Table of Contents
Journal of Criminology
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 783461, 14 pages
Research Article

Are Adult Businesses Crime Hotspots? Comparing Adult Businesses to Other Locations in Three Cities

University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020, USA

Received 9 September 2013; Revised 14 December 2013; Accepted 9 January 2014; Published 9 March 2014

Academic Editor: Paul B. Stretesky

Copyright © 2014 Christopher Seaman and Daniel Linz. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 1976.
  2. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc, 475 U.S. 41, 1986.
  3. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425, 2002.
  4. B. Paul, D. Linz, and B. Shafer, “Governmental regulation of “adult” businesses through zoning and anti-nudity ordinances: debunking the legal myth of negative secondary effects,” Communication Law & Policy, vol. 6, pp. 255–391, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  5. D. Linz, K. C. Land, J. R. Williams, B. Paul, and M. E. Ezell, “An examination of the assumption that adult businesses are associated with crime in surrounding areas,” Law and Society Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 69–1, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. Linz, B. Paul, and M. Z. Yao, “A secondary effects study of peep show establishments in San Diego,” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 182–193, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. D. Linz, M. Yao, and S. Byrne, “Testing supreme court assumptions in California v. la Rue: is there justification for prohibiting sexually explicit messages in establishments that sell liquor?” Communication Law Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 23–53, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  8. C. Seaman and D. Linz, “The secondary effects doctrine since alameda: an empirical re-examination of the justifications for laws limiting first amendment protection,” Journal of Media Law and Ethics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 192–214, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  9. R. Enriquez, J. M. Cancino, and S. P. Varano, “A legal and empirical perspective on crime and adult establishments: a secondary effects study in San Antonio,” Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  10. R. McCleary, “Rural hotspots: the case of adult businesses,” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 153–163, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. McCleary, “Crime-related secondary effects: secondary effects of “off-site” sexually-oriented businesses,” Report Commissioned by Texas City Attorneys Association, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  12. M. Felson and R. V. Clarke, Opportunity Makes the Thief, Police Research Series, Paper 98, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London, UK, 1998.
  13. T. A. Danner, “Violent times: a case study of the Ybor City Historic District,” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 14, pp. 3–29, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  14. J. H. Ratcliffe and M. J. McCullagh, “Hotbeds of crime and the search for spatial accuracy,” Journal of Geographical Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 385–398, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. L. W. Sherman, P. R. Gartin, and M. E. Buerger, “Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place,” Criminology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 27–55, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. H. Ratcliffe, T. Taniguchi, E. R. Groff, and J. D. Wood, “The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: a randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots,” Criminology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 795–831, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. D. Weisburd, E. R. Groff, and S.-M. Yang, “Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: the importance of formal and informal social controls,” Prevention Science, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. L. E. Cohen and M. Felson, “Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach,” American Sociological Review, vol. 44, pp. 588–608, 1979. View at Google Scholar
  19. M. Felson and L. E. Cohen, “Human ecology and crime: a routine activity approach,” Human Ecology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 389–406, 1980. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. D. Weisburd, S. Bushway, C. Lum, and S.-M. Yang, “Crime trajectories at places: a Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of Seattle,” Criminology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 283–322, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. Cancino and J. McCluskey, An empirical analysis of Dr. Richard McCleary’s San Antonio SOB case study (Secondary Effects of “Off-Site” Sexually-oriented Businesses) commissioned by the Texas City Attorney’s Assocation, Unpublished Report, 2009.
  22. D. Roncek and P. Maier, “Bars, blocks, and crime revisited: linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of ‘hot spots’,” Criminology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 725–753, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  23. Annex Books,v. City of Indianapolis, IN 2855813, 7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2009.
  24. New Albany DVD, LLC v. City of New Albany, No. 05-1286, 7th Cir. Sept. 10, 2009.
  25. Doctor John's, v. City of Roy, 465 F. 3d 1150, 1169, 10th Cir. 2006.
  26. R. Block and C. Block, “Space, place, and crime,” in Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies, J. Eck and D. Weisburd, Eds., vol. 4, pp. 124–141, Criminal Justice Press, Massey, NJ, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  27. “Minnesota Crime Commissionan analysis of the relationship between adult entertainment establishments, crime, and housing values,” Tech. Rep., The Minneapolis City Council, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1980.
  28. D. Roncek and R. Bell, “Bars, blocks and crimes,” Journal of Environmental Systems, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 35–46, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  29. D. Roncek and M. Pravatiner, “Additional evidence that taverns enhance nearby crime,” Sociology and Social Research, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 185–188, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  30. L. Shannon, “Ecological evidence of the hardening of the inner city,” in Metropolitan Crime Patterns, R. Figlio, S. Homkin, and G. Rengert, Eds., pp. 92–128, Willow Tree, Monsey, NY, USA, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  31. L. Sherman, “Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of place,” in Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies, J. Eck and D. Weisburd, Eds., vol. 4, pp. 27–55, Criminal Justice Press, Massey, NJ, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  32. R. Scribner, D. Cohen, S. Kaplan, and S. H. Allen, “Alcohol availability and homicide in New Orleans: conceptual considerations for small area analysis of the effect of alcohol outlet density,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 98, pp. 243–251, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  33. R. A. Scribner, D. P. MacKinnon, and J. H. Dwyer, “The risk of assaultive violence and alcohol availability in Los Angeles county,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 335–340, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. K. J. Rice and W. R. Smith, “Testing routine activity and social disorganization theory: socio-ecological models of automobile theft,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 304–336, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. L. Anselin, J. Cohen, D. Cook, W. Gorr, and G. Tita, “Spatial analysis of crime,” in Criminal Justice 2000, D. Duffee, Ed., vol. 4 of Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, pp. 213–262, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  36. J. H. Ratcliffe and T. Taniguchi, “Is crime higher around drug-gang street corners? Two spatial approaches to the relationship between gang set spaces and local crime levels,” Crime Patterns and Analysis, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–46, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  37. J. H. Ratcliffe, Buffer Intensity Calculator (Version 2. 3) [Computer Software], Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2007.