It often appears easier to focus on prevention rather than cure. The Neighbourhood Watch scheme is described as ‘one of the biggest and most successful crime prevention schemes ever’ (1). It aims to deter potential criminals and build a community spirit allowing all residents to contribute towards individual protection, though members represent a minority. The suspecting grandmother of the Sheffield daughters had tipped off the police but had simply been told ‘slander is a crime’ (2). Comparing the man to Fritzl, Ben Macintyre commented he ‘did not need to build an underground cell...he could rely, instead, on the thick walls of British reticence to hide the horror’. It is argued a culture of neighbourliness could prevent or reduce such events; occasions such as these call for public duty of suspicion and some level of interrogation. Today in the UK, even the smallest communities provide anonymity, allowing offenders of the gravest crimes to slip through unnoticed. Our defensive attitude to invasion of privacy is partially responsible; if people made an effort to be friendly and approachable in the street rather than hiding behind locked doors, this could amount to a small but vital step in the provision of public safety.

(1) http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/neighbourhoodwatch/nwatch02.htm (2) http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2008/11/30/guilt-over-brit-fritzl-goes-right-to-the-top-115875-20935299/

Despite neighbourliness, the problem of vigilance remains. In the recent cases of Baby P and the Sheffield daughters, attention was directed to the recklessness of authority figures. Arguably, the current welfare state with its vast social security system provides citizens with a false sense of security. Perhaps a reason for our diminished vigilance since the 1800s stems from our knowledge that we do not have to keep each other safe; there are police and social workers to fulfil such duties. In the case of the Sheffield man who kept his two daughters as sex slaves, it was reported that care officials had seen them 150 times, yet none had raised the alarm. Though the combination of these outrageous crimes in such a short space of time has brought public awareness to such lax behaviour, the police particularly have been criticised for their failure to adequately protect suspected victims. Negligence was highlighted in the tragic case of Osman v UK in which a boy was injured and a man killed due to failure of the police to anticipate the situation despite notifying the police in relation to the danger of the assault. It appears more training and emphasis must be focused on police vigilance; the function of the police, social services and neighbourhood watch systems is redundant if tip offs are ignored.

In the UK it is no crime to simply walk past a screaming child who is drowning, unless you have a duty to that person, such as parental responsibility. So naturally there is no incentive for people to help and protect if it means involving themselves in the lives of others. If there was some obligation on citizens to render assistance to others in certain situations, crime may be stamped out at a small price. The Social Responsibility view has been upheld by academics who have pointed out that the value of one citizens life is generally more than the temporary value of the other’s freedom to go about their daily activities (3). At the trivial risk of being found rude or accusative, people could ask a few casual questions; not only would this threaten the offender’s secrecy, it would also save the authorities time, money and commitment. However, it may not be the case that we simply cannot be bothered; welfare agencies have reported a reluctance to tell on their neighbours, fearing complaints may backfire, provoke retaliation or further endanger the chid (4). A rule implementing a protective duty towards others seems a promising method to increase community spirit and prevent crime.

(3) Ashworth – The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions (4) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article5240206.ece

It would be impracticable to allow omissions to constitute criminal behaviour; it is generally regarded as morally worse to actively do something than to let it happen. While many would accept a duty of social responsibility in circumstances where they had the means and capacity to do so, it is unlikely neighbours would be willing to intrude into people’s houses or ask searching questions, more than aware that it is none of their business. Furthermore, the police and social services are trained for these types of situations, so it seems logical to place responsibility with them, particularly when faced with the risk of losing more human lives than can be avoided. In the case of a drowning child, one would hope no such duty was required, that people would act with a view to protection on a moral instinct. However, the New York case of Kitty Genovese demonstrated that this is not always so; 38 people heard the screams of a woman being brutally murdered yet not one even phoned the police (5). The Bystander Effect suggests people will look to each other when deciding whether to act; there is no solution to increasing the public’s collaborative attitude to safety.

(5) http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:K73Qk52sJrcJ:www.townsendpress.com/UserFiles/doccenter/pdf/vv_ch14.pdf+new+york+bystanders+woman+raped+by+husband&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

If we have noticed anything from the recent criminal disasters of Baby P and the Sheffield man, it is our lack of community spirit. Many have said such crimes wouldn’t have happened 50 years ago when neighbours kept up-to-date with each others affairs. In the 1880s more than half all complaints to the London NSPCC came from busybody, sometimes life-saving neighbours (7). Aside from such provisions as the Data Protection Act, the ECHR and various legislation regarding confidentiality there is no fundamental right to privacy in the UK. Article 8 of the ECHR recognises our right to respect for family life, home and correspondence, though this can clearly be overridden if upholding the right itself endangers life. It seems unlikely people are genuinely afraid of offending their neighbours with tentative inquiries; gossip and rudeness are two characteristics that prevail in our current social climate. Furthermore if attention is drawn publicly to the need for public safety to trump over privacy, it could perhaps be argued, though slightly tenuously, that any innocent neighbour acting suspiciously could forgive someone for simply aiming to maintain a safe community.

(7) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article5240206.ece

A variety of pet hates can be attributed to everyone on a subjective basis, but if one thing causes an outrage to the majority of the British population, it appears to be the invasion of privacy. Most of us tend to respect such a view, as we probably share similar ideologies, but the odd person who shares explicit information or fails to comprehend why another objects to him rifling through his possessions certainly stands out. It seems reasonable to regard interfering as a negative behaviour; our attitude to privacy allows us to escape the public eye and put on a front to our neighbours. It also makes us tolerant of newcomers (6). If convicts are permitted secret identities on their release from prison and celebrities are allowed bodyguards, it only seems fair that we can choose with who we share our information. However, removing the privilege of privacy would do little towards the prevention of crime. In the cases of Baby P and the Sheffield man, it appears that the fault element lies primarily with the officials. Furthermore, if people have the necessary state of mind to commit such crimes, they will surely do so despite a higher risk of having their plans unveiled.

(6) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article5240206.ece

The idea behind community spirit encompasses notions of protection, contribution and trust. Perhaps a reason for our limited interaction with our neighbours today could be accounted for by lack of trust; we do not know them and so do not wish them to know of our affairs. However, no trust can be built up in conjunction with absolute privacy; in our friendships we share our worries, activities and sometimes secrets. However, many tend to regard their neighbours as acquaintances, their friends live elsewhere. It seems that in order to indulge in community spirit, it is essential that we let our guard down slightly. The stronger our relationships with our neighbours, the less awkward we feel asking questions, particularly when in alliance with others, and the more protection we gain as a result. Furthermore, it seems dubious that most would rather live in denial of their neighbours’ dark activities than have them confirmed and dealt with as the crimes by the relevant officials. Taking an inquisitive approach in your neighbourhood may help speed this process up.

If someone happens to notice or suspect dangerous, criminal behaviour while going about their day-to-day activities it seems fair to expect them to alert the relevant authority. However, if in doing so it would cause them some threat or obstruction this would seem a ludicrous suggestion. Most would be panicked to learn that their neighbour was a killer, or even a burglar. If they had some idea of his capabilities they might quickly be deterred from notifying the police, should he become aware of this. Yet rather than putting ourselves at risk we come up against a more basic criticism – why should we? The pressures and opportunities of living in the 21st century mean that most people have more than enough on their plate without worrying about others. They are secure in knowing that the law will penalise them if their suspicions are accurate and have no desire to ensure that they are caught. If a person is willing to help prevent a crime, he will do so, others will not; this cannot be changed. Essentially, people are happy to let others continue the strangest of activities; how much do we really want to know about our neighbours?