CMY2602 at UNISA focuses on how crime can be prevented, reduced, and controlled using evidence-informed approaches rather than guesswork or intuition. The module links theory (why crime happens, how risk is created and maintained) with practical strategies (what institutions and communities can do, what works, and what fails). This study guide consolidates the module’s core ideas into exam-ready notes, with South African relevance, policy alignment, and applied scenarios you can use to build strong answers.
1) Understanding Crime Prevention: Foundations, Models, and South African Context
Crime prevention is often described as “stopping crime before it happens,” but in CMY2602 the concept is broader: it includes reducing opportunities, shaping environments, improving guardianship, interrupting crime pathways, and limiting harm when prevention fails. What matters in exam answers is not only what you propose, but why it should work—through criminological reasoning and empirical support.
1.1 Core concepts: crime, prevention, reduction, control
A strong CMY2602 response distinguishes three overlapping but different aims:
- Crime prevention: actions taken before crime occurs to reduce risk or remove opportunities.
- Crime reduction: strategies aimed at lowering the incidence, frequency, or severity of crime in a specific context over time.
- Crime control: actions taken to manage crime that is already occurring or likely to occur soon—often involving policing, deterrence, enforcement, and criminal justice processes.
A useful exam framing is to treat these as a “continuum”:
- Upstream prevention (before harmful behavior is likely)
- Midstream reduction (during risk periods, targeted interventions)
- Downstream control (enforcement, disruption, adjudication, rehabilitation after detection)
Why it matters for exams: If you blur “prevention” and “control,” your argument can become less precise. Examiners often reward answers that show you understand the stage at which interventions operate.
1.2 Risk, opportunity, and harm: the three lenses
CMY2602 typically encourages learners to view crime through at least three lenses, each producing different prevention logic:
- Risk lens
Crime is more likely when certain factors raise probability (e.g., poverty combined with weak supervision in high-risk settings; association with criminal peers). - Opportunity lens
Even without deep risk factors, crime becomes likely when targets are accessible and capable guardianship is absent. - Harm lens
The focus is not only preventing incidence, but also reducing consequences (e.g., burglary response times, victim support, or reducing violence escalation).
Example (South Africa): taxi ranks and robbery/assault
- Risk lens: high stress environments, youth unemployment, and gang recruitment pressures around transport hubs.
- Opportunity lens: crowded stations with limited supervision, predictable routes, and isolated pockets.
- Harm lens: rapid response and trauma care that reduce severity even if incidents occur.
A high-scoring exam answer explicitly links each prevention idea to one of these lenses.
1.3 Prevention levels and strategies: primary, secondary, tertiary
A classic structure in crime prevention is the prevention levels model:
- Primary prevention (universal)
Intended for whole populations. Examples:- School-based life skills programmes
- Community capacity building and youth engagement campaigns
- Public education on safety and substance risks
- Secondary prevention (selective/targeted)
Focused on groups/locations at elevated risk.- Mentoring for at-risk youth
- Targeted patrols in crime “hotspots”
- Violence interruption programmes in specific communities
- Tertiary prevention (indicated)
Targeting individuals with demonstrated high likelihood of offending or victimisation.- Intensive case management for known offenders
- Restorative or rehabilitation programmes for repeat offenders
- Victim protection plans for those repeatedly targeted
Examination tip: If asked “Discuss prevention strategies,” don’t list random interventions. Instead, categorize them by prevention level, then explain how each reduces risk, opportunity, or harm.
1.4 Criminological foundations: rational choice, routine activity, situational approaches
CMY2602 is informed by major criminological traditions that inform prevention design.
Rational choice theory (decision-making under constraints)
Under rational choice assumptions, offenders weigh perceived benefits against perceived costs. Prevention increases:
- perceived effort required,
- perceived risks of detection,
- perceived losses if caught,
and reduces perceived rewards.
Routine activity theory (crime needs convergence)
Crime occurs when three elements converge:
- a motivated offender,
- a suitable target,
- absence of a capable guardian.
Prevention therefore strengthens guardianship (human or technological), makes targets less suitable, and disrupts routines.
