Introduction
Rural crime, often overshadowed by the dominant focus on urban crime within criminological studies, presents unique challenges and characteristics that warrant specific attention. While urban environments typically dominate discussions on crime due to higher population density and visibility of criminal activity, rural areas face distinct issues that are frequently under-researched. This essay explores whether there is a need for a targeted focus on rural crime in criminology by examining the similarities and differences between urban and rural environments and their impact on the nature of crime and responses to it. Through an analysis of crime patterns, victimisation, and policing strategies, this essay argues that a dedicated focus on rural crime is essential to address the unique social, economic, and geographical factors that shape criminal behaviour and justice responses in these areas. The discussion will be structured into sections addressing the nature of crime and the response to it in rural versus urban contexts, before concluding with the broader implications for criminological research and policy.
Differences in the Nature of Crime Between Rural and Urban Environments
One of the primary distinctions between rural and urban environments lies in the nature and prevalence of crime. Urban areas are often associated with higher rates of violent and property crimes, driven by factors such as population density, socioeconomic inequality, and anonymity, which can facilitate criminal activity (Siegel, 2019). In contrast, rural areas generally report lower overall crime rates, as documented in studies such as those by the UK’s Office for National Statistics, which indicate that serious crimes like robbery and assault are less frequent in rural settings (ONS, 2021). However, this does not imply that rural areas are free from crime; rather, the types of crime differ significantly. Rural crime often involves agricultural theft, such as livestock rustling or equipment theft, which are less common in urban settings but have devastating economic impacts on rural communities (Smith and Byrne, 2017).
Furthermore, rural crime may be underreported due to geographical isolation and a cultural reluctance to involve authorities, a phenomenon less pronounced in urban contexts where access to law enforcement is more immediate (Weisheit and Donnermeyer, 2000). For instance, crimes such as domestic violence in rural areas may go unreported because of limited access to support services or fear of community stigma, highlighting a distinct nature of victimisation compared to urban environments (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 2009). Therefore, while the overall volume of crime may be lower in rural areas, the specific challenges of isolation and underreporting underscore the need for criminology to focus on these unique dynamics rather than generalising findings from urban studies.
Variations in Responses to Crime in Rural and Urban Contexts
The response to crime, including policing strategies and community reactions, also varies significantly between rural and urban environments, further justifying a specific focus on rural crime. In urban areas, law enforcement agencies are typically well-resourced, with a higher density of police stations and specialised units to address diverse criminal activities (Mawby, 2015). Conversely, rural policing faces challenges of vast geographical coverage with limited resources, often resulting in slower response times and reduced visibility of officers. As Yarwood (2001) notes, rural police forces are frequently stretched thin, covering large areas with fewer personnel, which can hinder effective crime prevention and investigation.
Moreover, community responses to crime differ markedly between these environments. Urban communities may rely on formal mechanisms like CCTV surveillance and community policing initiatives to deter crime. In contrast, rural communities often depend on informal social controls, such as neighbourly vigilance, due to the close-knit nature of these areas (Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy, 2014). However, this reliance on informal mechanisms can be a double-edged sword; while it may deter some crimes, it can also perpetuate underreporting, particularly of sensitive issues like domestic abuse, as community members may prioritise social cohesion over reporting (Weisheit and Donnermeyer, 2000). These differences suggest that applying urban-centric crime prevention strategies to rural contexts may be ineffective, supporting the argument for tailored criminological research and policy.
The Case for a Specific Focus on Rural Crime
Given the distinct nature of crime and responses to it in rural areas, there is a compelling case for a specific focus on rural crime within criminology. First, the economic impact of rural crime, particularly agricultural theft, is disproportionately severe compared to similar property crimes in urban areas. For example, the theft of farming equipment can cripple a rural livelihood, whereas urban property theft may not have the same systemic impact on a household’s income (Smith and Byrne, 2017). Yet, criminological research often overlooks these economic dimensions, focusing instead on urban issues like gang violence or drug trafficking.
Secondly, rural areas face unique vulnerabilities due to geographical isolation, which affects both the perpetration of crime and access to justice. Victims in rural settings may be hours away from the nearest police station or support service, a factor that is rarely an issue in urban environments (Mawby, 2015). This raises critical questions about equity in criminal justice outcomes, which criminology must address through targeted studies rather than assuming rural crime mirrors urban patterns.
Finally, the underrepresentation of rural crime in academic discourse and policy-making perpetuates a cycle of neglect. While urban crime undoubtedly demands attention due to its scale, the marginalisation of rural issues risks leaving significant portions of the population underserved by both research and practical interventions (Weisheit and Donnermeyer, 2000). Arguably, a balanced criminological agenda that includes rural crime as a distinct field of study could lead to more equitable and effective justice systems.
Counterarguments and Limitations
It must be acknowledged, however, that some argue against a specific focus on rural crime, suggesting that resources should prioritise urban areas where crime rates are statistically higher and more visible (Siegel, 2019). Additionally, the overlap in certain types of crime, such as drug misuse, which affects both rural and urban areas, might suggest that a universal approach to criminology is more practical. Yet, even in these overlapping areas, the context and impact differ; for instance, drug-related crime in rural areas may involve different distribution networks and community impacts compared to urban centres (Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy, 2014). Thus, while acknowledging these counterarguments, the distinct characteristics of rural crime still necessitate focused attention.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has demonstrated that there is a clear need for a specific focus on rural crime within criminology, driven by the significant differences between rural and urban environments in the nature of crime and responses to it. Rural crime, shaped by geographical isolation, unique economic impacts, and distinct social dynamics, cannot be adequately addressed through frameworks designed for urban contexts. The slower response times of rural policing, underreporting of crime, and reliance on informal social controls further highlight the necessity of tailored research and policy interventions. While urban crime undeniably warrants significant attention, neglecting rural issues risks perpetuating inequalities in criminal justice outcomes. Consequently, criminology must expand its scope to include dedicated studies of rural crime, ensuring that the field remains relevant and responsive to the diverse needs of all communities. The implications of this argument extend beyond academia, urging policymakers to allocate resources and develop strategies that recognise the unique challenges faced by rural areas.
References
- DeKeseredy, W. S. and Schwartz, M. D. (2009) Dangerous Exits: Escaping Abusive Relationships in Rural America. Rutgers University Press.
- Donnermeyer, J. F. and DeKeseredy, W. S. (2014) Rural Criminology. Routledge.
- Mawby, R. I. (2015) Exploring the Relationship Between Crime and Place in the Countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, pp. 262-270.
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2021) Crime in England and Wales: Year Ending March 2021. ONS.
- Siegel, L. J. (2019) Criminology: The Core. Cengage Learning.
- Smith, R. and Byrne, R. (2017) Towards a Theoretical Framework for Understanding Rural Crime. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 3(2), pp. 123-140.
- Weisheit, R. A. and Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000) Change and Continuity in Crime in Rural America. Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), pp. 120-145.
- Yarwood, R. (2001) Crime and Policing in the British Countryside: Some Agendas for Contemporary Geographical Research. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(2), pp. 201-219.
