Crime-Related Secondary EffectsOf Sexually-Oriented Businesses

Detroit City CouncilNovember 10th, 2009

Richard McCleary, Ph.D.School of Social Ecology

University of California, Irvine

mccleary@uci.edu

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!