Situational crime prevention (SCP): “reduce opportunity”
SCP designs aim at concrete problems in specific settings—e.g., reducing access to targets, increasing surveillance, or removing facilitators.
Common SCP techniques often map to categories like:
- increasing effort,
- increasing risks,
- reducing rewards,
- removing excuses,
- and reducing provocations.
1.5 Evidence-informed thinking: “what works” and why it matters
A frequent exam theme is evaluation: prevention isn’t a belief system. You must justify strategies using evidence and logic.
Key ideas:
- Effectiveness depends on correct targeting. A universal programme may not shift risk levels in concentrated hotspots.
- Implementation fidelity matters. A programme designed well can fail if poorly delivered.
- Context matters (urban vs rural, informal vs formal settlements, policing capacity, social cohesion).
- Time horizons differ: changing environmental conditions can deliver quicker results than changing long-term social risk.
Mini-case logic (typical in SA contexts)
If a municipality installs lights in one area and crime drops, you should ask:
- Did offenders lose routes and hiding spaces?
- Did fear and informal guardianship change?
- Were patrol schedules aligned?
- Was the improvement sustained or temporary?
Examiners often reward structured causal reasoning.
1.6 South African policy and systems: aligning crime prevention with governance realities
Crime prevention in South Africa occurs within a complex governance environment involving:
- community structures,
- municipalities,
- provincial and national departments,
- police oversight and performance,
- correctional and rehabilitation systems,
- schools and social development services.
A typical exam question may ask you to describe the roles of different institutions and how they coordinate.
South Africa’s prevention logic often highlights:
- Integrated community safety approaches
Crime prevention is not only a police function—it spans social services, education, housing, safety planning, and community mobilization. - Multi-agency collaboration
Schools address risk factors; social workers handle family-level needs; police and municipal departments handle immediate safety and environmental improvements. - Restorative and victim-centred strategies
Prevention also includes harm reduction and reducing repeat victimisation.
Why it matters: If you only describe policing, your answer misses the “prevention” part of the module.
2) Environmental and Community-Based Crime Prevention: Designing Practical Interventions
This section shifts from theoretical foundations to practical design. CMY2602 learners are expected to think like prevention planners: identify problems, choose strategies, anticipate offender responses, and understand community engagement.
2.1 Problem analysis: from “crime is high” to “crime has a pattern”
A common exam weakness is vague answers: “crime is high, so we need awareness.” In CMY2602, the stronger approach uses problem analysis.
A structured approach:
- Define the problem precisely
- What type of crime? (burglary, assault, robbery, domestic violence, theft)
- Where does it occur? (specific streets, facilities, routes)
- When does it happen? (time of day, days of week, seasonal peaks)
- Who is involved? (victim profile, offender groups where identifiable)
- Identify the immediate conditions
- guardianship levels,
- target accessibility,
- routine movement patterns,
- conflict triggers,
- environmental “facilitators” (poor lighting, weak access control).
- Consider maintaining factors
- repeat victimisation,
- fear-driven changes in community behaviour,
- informal markets that monetize stolen goods.
Example scenario (environmental analysis)
Suppose theft from small shops increases around month-end. Problem analysis might identify:
- paydays create temporary increases in cash on premises,
- staff leave valuables near entrances,
- a weak door lock increases opportunity,
- there are predictable delivery times.
A prevention plan would then target cash handling practices, access control, and schedule adjustments.
2.2 Situational crime prevention applied: techniques that “fit the problem”
When discussing situational crime prevention, strong answers use the technique-language and connect it to concrete changes.
Here are prevention techniques with “what to change” examples:
Increasing effort
- Improve locks, alarms, and access control.
- Use tamper-proof fixtures for high-value items.
- Reduce the ease of bypassing security.
Example: storefronts using secured storage and controlled key access.
Increasing risks
- Improve lighting and visibility.
- Increase real and perceived surveillance (CCTV where feasible; visible patrols where not).
- Encourage guardianship (community watch, security staff with clear routines).
Example: replacing dark alleyways with well-lit walkways reduces concealment and increases perceived detection.
