家庭安全措施的有效性外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯

1、畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)外文翻譯外文題目: the efficacy of home security measures譯文題目：家庭安全措施的有效性文獻(xiàn)出處：. american journal of criminal justicc ，2012,24(2):155-167外文作者： timothy c. o' shea字?jǐn)?shù)統(tǒng)計(jì)：英文1287單詞，7405字符；中文2849漢字外文文獻(xiàn):the efficacy of home security measuresintroductionthe dominant view of crime prevention underwent profou

2、nd change in the 1970s, led by researchers who proposed a dramatically different theoretical and empirical agenda. while current crime prevention theory is diverse and difficult to categorize, this paper concentrates on methods commonly referred to as ncrime prevention through environmental design11

3、 (cpted). cpted rests on the idea that criminal opportunity results from the interplay between target, risk, effort, and payoff (feins, epstein, & widom, 1997; jeffrey, 1971; kaplan, o'kane, lavrakas, & pesce, 197& robinson, 1999). this perspective casts the situational aspects of th

4、e criminal incident as the appropriate unit of analysis instead of riveting attention upon the offender.the appeal of this paradigm lies mainly in its adoption of simplifying assumptions which neatly explain the decision calculus offenders use, thus permitting researchers to hold that troublesome va

5、riable constant (weisburd, 1997). cpted allows investigators to concentrate on elements of the criminal incident considered to be more predictable and stable. studies which embrace this focus tend to look at the characteristics and patterns associated with the targets offenders chose. proponents reg

6、ard this approach as more promising and policy relevant than its predecessors.criminal justice practitioners have put this evolving crime prevention research to good use. one particular area, the study of burglary,has been especially productive. cpted proponents maintain that citizen deployment of h

7、ome security measures is related to burglary victimization.burglars are rational actors. when these offenders make the decision to strike, they calculate the costs against the benefits. home security measures increase these costs and decrease the probability of victimization. unfortunately, research

8、 examining the efficacy of these security measures has been insufficient.the samplethe data for this study derive from two telephone surveys conducted by the university of south alabama polling group. the first survey consisted of 332 respondents randomly drawn from a sampling frame of all telephone

9、 subscribers living in mobile county sheriffs office jurisdiction. a filter question screened out anyone who had been a burglary victim within the preceding three years. the sampling frame for the second telephone survey, provided by the mobile county sheriffs office, consisted of residents in the u

10、nincorporated area who had reported their homes burglarized from june 1997 through may 1998. of 668 burglary victims, 234 agreed to participate in the survey. the nonvictim survey was conducted in november of 1997 and the victim survey took place during june of 1998.independent variablessurvey items

11、 inquired about the types of security measures respondents utilized. these practices should change the target and guardian aspects of the criminal incident. both victims and nonvictims were asked the same questions. the only difference was that victims were asked to indicate which measures they empl

12、oyed immediately preceding their first reported burglary. the home security independent variables were grouped into four categories, each addressing a somewhat different dimension of the burglary inciden匸 table 1 presents the categories, the questions that comprise the category, and the mean compari

13、sons.table 1independent variables and mean comparisonsindependent variablevictim (n = 231)non victim(n = 326)securedo you lock all your windows when away from home?.91.95do you have stopping mechanisms on your windows that prevent them from being opened fully when activated?.4365are vour exterior do

14、ors made of steel or solid core wood?.76.91-do vou always lock the exterior doors to your home when away?.92.94were all the locks to your exterior doors changed when you moved into vour home?64.79do vou have deadbolt locks on all vour exterior doors?.64.94 sdo you have a spare key to your home hidde

15、n outside?pl.8廠(chǎng)surveillancedo you have at least one neighbor who has a dear line of vision to your front entrance?.63do you have at least one neighbor who has a clear line of vision to your rear entrance?38.65does vour home have anv doors or windows that cannot be seen because they are obstructed by

16、 trees, shnibs, fencing, etc.?65.85 -do you have a dog?4s.64-do you have a burglar alarm °.133廠(chǎng)do you keep the exterior doors to your home lit at night?.67.68are your valuables marked with your name, social security number, drivers license, or other identifying marks?.0240ssecurity variables, o

