theory of Secondary Effects
Corollary 1: Alcohol aggravates ambient risk
Lowered inhibitionClouded judgment
Corollary 2: Darkness aggravates ambient risk
Darkness favors the predatorPolicing is less effectiveness in darknessResources are thin at “closing” time
Corollary 3: All SOBs are “hotspots”
Corollary 4: “Time, manner, place” regulations can mitigate ambient risk
Theory of Secondary Effects
Secondary Effects Evidence
Secondary Effects Evidence
Anecdotal Evidence
Public testimonyExpert opinionsPolice experience
Court Decisions/Findings of Fact
Court decisionsLegislative records
Official/Public Records
Crime incidents/Police callsPlanning documents
“Scientific/Empirical” Studies
Empirical Corroboration
Phoenix, 1979 Personal
Property
Sexual
139.8 %
113.7 %
580.2 %
Indianapolis, 1984 Major
Sexual
123.0 %
177.0 %
Austin, 1986 Part I UCR
Sexual
169.0 %
251.3%
Garden Grove, 1991a Personal
Property
Vice
214.4 %
149.5 %
103.9 %a Before/After
Times Square, 1994 Part I
Prostitution
181.9 %
200.0 %
Newport News, 1996 Total
911 Calls
188.0 %
244.2 %
San Diego, 2002 911 Calls 115.7 %
Centralia, 2003a Total 195.5 %
Montrose, 2005a Total 145.5 %
Sioux City, 2006a Total 215.0 %
a Before/After
Adult Cabarets
21 Jan 2009: “City Police investigating first murder of 2009after strip club shooting”
5 Feb 2009: “Exotic dancer set afire in Tarzana; twoattackers sought”
6 Feb 2009 - “Killa City: Police investigating double homicideoutside strip club”
28 Jun 2009 - “No arrests in strip-club shooting: one mandead, two wounded”
14 Apr 2009 - “City to look at closing strip club after killing”
Google “strip club homicide 2009”
17 Apr 2009 - “Two men shot, killed outside strip club”
19 May 2009 - “Cops probing Surrey strip club murder facemore mysteries”
31 May 2009 - “One dead, five seriously injured in shootingrampage at Springfield strip club”
1 Jun 2009 - “Mass. man pleads not guilty in strip clubshooting spree that killed one, hurt four”
30 Jun 2009 - “One man charged with murder in Aylmer stripclub shooting”
Google “strip club homicide 2009”
Adult Cabarets: Greensboro 911 Calls
Linz and Yao, 2003, Tables 14-19
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Pers Prop Sex Drug Other Disorder
Control Liquor Adult Cabarets
Adult Cabarets: Daytona Beach 911 Calls
Linz, Fisher, and Yao, 2004, Tables 7-19
050
100150200250300350400450
Pers Prop Sex Drug Other Total
Control Liquor Adult Cabarets
500 10000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 "Serious" Crimes per 1000 square feet
Distance in feet from an SOB or Control address
AdultCabarets(SOBs)
Non-AdultCabarets(Controls)
Adult Cabarets: Palm Beach County UCRs
Peep Shows
Peep Shows: Centralia, WA
Peep
Show
Control
Areas
City-
Wide
Before 10 23 3,358
After 17 19 3,243
After/Before 1.700 0.826 0.977
A bookstore with video viewing booths opens in Centralia. Total “serious” crime rises by 70 percent. Over the same period, total “serious” crime in other areas drops.
Peep Shows: San Diego, CA
Linz-Paul
McCleary-Meeker
Peep shows 1552.6 1552.6
Controls 1342.2 1342.2
Effect 1.157 1.157
Confidence 0.467 0.992
When the Linz-Paul effect estimate is corrected for the reliability of 911 calls, it becomes statistically significant.
“Take-Out” Book/Video Stores
Rural Hotspots. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2008, 19:153-163
Open Closed
Property Crimes
Personal Crimes
All Other Crimes
23
3
28
9.54
1.24
11.61
15
5
9
7.20
2.40
4.32
Total Crimes 54 22.39 29 13.92
OR = 1.61; t =2.06; p < .03
Adult Super Store: Montrose, IL*
Lingerie Boutique: Sioux City, IA*
*Do ‘off-site’ SOBs have secondary effects? Law and Policy, 2009, 31:217-235
Before After
All Crimes Dr. John’s
Control
17
44
7.8
20.3
41
46
22.4
25.1
Dr. John’s Control
Before After Before After
8 PM – 3:59 AM
4 AM – 7:59 PM
3
14
21
20
12
13
32
33
Industry Arguments
Methodological Rigor
“Government-sponsored studies find effects only because they are methodologically flawed.”
All non-experimental studies are flawed; most flaws have benign effects; no single flaw explains the broad consensus finding of this literature.
“Industry-sponsored studies satisfy the highest methodological standards; these ‘better’ studies find either no effect or, often, a salutary effect.”
Industry-sponsored studies are designed to support industry arguments; but even then, these studies almost always find effects.
Methodological Rigor
“All ‘peer-reviewed’ secondary effect studies show that SOBs have either no effect or a salutary effect.
False. No “peer-reviewed” secondary effect study shows anything other than an adverse effect.
“‘Anecdotal’ evidence of secondary effects isn’t reliable.”
False. A scientific theory has to explain all relevant facts, including ‘anecdotal’ facts. If a trained, experienced police officer observes criminal activity at an SOB site, the police officer’s report, though ‘anecdotal’ is strong evidence of secondary effects at the site.
Generalizability
“Studies conducted ______ years ago in ______ are irrelevant to SOBs in Detroit today.”
The criminological theory of ambient crime risk is 200 years old and applies to every city and every time-frame.
“Criminological theory says that a ______-type of SOB shouldn’t have secondary effects.”
False. If the ______-type SOB draws “soft” targets to its site, it will attract predatory criminals to the neighborhood, generating a large, significant ambient crime risk
Generalizability
“But no study has ever proved that ____-type SOBs pose ambient crime risks.”
Even if true, this argument is irrelevant.
“To prove that SOBs in Detroit have secondary effects, you have to do a study in Detroit.”
False. There is no reason to believe that the underlying hotspot mechanism works every except Detroit.
Effect Size
“Maybe SOBs do have secondary effects; but they’re no larger than the secondary effects of bread stores, gas stations, etc.”
Criminological theory predicts that gas stations and bread stores will have secondary effects; but the patrons of gas stations and bread stores are not “soft” targets.
“If the secondary effect isn’t statistically significant, that proves that there is no secondary effect.”
False. Negativa non sunt probanda!