Reducing rewards
- Use “quick processing” stock systems to reduce opportunities for bulk removal.
- Apply visible anti-theft labelling and trackable products.
- Reduce resale value by controlling access to stolen goods.
Example: using product tracking or serial numbers can complicate selling.
Removing excuses
- Enforce rules around prohibited items.
- Reduce “ambiguity” that offenders exploit (e.g., unclear signage about restricted areas).
- Manage conflict triggers and reduce provocation.
Example: clear safety signage and management of disputes at high-tension locations.
Target hardening in public spaces
Target hardening is a specific application of the above techniques and can include:
- controlled access to facilities,
- anti-climb barriers in high-risk locations,
- secure waste management to reduce concealment.
2.3 CPTED principles: crime prevention through environmental design
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is frequently examined because it demonstrates how design can influence crime opportunity.
Key CPTED principles to discuss in exam answers:
- Natural surveillance
- layout that allows people to see activity,
- windows, open sightlines, and reduced hiding spaces.
- Natural access control
- controlled entrances/exits,
- limiting uncontrolled access routes.
- Territorial reinforcement
- clear cues of “public vs private,”
- community identity signals and managed spaces.
- Maintenance
- broken infrastructure signals neglect; it can lower guardianship and increase offender confidence.
Scenario: informal settlement edges and “unmanaged spaces”
If a settlement edge has unlit open areas and unclear paths, offenders may use it as a concealment space. Prevention would focus on:
- improving lighting in key paths,
- demarcating movement corridors,
- strengthening community maintenance schedules,
- encouraging community presence.
2.4 Community-based prevention: social cohesion, guardianship, and legitimacy
Community-based prevention emphasizes that prevention is not only hardware (lights, locks) but also social processes:
- social cohesion and trust,
- legitimate authority,
- active guardianship,
- community willingness to cooperate with safety efforts.
In CMY2602 answers, it’s valuable to clarify the relationship between community involvement and effectiveness.
Why community participation can reduce crime
- It increases informal guardianship.
- It strengthens early warning systems (people notice unusual activity).
- It improves cooperation with police and social services.
- It can reduce the “acceptability” of violence or theft.
Counter-argument: participation alone can fail
Community mobilization may be ineffective if:
- people fear retaliation,
- community structures are not trusted,
- leaders are not accountable,
- interventions are not linked to actual service delivery (e.g., lighting without maintenance, or “community watch” without safety support).
A strong exam response acknowledges that community participation must be supported by:
- operational capacity,
- protection mechanisms,
- transparent coordination.
2.5 Hotspots, displacement, and diffusion of benefits
Place-based approaches are frequently used in crime reduction. Two important dynamics to mention:
- Displacement: crime moves from one location to another when opportunity is reduced in one area.
- Diffusion of benefits: reducing crime in one place can also reduce crime nearby.
A good answer explains that prevention designers must anticipate these effects:
- If you harden one target, offenders may seek similar targets nearby.
- If you increase guardianship in a route network, offenders may avoid the broader area.
Practical implication
When planning a hotspot intervention:
- choose boundaries carefully,
- avoid “single-point fixes” that simply push offenders elsewhere,
- evaluate both the targeted area and surrounding areas.
2.6 Designing multi-agency community safety interventions
In South African contexts, multi-agency collaboration often includes:
- community policing forums and community structures,
- municipalities (lighting, roads, parks maintenance),
- social development (youth and family support),
- schools (prevention education),
- local NGOs and faith-based organizations.
A typical exam prompt might require:
- identifying stakeholders,
- explaining their roles,
- describing coordination.
Example structure for an answer: “role clarity”
- Police/security: response, deterrence, intelligence, enforcement.
- Municipality: CPTED improvements, maintenance, street lighting, by-law enforcement.
- Social development: counselling, youth programmes, victim support.
- Schools: behaviour support programmes, anti-bullying and life skills education.
- Community structures: guardianship, reporting pathways, local legitimacy.
Key exam skill: show that without role clarity, coordination fails and duplication or conflict becomes likely.