17、f which there are seven, concern the physical obstacles citizens erect to frustrate a burglafs efforts to enter a target. homes that are more difficult to enter are less likely to be victimized. surveillance consists of seven variables that measure the degree to which an offender might expect to be

18、observed when attacking a target. offenders will be less likely to burglarize a residence if they believe a guardian will discover them while either trying to make entry, escape, or dispose of the proceeds.the dependent variablethe dependent variable reflects the burglary victimization experience of

19、 the respondent. two groups of rural mobile county residents were studied. the first category consisted of individuals whose homes were burglarized within a one-year period. the second portion consisted of individuals whose homes were not burglarized within the preceding three years.the sampling fra

20、me raises several issues. first, the method used to draw the victim sample excludes nonwporting burglary victims. according to the national crime victimization survey, about one-third of property crime victims report the incident to the police (bureau of justice statistics, 1996). systematic differe

21、nces between reporting and nonreporting victims could have an adverse impact on the dependent variable. a second problem is the response rate for victims, at about 34%, raises a question about whether respondents differ systematically from nonrespondents. a third potential threat concerns the compar

22、ability of victims to nonvictims. if burglars choose victims in a way that limits the universe of victims in some systematic fashion, then drawing the nonvictim sample randomly from all phone subscribers could compromise measurement of the dependent variable.the demographic characteristics of victim

23、 and nonvictim respondents were compared to address these concerns. there were no significant differences between victims and nonvictims in terms of age of the head of household, gender of the head of household, predominant family nrace, ownership or rental status, and family income. of course, ther

24、e may be other characteristics that differentiate nonreporting victims, nonresponding reporting victims, and victims in general from their respective counterparts. however, the weight of the evidence from the available data mitigate against such concerns.resultsa logistic regression solution, as see

25、n in table 2, was employed to estimate the effects of the predictor variables since the dependent variable is dichotomous. correlation coefficients were calculated for all combinations of the independent variables to test for evidence of multicollinearity. according to a standard of 8 or greater, no

26、ne were found.ta3le 2logistic regression examining the effect of secxirity measures on burglary victimizationindependent variablesbseodds ratiosecuritydo vou lock all vour windows when away from home?0.41.51151do you have stopping mechanisms on your windows that prevent them from being opened fully

27、when activated?-0.s7.26042*are vour exterior doors made of steel or solid core wood?0.7936045sdo you always lock the exterior doors to your home when away?0.60.51183were all the locks to your exterior doors changed when you moved into vour home?053.29060do you have deadbolt locks on all your exterio

28、r doors?03429071do you have a spare key to your home hidden outside?0.86.40042ssureiucmcqdo you have at least one neighbor who has a clear line of vision to your front entrance?08533043do you have at least one neighbor who has a clear line of vision to your rear entrance?27057does your home have any

29、 doors or windows that cannot be seen because they are obsiructed by trees, shrubs, fencing, etc.?o?6312.07do you have a dog?0.4521064do you have a burglar alarm?06733051do you keep the exterior doors to your home lit at night?0.41.28151are vour valuables marked with vour name, social security numbe

30、r, drivers license, or other identifying marks91.10.32033ten of the eleven significant predictors of burglary victimization reflect the efficacy of security measures. the odds of being burglarized are reduced substantially when neighborhoods are cohesive. the odds of being a burglary victim are lowe

31、red if respondents participate in a neighborhood watch group or have at least one neighbor within walking distance whom they visit regularly. one confrontation variable proves significant. the odds of being burglarized decline if a neighbor maintains an absent residents property by cutting the grass

32、 or picking up mail. two home security measures are significant predictors. stopping mechanisms that prevent first-floor windows from being fully opened and solid core or steel exterior doors reduce the odds of burglary.when it comes to surveillance measures, the odds of being burglarized decrease i

33、f there is an unobstructed line of vision from a neighbors house to the resident's front or rear door. when this line of vision is obstructed by plants or a fence, the odds of being burglarized increase by a factor of about two. finally, an alarm system or marked property reduces the chances of

