|
McCleary/Rural Hotspots 161
<br /> attracts offenders.The spatiotemporal conjunction of targets and offenders generates
<br /> ambient victimization risk—a hotspot of predatory crime. This theoretical mechanism
<br /> operates identically in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Moreover, because rural
<br /> areas ordinarily have lower levels of visible police presence, rural hotspots may be
<br /> riskier than their suburban and urban counterparts.
<br /> The Tenth Circuit may not have found the Montrose results useful.Every case study
<br /> is unique in some respect, after all; and although the U.S. Census Bureau considers
<br /> both Effingham County,Illinois and Dickinson County, Kansas to be"rural,"the Tenth
<br /> Circuit may have focused on idiosyncratic,legally relevant factors.Nevertheless,the case
<br /> study results demonstrate that, whether urban, suburban,or rural,hotspots are hotspots.
<br /> In urban, suburban, and rural areas, adult businesses attract patrons who are dispro-
<br /> portionately male, open to vice overtures, and reluctant to report victimizations to
<br /> the police.This attracts offenders to the site with predictable consequences for ambi-
<br /> ent crime risk. In theory, of course, because of the relative scarcity of police in rural
<br /> areas, offenders may find rural hotspots more attractive. Otherwise, the routine activity
<br /> theory of hotspots generalizes to any site that is attractive to potential victims, or
<br /> targets, and accessible to offenders.
<br /> Solving the problem of rural hotspots by allocating more police resources to rural
<br /> areas is politically unfeasible. Governments allocate public safety resources across
<br /> regions on utilitarian grounds. Per capita allocations have the greatest impact on per
<br /> ca p ita crime rates.This poses an obstacle to rural problem-oriented policing (Weisheit
<br /> et al., 1999), of course, but it is a rational policy for a government. Because the tar-
<br /> gets attracted to a rural hotspot live outside the jurisdiction, and because victimiza-
<br /> tions are underreported, ignoring the hotspot is a more realistic strategy.
<br /> The future is unclear. The relocation of adult businesses to rural areas parallels
<br /> the postwar "flight" of inner-cities families. From the perspective of adult business
<br /> proprietors, the urban environment has become hostile. Zoning codes force adult
<br /> businesses into "ghettos" where their operations are strictly regulated and where
<br /> competition with other adult businesses is fierce. Rural areas have few regulations,
<br /> on the other hand, and little competition; access to interstate highway traffic is a
<br /> bonus.As urban environments become more hostile,more adult businesses will relocate
<br /> to rural areas, forcing state and county governments into policy decisions. The case
<br /> study reported here can, hopefully, inform that debate.
<br /> References
<br /> Andrew,C.J.(2002).The secondary effects doctrine:The historical development,current application,and
<br /> potential mischaracterization of an elusive judicial precedent.Rutgers Law Review, 54, 1175.
<br /> Bennett,T.,&Wright,R.(1984).Burglars on burglary:Prevention and the offender. London: Gower.
<br /> Blandy,S.,Lister,D.,Atkinson,R.,&Flint,J.(2003).Gated communities:A systematic review of the research
<br /> evidence.CNR Paper No. 12.Bristol,UK and Glasgow,UK:Economic and Social Research Council.
<br /> Brantingham,P.L.,&Brantingham,P.J. (1981).Notes on the geometry of crime.In P.L.Brantingham
<br /> &P.J.Brantingham(Eds.),Environmental criminology(pp.27-54).Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
<br /> Downloaded from http:/k p.sagepuhpy�gl*Ilyllp�LIFORNIA IRVINE on May 25,2008
<br /> ©2008 SAGE Publications.All rights race mereial use or unauthorized distribution.
<br />
|