3) Offender-Focused and Victim-Focused Prevention: Behaviour Change, Rehabilitation, and Support
While environmental and community measures prevent opportunities, CMY2602 also addresses prevention that targets people—offenders, potential offenders, and victims. This section focuses on how behaviour change and support systems reduce future harm.
3.1 Risk assessment and the prevention of recidivism
Offender-focused prevention aims to reduce the probability of reoffending. That involves:
- identifying dynamic risk factors (changeable factors),
- designing interventions that target those factors,
- monitoring progress.
In exam writing, a useful distinction is between:
- Static risk factors: cannot easily change (age of first offence, past offending history).
- Dynamic risk factors: can change (substance abuse, peer associations, employment stability, attitudes supportive of crime).
Example: alcohol-related violence
If a community experiences assaults linked to alcohol use, offender-focused prevention might include:
- substance misuse treatment,
- enforcement around intoxication and repeat incidents,
- behaviour change programmes,
- structured support to reduce triggers.
A high-scoring answer links each element to a dynamic risk factor.
3.2 Behavioural and cognitive approaches: shifting decision pathways
Many offender programmes use behavioural and cognitive principles:
- Cognitive-behavioural interventions
Teach offenders to recognise triggers, challenge criminal thinking, develop problem-solving skills. - Behavioural skills and structured routines
Reduce idle time where opportunistic offending becomes more likely. - Restorative components
Encourage accountability and repair rather than purely punishment.
Counter-argument: programmes without aftercare can fail
Even effective programmes may not reduce recidivism if:
- offenders return to the same high-risk environment,
- support is withdrawn at release,
- employment opportunities remain blocked.
Therefore, offender-focused prevention should integrate aftercare, monitoring, and community re-entry planning.
3.3 Desistance and the role of social bonds
Desistance theories emphasize that offenders often stop offending when they develop stable social bonds and meaningful identities—work, relationships, pro-social networks, and responsibility.
In exam answers, you can structure desistance discussion as:
- Identity shift (from “offender” to pro-social self)
- Opportunity structures (access to work, training)
- Support and mentoring (credible role models)
- Reduction in criminogenic associations (less contact with peers who reinforce crime)
Example scenario: youth gang involvement
If a young person exits gang influence through mentorship and education support, prevention can be strengthened by:
- safe housing options,
- conflict mediation,
- job placement and skills training,
- continued counselling to manage relapse triggers.
3.4 Victim-focused prevention: reducing repeat victimisation and harm
Victim-focused prevention targets those harmed and those at risk of becoming victims again. This is crucial because prevention is not complete if victims remain unsupported.
Victim services include
- trauma-informed counselling,
- emergency response coordination,
- safety planning and protection measures,
- legal support and advocacy,
- community-based victim support groups.
Exam-worthy reasoning
Victims who do not receive support may face:
- re-traumatisation,
- retaliation risks,
- prolonged fear and avoidance,
- breakdown of community trust.
So victim support can function as prevention by reducing repeat incidents and improving cooperation with justice systems.
3.5 Vulnerability and targeting: intersections of risk
Victimisation risk in South Africa can intersect across factors such as:
- gender and age,
- disability,
- poverty and housing insecurity,
- limited access to transport and services,
- substance misuse environment risks.
A strong exam answer avoids stereotypes and instead uses vulnerability-based reasoning:
- “At-risk settings” and “at-risk conditions,” not “at-risk people” in a deterministic way.
3.6 Restorative justice and harm repair as prevention
Restorative justice focuses on:
- acknowledgement of harm,
- accountability,
- repair through negotiated outcomes,
- reducing cycles of retaliation.
In CMY2602, restorative justice should be treated as a prevention strategy, not merely a “softer” alternative.
Key points to include:
- restorative processes can reduce reoffending by strengthening accountability and reintegration,
- victim empowerment can reduce fear and improve cooperation,
- outcomes are best when supported by structured facilitation and safeguards.
Counter-argument: safety and power imbalance
Restorative justice may be inappropriate when:
- there is coercion risk,
- power imbalance is extreme,
- the victim feels unsafe or threatened.
Therefore, eligibility criteria and safeguards are essential—this is excellent exam content.