34、a burglary.the modefs goodness of fit was highly significant and the accompanying r 2 of 455 indicates it accounts for a substantial proportion of the variation in victimization. of course, the inclusion of 25 predictors, significant or not, could heighten the amount of variation explained. as a res

35、ult, a second equation was modeled omitting the 14 insignificant variables from the first model. this model's goodness of fit remained highly significant and the coitesponding r 2 dipped slightly to a .404 value. there were only small changes in the revised odds ratios and all 11 variables remai

36、ned significant predictors of burglaryvictimization.conclusionone can draw inferences about offender behavior from their actions. data from the present study show a clear pattern as to those actions. targets are systematically avoided if they exhibit characteristics likely to result in the burglar&#

37、39;s greatest fear, that of being caught. targets which appear vulnerable because the burglar sees signs that the neighborhood is not cohesive, the burglar will not be confronted by the resident, the home is not sufficiently secure, or the burglar will not be seen by a neighbor are at significantly

38、greater risk of victimization than those not exhibiting these characteristics. manipulation of either target or guardian aspects of the environment affects victimization in accordance with expectations.中文譯文:家庭安全措施的有效性引言預(yù)防犯罪占主導(dǎo)地位的觀(guān)點(diǎn)在20世紀(jì)70年代經(jīng)歷了深刻的變化，這種變化 由那些提出了一個(gè)明顯不同的理論和實(shí)證的議程的研究人員領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。而冃前的預(yù)防 犯罪理論各種各樣，難

39、以歸類(lèi)，本文集屮討論的方法通常被稱(chēng)為“通過(guò)環(huán)境設(shè)計(jì) 預(yù)防犯罪”(cpted)。cpted建立在犯罪機(jī)會(huì)的想法上，這種想法是冃標(biāo)，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)， 努力，回報(bào)(feins, epstein, &widom, 1997； jeffrey, 1971； kaplan, o'kane, lavrakas, &pesce, 1978； robinson, 1999)四者相互作用的結(jié)果。這個(gè)觀(guān)點(diǎn)把犯 罪事件的情景環(huán)境看作是適當(dāng)?shù)姆治鰡挝?，而不把注意力放在犯罪上。這種模式的可行z處主要在于它采用簡(jiǎn)化的假設(shè)，這種假設(shè)巧妙地解釋了罪 犯分子使用的通過(guò)演算后得出的決定，從而使研究人員認(rèn)為，麻煩是變化

40、的常量 (weisburd,1997)o cpted允許調(diào)查人員把注意力集中在犯罪事件的要素上，這 些要素被認(rèn)為是更可預(yù)見(jiàn)、更穩(wěn)定的。研究的重點(diǎn)傾向于接受這一研究的特點(diǎn)和 規(guī)律與罪犯的目標(biāo)選擇。倡議者認(rèn)為，這種做法比它的前身更有前途、與政策更 有關(guān)。刑事司法從業(yè)人員提出這一不斷發(fā)展的預(yù)防犯罪的研究，以充分利用。某一 特定領(lǐng)域，對(duì)入室盜竊的研究，已經(jīng)相當(dāng)有成果了。cpted的支持者堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為, 公民部署家居防盜措施與入室盜竊受害有關(guān)。竊賊是理性的行動(dòng)者。當(dāng)這些罪犯 作出決定出擊時(shí)，他們會(huì)計(jì)算費(fèi)用與收益的差。家居防盜措施增加了費(fèi)用，減少 了受害的概率。不幸的是，檢查這些安全措施效果的研究尚不充分。例

41、子研究數(shù)據(jù)源于由南阿拉巴馬大學(xué)的投票集團(tuán)進(jìn)行的兩個(gè)電話(huà)調(diào)查。第一次調(diào) 查的受訪(fǎng)者包括隨機(jī)抽樣抽取的332名生活在mobile county sheriff辦公室的 管轄范圍乞內(nèi)的所有電話(huà)用戶(hù)。問(wèn)題過(guò)濾器會(huì)篩選出在以前三年曾是入室盜竊案 的受害人。第二次電話(huà)調(diào)查的抽樣由mobile county sheriff辦公室提供，包括 居住在非法領(lǐng)域并曾經(jīng)被報(bào)道過(guò)他們的家在1997年6月至1998年5月z間被入 室盜竊過(guò)的居民調(diào)查詢(xún)問(wèn)了 668名入室盜竊案的受害人，其屮有234人同意加入 調(diào)查。非受害者調(diào)查是在1997年進(jìn)行的，受害者調(diào)查是在1998年六月進(jìn)行的。自變量調(diào)查詢(xún)問(wèn)的項(xiàng)目是受訪(fǎng)者使用的防盜措

