This is one of the topics that are studied in 'environmental psychology'. They have done quite a lot of research on urban areas that feed crime. As far as I can remember, those areas with easy escape are more favorable to criminals. For example, in case of burglary, they prefer those houses which are close to parks or large open area. use the key word 'environmental psychology' in your searches and it will come up. Also you can search for it in two popular journals:1, Journal of environmental psychology and 2, Journal of Environment and behavior both have lots of articles regarding crime in urban and rural areas.

I think dead-end streets may feed crime in their zone. They are very dangerous when they are not designed socially right . However, some factors may be added not to feed crime such as trees, widening streets or maybe offering visual transparency .

This is one of the topics that are studied in 'environmental psychology'. They have done quite a lot of research on urban areas that feed crime. As far as I can remember, those areas with easy escape are more favorable to criminals. For example, in case of burglary, they prefer those houses which are close to parks or large open area. use the key word 'environmental psychology' in your searches and it will come up. Also you can search for it in two popular journals:1, Journal of environmental psychology and 2, Journal of Environment and behavior both have lots of articles regarding crime in urban and rural areas.

It depends on who lives on the dead end street. As an example if the street is dense with homes with aware people, then the possibility of property crime decrease. However, an increase of crimes against persons may be in the balance (because of the density). Therefore, if the dead end street is not populated then the opportunity for criminal activity increases. - Best regards, Paul

I guess that when you control for all relevant factors there is no relationship between dean-end streets and crime. For example, in residential areas dead-end streets form enclosed living spaces and one should not expect them to feed crime if not discourage it (even if occasionally they may be targeted by organised burglars). In inner-city urban "ghettos" dead-end streets may actually experience more crimes which may suggest positive relationship.  

Definitely  what increases crime is social inequality, poverty, drug abuse and injustice, violence and repression also does increases the rage and crime with in it. 

Here in Brazil, specially in São Paulo City, there has been increasing the demand for houses in dead-end streets (the so-called "vilas"). Architets love this kind of building because they address a time and an environment of a São Paulo not that old, when it was not that dangerous and violent city as it is nowadays. But, because of the risk of burglary and other kind of violences that they may suffer, people who live in these places are installing automatic gates right in the entrance of the street,  in order to avoid circulation of people who don t belong there. But I don´t think it definetly protects them, because they can be attacked while they are leaving or coming. The problem here is the lack of a more active police action to control crime rates.

thanks for sharings your thoughts. I benefited all of them. I am studying on children at risk on crime in Istanbul. There are lots of dead-end streets in their zone. And the officials believe the dead-end streets increase crime in this zone. 

I would add two things, the first based on literature, the second based on my own research for two decades in so called disadvantaged neighborhoods.

(1)  Space syntax people may argue that dead-end streets and "cull de sacs"  can enhance uncomfortable feelings if there is no qualitative public space in the surroundings.  As they read space and buildings as a vocabular of interconnected 'rooms'  (Kim Dovey),  the dead end street will be analysed as an entity of lower quality. I am not acquainted with literature that links this Space Syntax literature ( à la Dovey) with crime incidence in these specific places (dead ends)

(2) My own research in Dutch and Belgian neighborhoods suggests the opposite conclusion, be it restricted to drug-related nuisance.  If a dead ends has no connection with the environment (for instance a route to flee, a backyard giving way to another road...) they are of little value to drug-dealers and street-runners.  We do have some evidence (in terms of qualitative research) that of the opposite: dead ends connected with a run away routes, seems to be preferred.  These kind of dead ends often cause long lasting problems.  Again in this cases, the morphology and organisation of the surrounding built environment should be taken into account.  

You have to look at situational deviance prévention theory and actionist deviance sociological theory . Here references. It explains that lack of informal control in public space conduce delinquant people to make delinquant acts. It defends that delinquant actors are rational and strategic and so they are going to calculate the risk and the profit by taking into account various parameters of which the surveillance of places.

Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982, March). Broken Windows, « The Police and Neinghborhood Safety ». Consulté le novembre 10, 2008, sur The Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows.

Wilson, J., & Hernstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hirshi, T. (2009 [1969]). Causes of delinquency (éd. 9 ème). New Brunswick (USA), London (UK): Transaction publisher.

It depends on the kind of dead-end it is, as several here have already noted. I would recommend the book Pockets of crime by PKB St Jean (2007, available as e-book at my uni, and hopefully at yours too).

It elaborates a bit on the both control theories and broken windows theory (as mentioned above by Tristana Primor), but sets them in a context of other characteristics of the place. The example mentioned by Paul Blondel above is very similar to some of the reasoning St Jean does.

He does not study dead-ends specifically however, what he does is he tries to understand why some places have more crime than others, and he largely bases it on interviews with criminals in the neighborhood he studies.

It all depends on the social and cultural context Yasemin and the urban characteristics of the actual street. Cul-de-sacs are even favoured by some societies as 'safer'. If it is a small suburban dead end without a footpath exit for example, it is probably more risky for a potential criminal. People in such a street often know each and a stranger is quickly identify as an outsider. They will often be watched and may even be challenged by residents with 'can I help you?.

Dead-end streets are "less favorable" for criminal activity because access to areas away from the scene are blocked or lessened by the street's end or closing off. Follower Negin Minaei speaks to this issue well enough at the top of Answers section.  I tend to agree. Low or no-access areas discourage crime for the reason stated; no-access to an open conduit.  I live on a busy highway service road that easily accommodates pedestrian and automated traffic, and while busy, stuff happens anyway simply due to access.

Thanks for your answers. I studied on urban children in Okmeydanı-İstanbul the zone that subject to crime and also children of this neighborhood are related with crime. 

With criminal minds they always look at a way of escaping after or during the crime so a question that will be left open is what are you really looking at because a dead end can cause crime and also be a deterrent. I say that because one who knows the area very well can lore someone there who is not familiar with the area and rob etc. So the geographics of the area would be a strong area of research.