4) Criminal Justice, Policing, and Control Strategies: Deterrence, Disruption, and Implementation
Crime prevention in CMY2602 is not only about social programmes or urban design. It also covers control strategies—especially how prevention and control should complement each other. Control is necessary because prevention is never perfect; therefore, systems must be resilient and responsive.
4.1 Control as the “downstream” component
Control measures aim to:
- detect crime,
- deter future crime (through certainty and swiftness),
- disrupt criminal networks,
- reduce opportunities for continuation or escalation.
In exam answers, make clear that control is not only punitive; it can also be strategic and protective.
4.2 Deterrence: certainty, severity, and celerity
Deterrence theory often appears in exams. You can structure it as:
- Certainty of detection/punishment
- Severity of punishment
- Celerity (speed) of consequences
A typical criminological argument (and useful exam point) is that certainty and celerity are often more influential than severity alone. Practical policing improvements (better intelligence, faster response, consistent enforcement) can matter more than long sentencing alone.
Example: repeat theft in commercial areas
If enforcement focuses sporadically on different days, offenders can learn patterns and continue offending. Deterrence may improve when:
- enforcement becomes consistent,
- monitoring identifies repeat targets,
- evidence collection and prosecution are efficient.
4.3 Problem-oriented policing and situational enforcement
Problem-oriented policing (POP) connects directly with situational prevention:
- identify specific problems,
- analyse contributing factors,
- design interventions combining policing with environmental and social strategies,
- evaluate results.
A strong CMY2602 answer might show how POP integrates with SCP:
- POP provides the policing analysis and enforcement.
- SCP provides environmental and opportunity reduction.
- Social services provide behavioural risk reduction.
4.4 Disruption of criminal careers and networks
Control strategies can also aim to interrupt pathways that lead to repeated offending. In exam answers, you can discuss:
- targeting repeat offenders and repeat hotspots,
- disrupting supply chains for illegal goods,
- dismantling organised crime structures where identifiable,
- addressing corruption and weak governance that facilitate crime.
Counter-argument: displacement and adaptation
Disruption can cause adaptation:
- offenders use new routes,
- change tactics,
- recruit new members when others are arrested.
Therefore, disruption strategies should be combined with:
- continued intelligence gathering,
- prevention in surrounding networks,
- rehabilitation and exit supports for those leaving offending.
4.5 Implementation and sustainability: “design is not delivery”
A common theme in crime prevention modules is implementation. A plan can fail because of:
- poor resource alignment,
- limited training for facilitators,
- lack of monitoring and evaluation,
- community mistrust,
- failure to coordinate agencies.
A strong exam answer discusses implementation mechanics:
- Capacity: staffing, training, funding, equipment.
- Partnership structure: roles, communication channels.
- Monitoring: indicators used to track success.
- Feedback loops: adapting based on data.
4.6 Measurement and evaluation: deciding whether a strategy works
Evaluation is central to evidence-informed crime prevention.
Types of evaluation (conceptual)
- Process evaluation: Did the programme run as intended?
- Outcome evaluation: Did crime or risk indicators change?
- Impact evaluation: Did changes occur because of the programme, not other factors?
Indicators you might mention in exam contexts
- number of incidents (with time/place breakdown),
- repeat victimisation rates,
- self-reported fear and perceived safety,
- school attendance/behaviour incidents for youth programmes,
- arrest and charge patterns (with caution about policing changes).
A nuanced exam answer notes that crime statistics can reflect both crime levels and policing activity, so interpretation must be careful.
4.7 Ethical considerations in control and prevention
Prevention and control must maintain ethics, especially when surveillance and enforcement are involved.
Ethical topics include:
- privacy and data protection when using CCTV and digital reporting,
- avoiding vigilantism and unlawful community enforcement,
- safeguarding vulnerable groups and victims,
- ensuring equal access to services and protection.
Including ethics in exam answers differentiates “rote” recall from applied criminological maturity.
5) Integrated Crime Prevention and Exam-Ready Frameworks: From Planning to Answering
This final section brings everything together into integrated frameworks and provides exam-ready structures you can reuse. It also addresses how to build high-quality answers: clear introduction, logical sequencing, applied examples, and critical evaluation.