42、施。這些做法應(yīng)當(dāng)改變犯罪事件方面 的目標(biāo)和監(jiān)護(hù)。受害者和非受害者都提出了相同的問(wèn)題。唯一不同的是，受害者 被要求說(shuō)明他們使用的哪些措施能第一時(shí)間報(bào)道入室盜竊案。家庭防盜自變量被 分為四類(lèi)，每個(gè)處理都在不同層面上解釋了入室盜竊事件。表1列岀類(lèi)別，分類(lèi) 的問(wèn)題和平均比較。表1獨(dú)立因素和平均比較獨(dú)立因素受害者(n=231)非受害者(n=326)安全你離開(kāi)家的時(shí)候鎖門(mén)嗎？0.910. 95你的窗戶(hù)上有阻止其被完全打開(kāi)的停止機(jī)制嗎？0. 430. 65你的外門(mén)是用鋼材或是結(jié)實(shí)的木頭做的嗎？0. 760.91你離開(kāi)家的時(shí)候總是鎖好外門(mén)嗎？0. 920. 94當(dāng)你搬進(jìn)新家時(shí)所有大門(mén)的鎖都換嗎？0. 640.

43、 79你所有的外門(mén)上都有固定插銷(xiāo)嗎？0. 640. 94你有鑰匙藏在門(mén)外嗎？0. 910. 83監(jiān)視你有至少一個(gè)能直接看到你家前門(mén)的鄰居嗎？0. 630. 89你有至少一個(gè)能直接看到你家后門(mén)的鄰居嗎？0. 380. 65你家有被樹(shù)木、灌木或柵欄當(dāng)住而看不見(jiàn)的門(mén)或窗嗎？0. 650. 85你家有狗嗎？0. 480. 64你家有防盜報(bào)警器嗎？0. 130. 33晚上你讓你外門(mén)口的燈亮著嗎？0. 670. 68你的貴重物品、社會(huì)保障號(hào)、駕照及其他證件都標(biāo)有你的名字嗎？0. 020. 40安全變量由7部分組成，涉及身體的障礙，公民樹(shù)立挫敗竊賊入室的意識(shí)。 家越難進(jìn)入成為受害者的可能越小。監(jiān)視包括七個(gè)變

44、量，這些變量衡量竊賊可能 預(yù)想到的入室時(shí)被觀(guān)察到的程度，如果竊賊認(rèn)為他們的入室、逃離和處置收益過(guò) 程被監(jiān)控，將會(huì)很小可能會(huì)進(jìn)入居民住宅。因變量因變量反映了調(diào)查對(duì)象的盜竊受害者的經(jīng)歷。mob訂ecounty的兩組農(nóng)村居 民接受了研究。第一類(lèi)包括在一年之內(nèi)房屋遭到過(guò)盜竊的個(gè)人。第二部分包括在 過(guò)去的三年房屋未遭到盜竊的個(gè)人。抽樣引起了若干問(wèn)題。首先，所采用用來(lái)繪制受害者樣本的方法排除未報(bào)告 的盜竊受害者。全國(guó)犯罪受害調(diào)查，大約有三分之一的財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪受害人向警察報(bào) 案（司法局統(tǒng)計(jì)，1996年）。受害者報(bào)告系統(tǒng)與非受害者報(bào)告系統(tǒng)之間的差異可 能可能會(huì)對(duì)因變量產(chǎn)生不利影響。第二個(gè)問(wèn)題是，受害者答復(fù)率約34%,提出 了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，受訪(fǎng)者與非受訪(fǎng)者是否有系統(tǒng)化區(qū)別。第三個(gè)潛在的威脅涉及到受