Two teenagers yesterday admitted killing Evren Anil in Crystal Palace after he protested last August against their throwing a half-eaten chocolate bar through his sister's car window. Meanwhile, in Lancashire two teenagers were arrested for stabbing to death a man who intervened during a fight in a park. If these were simply one-off, isolated incidents, the coincidence of these two reports might be dismissed as insignificant.

Yet it seems not a week goes by without news of yet another case such as that of 11-year-old Rhys Jones, murdered by a BMX-riding teenager, or Brent Martin, the 23-year-old with learning difficulties who died after being "savagely attacked" by a gang of up to five youths on an estate with supposedly low level anti-social behaviour and low level crime.

Even the authorities are not immune. Remember the case of the train guard who was attacked by a group of disorderly youths after asking them to take their feet off a seat? Instead of defending the guard, Southeastern railway sacked him, saying he should have walked away! And what of the revelation that five in every six police officers have been assaulted while on duty in the past five years?

The Government's knee-jerk reaction in recent years appears to have been to pass yet more legislation and to throw more money at the problem. However, such anti-social behaviour cannot be treated as though there is no connection with wider changes in society, such as increased labour mobility, soaring migration rates, and deteriorating social cohesion. As the Jubilee Centre noted in its 1993 paper The Relational Causes Of Crime, crime and anti-social behaviour are not simply the product of individual moral choices, but are a product of the society we choose to create or which is chosen for us by others; consequently, "significant reductions in crime are unlikely unless accompanied by changes to our way of life which strike a new, and very different, balance, between choice and obligation."

Perhaps the tide is turning, for even David Cameron, talking about social responsibility last year, noted this means "all of us recognising our obligations not just as parents but as neighbours, as members of a community and understanding that those obligations are as important as simply paying our taxes and obeying the law. It means understanding and acting on that age-old maxim that it takes a village to raise a child."

Clearly there are no easy answers, but if society is to begin getting to grips with the problem, then each of us should seek to understand our obligations to our local community. Our 2002 report Where do we go from here? concluded with four sets of questions challenging individuals, employers, policy makers, and churches to consider what their role should be. We would do well to reflect on each of these, starting with the questions for individuals:

• What is the reason for moving to/living in a certain place? How long do you intend to remain there?
• How close are you to relatives and friends? How well do you know your neighbours?
• Are you sufficiently rooted to fulfil your obligations to wider family?
• What would the impact of moving be on your relationships with family, friends and the local community?
• How close are you to your workplace and how much time does your work allow you to spend at home?
• How far are you involved or interested in local community affairs?
• Are you able to be part of a community that knows and cares for its vulnerable members?
• Is the local community sufficiently familiar and secure for you to feel confident in addressing anti-social behaviour?

• 
• Share