5.1 The integrated model: combining environment, people, and justice responses
The best CMY2602 answers often show integration across levels:
- Environmental (CPTED, lighting, access control, guardianship)
- Community (social cohesion, legitimacy, reporting pathways)
- Offender-focused (behaviour change, risk management, aftercare)
- Victim-focused (trauma support, protection planning, repeat victimisation reduction)
- Control and justice (deterrence, disruption, policing responsiveness)
Why integration matters
If only one component is used:
- environmental changes might push crime elsewhere (displacement),
- social programmes might not reduce immediate opportunity,
- policing may detect crime but not reduce underlying drivers.
Integration helps address both immediate and underlying determinants of crime.
5.2 A practical planning template for exam scenarios
When asked to “design a crime prevention strategy” for a given context, use a template.
Step-by-step strategy template
- Problem definition
- crime type(s),
- location(s),
- timing patterns,
- affected groups.
- Risk/opportunity analysis
- risk factors (social and individual),
- opportunity factors (targets, guardianship, routines),
- harm and severity concerns.
- Select prevention level(s)
- primary, secondary, tertiary (and justify selection).
- Choose intervention mix
- situational measures (e.g., target hardening),
- community measures (guardianship, reporting),
- person-focused measures (mentoring, CBT, aftercare),
- control measures (smart enforcement, rapid response).
- Implementation plan
- roles of stakeholders,
- required resources,
- training and communication.
- Evaluation plan
- indicators,
- timeframe,
- process vs outcome measures.
- Risks and ethics
- unintended consequences (displacement),
- safeguarding considerations.
This structure gives you a coherent, full-mark approach.
5.3 Example exam scenario (South African applied): robbery at a transit node
To practise integration, consider a scenario: robbery and assault incidents increase around a transit node, particularly during peak evening commuting times. Targets include passengers waiting for transport; offenders exploit crowd confusion and limited visibility.
Apply the template
- Problem definition
- robbery/assault near station entrances and waiting areas,
- peak between late afternoon and evening,
- victims include commuters, including vulnerable passengers.
- Risk/opportunity analysis
- opportunity: poor lighting, unclear routes, isolated corners, low guardianship,
- risk: youth unemployment pressures and recruitment vulnerabilities near transport corridors,
- harm: fear and reduced mobility; trauma for victims.
- Prevention levels
- primary: commuter safety education and community awareness,
- secondary: targeted youth support programmes linked to the hotspot area,
- tertiary: focused intervention for high-risk youth/offenders and victim protection plans.
- Intervention mix
- situational: lighting upgrades, clearer signage, controlled entry areas,
- community: community safety stewards, reporting systems, visible presence,
- offender-focused: CBT-informed interventions for identified repeat offenders, substance misuse support where relevant,
- victim-focused: trauma counselling and safety planning for affected victims,
- control: rapid response protocols and intelligence-led patrol patterns aligned to incident times.
- Implementation
- stakeholders: police, municipal maintenance teams, transport authority, social development, NGOs.
- Evaluation
- compare incident rates before/after in the hotspot and surrounding areas,
- track repeat victimisation and perceived safety.
- Risks/ethics
- avoid profiling and ensure privacy where CCTV is used.
A strong exam answer would explicitly mention how each measure addresses opportunity, risk, or harm.
5.4 Example exam scenario (domestic violence): prevention through support and early intervention
Another scenario often used in crime prevention modules: domestic violence incidents increase in a particular area, often linked to substance use and escalating conflict.
Apply integration
- Risk analysis: dynamic risk factors like alcohol misuse, conflict escalation patterns, insecure housing.
- Opportunity analysis: limited access to safe spaces, weak reporting pathways, fear of retaliation.
- Interventions
- victim-focused: shelter referrals, counselling, safety planning,
- offender-focused: counselling and behaviour change programmes, risk management plans,
- control: consistent enforcement and rapid response,
- community: education on consent and non-violence, support networks,
- evaluation: repeat incident tracking and service uptake.
