Our regular contributor Una Riley in our November 2001 print edition spoke to the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science’s first Director, Professor Gloria Laycock.
I had the pleasure to discuss the Jill Dando Institute of Crime with the first Director of the Institute Professor Gloria Laycock. She is one of the world’s most highly respected experts in the reduction of crime. She has worked for the Home Office for more than 30 years of which almost 20 has been spent on research and development in the policing and crime prevention fields. Having established and headed the Home Office Police Research Group and edited its publications on policing and crime prevention for seven years she went on to act as consultant on policing and crime prevention in North America, Australia, Israel, South Africa and Europe. More recently she was awarded an International Visiting Fellowship by the United States Department of Justice based in Washington DC. Finally after a four-month consultancy at the Australian Institute of Criminology in Canberra she returned to become JDI Director at University College London. How and why was the Jill Dando Institute set up’ ‘Well, very simply Nick Ross [Jill Dando’s colleague from the BBC 1 series Crimewatch] and Alan Farthing [Jill’s fiancโe] wanted something to remember her by. They didn’t want a statue or a garden or what have you. They wanted something dynamic that would make a difference. Nick Ross felt strongly that a crime science institute would fit the bill because he thought there was a big gap and that we were locked into ‘blame culture’ for example. We need to think a lot more about prevention. Crime science is single mindedly about reducing crime. In that sense it is new and they thought that it would be a great tribute to Jill if the institute was established in her name.’ Exactly what does crime science mean to the layman’ ‘First of all it is a subject that is single-minded about reducing crime. It is not really interested in anything else. It takes two approaches: one is to prevent crime from happening in the first place, and the other is to increase capture rates. We realise that in order to do both those things we have to prevent crime and reduce the opportunity for crime. In order to accomplish our aims we have to involve other disciplines, for example the designers of goods and services. We also have to involve scientists to help the police catch people more quickly, more effectively and we need computer scientists to analyse data more sensibly and so on. More fundamentally we have to get away from the idea that you can control crime in the usual ways that we talk about, like putting a few more bobbies on the beat, longer sentences or what have you ‘ because those haven’t worked.’ She went on to discuss other issues such as designing out crime and target hardening although it was agreed that these areas are synergistic. Gloria stated: ‘I don’t want crime science to be seen just as target hardening although target hardening will be part of it.’ What about offender profiling’ ‘There is a pile of evidence to suggest that people tend to offend near their home and that applies to burglary and car theft, whilst it also applies to homicide. Therefore the profile is not about a person, it is about a lifestyle. For example if you are trying to identify a serial murderer or rapist operating, there are lots of scientifically based techniques that may help you bring that person in. It is not just about him or her having blue eyes or being a loner, it is about living in a particular area. They might perhaps live here, work there or travel on the underground or be a lorry driver, which has happened in one or two circumstances. It is their lifestyles as much as the profile of the individual. However, the answer to your question, would crime science be interested in offender profiling ‘ yes it would.’ Would the cacophony of disciplines including geography, design, chemistry, engineering, computer science, psychology and epidemiology, along with criminology would not only provide best practice but also a one-stop shop for investigators to dip into’ ‘It is a one-stop shop for crime reduction techniques and that means understanding how crime prevention and detection works. For example instead of having to go to a forensic archaeologist to help you to determine the age of a body and then having to go over to the geography department to help you work out where an offender may live, etc. All these scopes would be part of crime science.’ How would this crime science manifest itself by way of implementation’ Professor Laycock turned to the manufacturers of radios, TVs, vehicles and mobile phones. ‘They have to realise that at this time they are helping to increase the crime rate and they could significantly help to reduce it. Mobile phones are driving street robberies at the moment. It is not the police we have to talk to it is the mobile phone manufacturers.’ What is she doing about that’ ‘We are somewhat limited as the Institute right now consists of me, a seconded police officer from the West Midlands [DCI Richard Leary] and a lecturer that just started. It is a tiny organisation; I have a PA and that is it. We have a grand plan. We are absolutely convinced that crime science is the way to control crime. The appliance of science at the point of delivery in every respect. Which brings us back to the mobile phone. The manufacturer has to take responsibility for thinking through the safety of their customer. Let me give you an example: the vehicle industry was in the same situation some time ago. Cars were badly designed and kept being stolen. When I worked for the Home Office we published the Car Theft Index that ranked car manufacturers by make against a risk of loss.’ Why they don’t do the same exercise for the mobile phone industry’ Gloria explained that Jack Straw when Home Secretary and Nick Ross have been in talks with various mobile phone organisations but had been advised that the technology was not available. ‘Also if you ask the mobile phone manufacturers, they will tell you that people will buy the cheapest and in order to have something that is crime proof how much will people pay ‘ the answer is not a lot.’ (I have to commiserate due to the fact that in our industry we are aware that security is often regarded as a grudge purchase.) Gloria stressed: ‘All it needs is for one of the manufacturers to break ranks and things will change. It is also important for the media to help in getting our message across.’ What could the security industry do to assist. ‘What would be great is if people could understand the potential of crime science. It really, really could provide a tipping point in crime. It would also be fantastic if any companies wanted to fund some research fellows or anything like that. We do not have the resources to go on and deliver, as we would wish. I think that we could also help a lot with the training of the private security industry regarding the wider crime context.’ I suggested that Gloria get in touch with Raymond Clarke of SITO to explore options. The thought of two such dynamic individuals being involved in a new genre of training would be quite a prospect. As an industry there are many other areas where we can benefit from crime science and at the same time support the Jill Dando Institute. I can think of no more fitting tribute to a wonderful young woman whose loss touched our nation.<br>
– You can ring Professor Gloria Laycock on 0207 679 4781, e-mail.
