TEORİ ENTEGRAYONU ÇALIŞMASI: HATAY BİRLİKTE GÜVENDEYİZ PROJESİ

Öz

Bu araştırmada; öncelikle suç ve suçluluk oranlarının artışını izah etmek için farklı suç teorilerinin entegrasyonu ile yeni bir model oluşturulmuştur. Daha sonra yeni model bağlamında hazırlanan etkinliklerin, geleneksel kolluk faaliyetlerine kıyasla, fail ve vatandaşların düşünce ve davranışlarını değiştirmeleri üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Bu etkinin değerlendirilmesi için deney ve kontrol gruplarını içeren deneysel yöntem kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini Hatay Büyükdalyan Geçici Konaklama Merkezi ve Katar 2 Geçici Konaklama Merkezi’nde ikamet eden toplam 5500 vatandaş oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada önce ve sonra yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerin kullanıldığı kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desen uygulanmıştır. Deney grubunun ikamet ettiği yerde yeni model bağlamında hazırlanan faaliyetlerin etkin olarak kullanıldığı bir anlayışla, kontrol grubunun ikamet ettiği yerde ise geleneksel kolluk yöntemleriyle etkinlikler uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, yeni model bağlamında hazırlanan faaliyetlerin etkin olarak kullanıldığı yerde yaşayan deney grubundaki davranış ve düşünce değişiklerinin, geleneksel kolluk faaliyetlerinin yürütüldüğü yerdeki kontrol grubuna göre daha yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuç bölümünde yeni entegre modelden hareket ederek kentlerin suç ve suçluluk problemi yaşanan bölgelerinde kullanılabilecek bir suç önleme metodolojisi hazırlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anahtar kelimeler: Suç
• suçluluk
• suç önleme
• teori entegrasyonu
• suç teorisi
• suç analizi.

THEORY INTEGRATION STUDY: HATAY “TOGETHER WE ARE SAFE” CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT

Öz

In this research, a new model has been developed by integrating different crime theories to explain the increase in crime and delinquency rates. Subsequently, the effects of activities prepared within the framework of the new model on changing the thoughts and behaviors of offenders and citizens, compared to traditional law enforcement activities, have been examined. An experimental method including experimental and control groups was used to evaluate this effect. The sample of the study consists of a total of 5500 citizens residing in Hatay Büyükdalyan Temporary Accommodation Center and Qatar-2 Temporary Accommodation Center. A quasi-experimental design with control groups, utilizing semi-structured interviews conducted before and after the study, was implemented. In the area where the experimental group resided, activities prepared within the framework of the new model were actively applied, whereas in the control group area, activities were carried out using traditional law enforcement methods. As a result of the research, it was determined that the behavioral and cognitive changes in the experimental group, where activities were actively used within the framewo rk of the new model, were higher than those in the control group where traditional law enforcement activities were conducted. In the conclusion section of the study, based on the new integrated model, a crime prevention methodology applicable in urban areas experiencing crime and delinquency problems has been developed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Crime
• delinquency
• crime prevention
• theory integration
• crime theory
• crime analysis.

Kaynakça

1. Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2009). Social learning theory. In J. Miller (Ed.), 21st Century Criminology: A Handbook (pp. 323–332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Albanese, J. S. (2014). The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Virginia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
3. Aizenkot, D. (2022). The predictability of routine activity theory for cyberbullying victimization among children and youth: Risk and protective factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14).
4. Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 301–348. Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., Waring, E. J., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). The Boston Gun Project: Impact evaluation (Research Report). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
5. Brantingham, P. J., & Faust, F. L. (1976). A Conceptual Model of Crime Prevention. Crime and Delinquency, 22(3), 284–296.
6. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
7. Cozens, P., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356.
8. Cusson, M. (2000). Qu’est-ce que la sécurité intérieure? Revue internationale de criminologie et de police technique et scientifique, LII(4), 387–403.

9. Drakulich, K. M., & Pereira, C. (2023, October). Disorder, incivilities, and broken windows. In D. Oberwittler & R. Wickes (Eds.), The handbook on cities and crime. Edward Elgar Publishing.
10. Ekiz, D. (2003). Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntem ve Metodlarına Giriş. Ankara: Anı.
11. Figueiredo Alves da Silva, L. (2022). Social disorganization and crime in Brazilian neighborhoods. Latin American Research Review, 49(3), 1–13.
12. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.
13. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14. Homer, E. M., Fisher, B. W., & Mowen, T. J. (2020). Examining the moderating role of social bonds in the relationship between school victimization and educational attainment. Victims & Offenders, 15(5), 663–683.
15. Hovardaoğlu, S. (2000). Davranış bilimleri için araştırma teknikleri. Ankara: VE-GA.
16. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
17. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
18. Mayer, D. J. (2023). Understanding social disorganization and the nonprofit infrastructure: An ecological study of child maltreatment rates. Social Currents, 10(5), 429–447.
19. Mears, D. P., & Stafford, M. C. (2024). A reconceptualization of social bond theory to predict change sequences in offending. Crime & Delinquency, 70(1), 64–86.
20. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
21. Nader, E. S., & Robinson, A. D. (2023). Reconceptualizing social bonds for emerging adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(5), 708–728.
22. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space. London: Architectural.
23. Patton, Q. M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. London: Sage.
24. Polat, A. (2014). Suç Önleme. İstanbul: Legal.
25. Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s defensible space theory: Linking defensible space and the routine activities of place. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 25–46.
26. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquents in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Sherman, L. W. (1997). Thinking about crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (pp. 1–2). Washington DC: United States Department of Justice.
28. Sherman, L. W., Denise, C. G., Doris, L. M., John, E., Peter, R., & Shawn, D. B. (2003). Prevention de la criminalité. Ce qui marche, ce qui ne marche pas, ce qui pourrait marcher, Bonnes pratiques Introduction au pragmatisme anglo-saxon, Institut des Hautes de la Sécurité Publique, Les Cahiers de la Sécurité intérieure, 4(54), 117–155.
29. Skogan, W. G. (2006). Police and community in Chicago: A tale of three cities. Oxford University Press.
30. Tanrıöğen, A. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.
31. Tapia, O., Ochoa, A., & Cundiff, A. (2024). Social disorganization theory and the college campus periphery. Social Science Quarterly, 105(7), 2054–2066.
32. Thornberry, T. P. (1989). Reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical integration. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime (pp. 31–45). Albany, NY: SUNY.
33. Uludağ, B. C., & Fidan, S. (2023). Rutin aktiviteler teorisi bağlamında dijitalleşen dünyada siber suç mağdurları. Habitus Toplumbilim Dergisi, 4(4), 175–210.
34. Van der Land, M., & Doff, W. (2010). Neighborhood watch and fear of crime: The influence of social involvement and neighborhood characteristics. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 79–88.
35. Weisburd, D., Uding, C. V., Hinkle, J. C., Kuen, K., & Elffers, H. (2024). Broken windows and community social control: Evidence from a study of street segments. American Sociological Review, 89(2), 123–145.
36. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken Windows. The Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29–38.
37. Zhang, S., Leidner, D. E., Cao, X., & Liu, N. (2022). Workplace cyberbullying: A criminological and routine activity perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 37(1), 51–79.