This shows how prevention is not only about “stopping crime” but protecting victims and reducing escalation.
5.5 How to answer theory questions: turning definitions into arguments
In CMY2602, theory questions can be approached using the “definition → mechanism → application → limitation” method.
Example framework for “Discuss situational crime prevention”
- Definition
- intervention aimed at specific crime problems by reducing opportunities.
- Mechanism
- changes perceived effort, risks, rewards; reduces target suitability.
- Application
- discuss lighting, access control, CCTV, target hardening, guardianship.
- Limitation/critique
- displacement, adaptation, and the need for evaluation and maintenance.
This method prevents the common exam error of merely defining terms without demonstrating understanding.
5.6 How to answer “evaluate” questions: balanced critique for high marks
When asked to evaluate a prevention strategy, structure your evaluation as:
- Strengths
- why it likely works (theoretical mechanism),
- evidence logic (if you reference evidence, link to mechanisms),
- feasibility and sustainability.
- Weaknesses
- displacement risk,
- implementation barriers,
- equity concerns,
- potential ethical issues.
- Conditions for success
- what resources and partnerships are needed,
- what evaluation design must be in place,
- how to adapt based on data.
Example evaluation: community watch
- Strength: increases guardianship and reporting.
- Weakness: fear and retaliation can reduce participation; without support, vigilantism risk rises.
- Conditions: protection, coordination with police, training, and clear rules.
5.7 Common exam pitfalls and how to avoid them
- Listing interventions without explaining why
- Fix: connect each intervention to risk/opportunity/harm and prevention levels.
- Ignoring evaluation
- Fix: add process/outcome indicators and mention feedback loops.
- Confusing prevention levels
- Fix: categorize interventions as primary/secondary/tertiary.
- Over-focus on policing
- Fix: show integrated multi-agency prevention.
- No critical discussion
- Fix: mention displacement, adaptation, ethics, power imbalances, or sustainability.
5.8 Revision checklist: what to memorise vs what to reason with
For effective revision, separate “must-know concepts” from “application reasoning.”
Must-know concepts
- primary/secondary/tertiary prevention levels
- rational choice, routine activity, situational crime prevention
- CPTED principles (surveillance, access control, territoriality, maintenance)
- risk vs opportunity vs harm lenses
- deterrence components (certainty, severity, celerity)
- evaluation types (process vs outcome vs impact)
Must-know application reasoning
- how to analyse a problem (where/when/who/conditions)
- how to build an intervention mix
- how to anticipate unintended outcomes
- how to justify implementation and evaluation
5.9 Time management for exam responses (practical, reusable)
A typical CMY2602 exam question demands structured writing. A practical approach:
- Introduction (10–15% of time)
Briefly define key terms and outline your argument. - Main body (70–80%)
Use headings or clear paragraphing:- prevention levels,
- intervention types,
- integration,
- stakeholder roles,
- evaluation and limitations.
- Conclusion (5–10%)
Summarise the prevention logic and emphasise evaluation and integration.
If you can’t finish, prioritize:
- answering the question exactly,
- including prevention levels,
- giving at least one South African contextual example,
- adding evaluation and limitations.
5.10 High-scoring conclusion patterns
Conclusions should not introduce new concepts. Instead, end by reinforcing the integrated prevention logic:
- Prevention is most effective when environment + community + people + justice work together.
- Strategies must be designed with opportunity and risk analysis, not only general awareness.
- Implementation requires multi-agency capacity, and effectiveness must be tested with evaluation.
Final Consolidated Summary (Exam Snapshot)
CMY2602 teaches that effective crime prevention, reduction, and control requires evidence-informed planning, grounded in criminological theory and translated into practical interventions. A high-mark strategy identifies the crime problem precisely, analyses risk and opportunity conditions, selects interventions across prevention levels (primary, secondary, tertiary), and integrates environmental design, community guardianship, offender-focused behaviour change, victim support, and justice/control measures. Finally, it evaluates and adapts interventions to avoid displacement, ensure sustainability, and uphold ethical standards—making prevention not just a concept, but an operational, measurable practice in South African communities.
