Deterrence through Intelligence

two (2) substantive feedback posts to your peers of 250 words.  Post 11.  Compare and contrast Strategic and Tactical Analysis and its application to street crimes such as robbery and property crimes such as burglary.  In your opinion is one more suited in addressing criminal behavior?According to our week one readings, the primary distinction between tactical and strategic analysis strategies is the scope on which they’re focused. Employing the tactical intelligence strategy involves making efforts the directly contribute to a particular investigation and invokes immediate action to be taken. For example, following up with eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime in the attempt to identify or profile a suspect would be a considered a tactical strategy in intelligence. I think of tactical intelligence as a response to a crime after the fact.  Strategic analysis techniques are different in that efforts are focuses are the grand scheme of things and the overall picture.  Strategic intelligence may start small and will evolve offer time as more information is gathered. An example of strategic analysis would be compiling notable details across multiple investigations of crimes involving a particular criminal network. Crime analysts would be able to string together different details in the attempt to explore a long-term solution in combating criminals. I feel that both tactical and strategic analysis both play an important role in addressing criminal behavior. I think that the findings in tactical analysis eventually contribute to strategic analysis that could potentially prevent future crimes. I feel that strategic analysis is probably more important if it helps in preventing crime, but tactical analysis is a vital part for this to work.2.  What is CPTED?  Please elaborate on how CPTED may be an effective means to reduce a criminal’s Modus operandi?  Provide an example. CPTED is an acronym that stands for crime prevention through environmental design. The basic concept of CPTED is that “the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life” (Crowe, 2000). What has started out as a simple concept in the 20th century, has evolved over decades of criticism into an approach that focuses not only on physical design, but also takes things such as social factors, socio-economic conditions, and demographics, and community participation into consideration. As research has confirmed, the fear of crime is greater in environments that provide refuge for criminals and offenders, but less opportunity for refuge or escape for the victim. The idea of CPTED asserts that the optimization of surveillance, clearly defined boundaries, and the creation and maintenance of a positive image of an environment, will discourage criminal behavior.  CPTED helps foster an environment in which a criminal or offender feels more visible to the public and make them feel more at risk of being observed or caught in the act of a conducting a criminal offense, thus discouraging the individuals and lessening the likelihood of crime taking place. For example,  a criminal is much less likely to break into a house in an “upscale” looking area full of security cameras as they are afraid of being seen.