Too much security promotes a fortress mentality. Environmental design must reduce criminal activity while maintaining aesthetic standards sought by architects. Because voluntary or compulsory security codes and standards for maintenance do not generally exist, because competition among proprietors has not generally extended to security, and because the essential role of the architect in security planning has not been widely recognised, landlords do not request that architects design for security, nor do building permit officials insist on it. Architects do not always know who is going to be living in the building they design and cannot therefore involve residents in the security planning process. As well, architects tend to be more concerned with ideal aesthetics than crime prevention.
Police often regard resident involvement in the planning process as meddlesome.
There are problems with some citizen patrols that are often part of crime prevention programs, e.g. participants losing interest, lack of volunteers at the most vital times Such as late at night, and factionalisation. Traditionally, the community has turned to the police and the judicial system to protect them by deterring criminals and punishing offenders. And traditionally, more resources have been allocated to apprehending criminals and punishing them after the event than to preventing the offence. The community is beginning to realise, however, that crime rates are rising despite increasing penalties, that the judicial system cannot cope, and that it is the individual who eventually foots the bill for crime through increased taxes for expanded police forces and more jails, and through higher insurance premiums.