This is meant as a theme suggestion for what I think low-security space is all about; it's meant as a theme that I think is beneficial to everyone: pirates, victims and vigilantes alike.
In the EVE storyline, low-security systems belong to some empire faction. They are not, as is a common perception, a no-mans land -- that would be null-security space. Nor are they the domain of pirate factions and criminals.
Low-security space is [like the television depiction of] the wild west of New Eden where lawmen are rare and moral lawmen are rarer still; criminals prey on wary and hardened victims and victims sometimes take the law into their own hands. Think back to your childhood days of watching the Lone Ranger, Bonanza and John Wayne movies. Yes, there were bad guys; but I think you'll see a common theme in that there were good guys, ordinary guys and morally corrupt lawmen mixed in as well.
Criminals need victims. Victims need vigilantes. Vigilantes need criminals. It is the circle of life. What low-security space has now is a plethora of criminals, a small sprinkling of victims and an occasional vigilante. My contention is that attracting more vigilantes and victims (sometimes they are the same) is in the interest of all low-security dwellers.
Most criminals are only interested in killing other players; if they do PvE it's primarily to feed that habit. If this is true, then adding special content and benefits for these people is truly not in the criminals' best interest; benefits only for criminals will do nothing to attract new victims (which I've established, with nary a sign of proof, are part of the circle of life). Further, benefits for criminals will only further the perception that criminals have all the advantages in low-security space and deter vigilantes.
Victims are only interested in making money. They aren't interested, or are only lightly interested in player-versus-player conflict. Only the promise of quick cash will steer these players to low-security space. And flying very expensive, vulnerable battleships into an area where they are easily probed down and ganked or stopped short of their goals conflicts sharply with making fast cash. These cupcakes need to be persuaded to fly combat-worthy ships into missions where the opportunity to gank them is shorter but failure is an option that won't break the bank or destroy their faction reputation. http://paritybit.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/low-security-pve-is-not-pve/
Vigilantes are the rotten and moldy cupcakes who used to be interested in quick cash but got ganked one too many times or violent pilots with an e-conscience. The only lure necessary for these fish to the hook is a clear and visible signal that a pilot is a criminal and the freedom to act on that information. A reward from CONCORD couldn't hurt either. http://paritybit.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/instant-bad-ass-o-meter/
For a healthy low-security environment, we need all three of these archetypes. Sure, criminals will prey on criminals, vigilantes will sway outside their moral values to gank a juicy victim and victims will turn into vigilantes -- but that too is part of the circle of life.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that ideas about criminal-centered PvE are wrong; I'm suggesting that these ideas really appeal more to the victims and should be aimed in that direction. I am suggesting that benefits to criminals such as turning off gate guns or providing other advantages are a poor idea for a healthy ecology.