Since it appears that the vast majority of the offenders are rational, crimes almost always happen at some specific areas, places or regions and are rarely randomly distributed, if not never. This phenomenon is well introduced in the crime pattern theory (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1981, 1984, 1993) which intersects the rational theory, routine activity theory and crime pattern theory. In crime pattern theory, both offenders and victim have their own behavior patterns consisting of the same or different activity places. Crimes are more likely to happen in these intersected activity places. Iron Law of Troublesome Places (Wilcox and Eck, 2011) simply indicates that few places (roughly 20%) are responsible for most of problems (roughly 80%),
Routine activity theory states that for a crime to be committed, three important factors need to be present including: a motivated offender, an accessible target, and the absence of a capable guardian against a violation. Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen introduced the routine activity theory in 1979, where they believed that an individual who has these three characteristics gives them a greater possibility of committing a crime. Moreover, situational crime prevention is known as strategies of ways for preventing or reducing the opportunities for criminals to commit crimes that derive from the routines of an individual’s everyday life. Ronald V. Clarke introduced situational crime prevention theory in 1983, where he believed that removing the situation instead of removing the criminal could prevent crime. In this paper, I will be discussing what routine activity/situational crime prevention theory is, and apply two peer-reviewed articles from Google Scholar that test the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory by discussing what the authors are trying to figure out and discuss their findings, and lastly, tie the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory articles to our textbook in hopes to fully understand in depth what the theory encompasses.
This paper summarizes four theories of criminology. Rational choice theory states that criminals act based on a thought process that weighs the pros and cons of criminality. Criminologists who believe in this theory feel that most criminals are people capable of having rational thoughts before committing a crime. Trait theory is the view of criminology that suggests criminality is a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. Criminologists who believe in this theory feel that criminals choose to commit crime because of a brain anomaly or chemical imbalance. Social structure theory is “a view that disadvantaged economic class position is a primary cause of crime” (Seigel 139). Those who follow this theory often believe social forces can have a great effect on whether or not a person commits a crime. An example would be those who are poor are more being more prone to commit crime. Social process theory is a view that criminality depends on how a person interacts with different organizations and institutions and processes in society. For example, a family would be considered
Demographics provide the specifics necessary to obtain knowledge pertaining to a city’s inhabitants. Attaining this type of detailed information is vital to the creation of a flourishing municipality. Demographic data can offer crucial material in relation to the particulars, such as the districts residents reside, the districts most preferred, the areas more highly safeguarded, high crime areas, the elementary schools most preferred and what type of developments residents want to see within the area. Verification is made by evaluating the demographic attributes of the populace, areas of
There is the crime pattern theory that explains how individual’s routine activities affect their knowledge of criminal activities and the above leads to spatial concentrations of crimes in some places. Individual developmental maps determine their regular activities and spaces that are represented as topological features. The routine operations act as nodes or sites where people spend time most of time and criminals will move there depending on the level of security anticipated. The offenders will decide where to attack depending on how well they understand the routine activities of their clients (Carlo, and Marie-Noële, 15). On that note, it is not possible for criminals to just attack a place without evaluating the dynamics of the
Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary
I am comparing crime rates between Seattle, Washington and Denver, Colorado. I will be looking to see what crimes these cities have in common and who has the higher crime rates for those that are in common and why that might be.
It is unfortunate that crime exists in our daily lives. There really is no way to stopping crime completely, no matter how many laws or punishment are present, people will continue to keep breaking rules. There are many theories of why that may be the case, for example, Caesar Lombroso and his “atavistic” theory with the Positivist School theory and how people were “born criminals”, or the Rational Choice Theory, devised by Cornish and Clarke, described that people could think rationally and how people will naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure referred to as “hedonism” (Cartwright, 2017, lecture 4). Since it is apparent that crime will continue to exist, it is not only important to understand the study of crime and the feedbacks to it,
The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.
According to Paternoster and Bachman (2001), “the rational choice perspective was explicitly developed to assist policy thinking,” aside from, “every act of crime involves some choice by the offender and that he or she can be held responsible for that choice and can legitimately be punished (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 34).” A successful example of the rational choice theory illustrates as Paternoster and Bachman (2001) points out, “that studies of the victims of serial killers and rapists through Rossmo’s (1995) geographic profiling, which is bases on findings from environmental criminology (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1991) in that most crime is committed within activity spaces of offenders
Over the years, routine activities theory has been used to explain many different types of crime. However, the evidence regarding routine activities theory across the board has generally been mixed (controversy).
There are many theories that attempt to explain the cause of criminal events. One such theory is routine activity theory developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979. This theory was meant to fill the gaps in existing models that failed to adequately address rising crime rates during the 1960 's (Browning et al., 2000). Cohen and Felson suggested that crime should be thought of as an event that occurs at a specific location and time and involves specific people and/or objects (Felson,
The hypothesis claims that “changes in routine activity patterns can influence crime rates by affecting the convergence in space and time of the three minimal elements of direct-contact predatory violations” and that “the absence of any one of these elements [motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of suitable guardians against a violation] is sufficient to prevent the successful completion of a direct-contact predatory crime.” (1) The authors claim that controls for routine activities, therefore, are essential to maintaining order and keeping the crime rate down. They also note that and understanding of temporal and spatial relationships are key to understanding the changing crime rates. Illegal acts are events that occur in space and time and involve specific persons and/or objects. The spatio-temporal organization of everyday activities is what allows criminals to turn their criminal ideas into reality. Dispersion of activities away from the household has led to a change in the spatio-temporal relationship that increases the opportunity for crime, which in turn increases the crime rate itself.
Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.
It is possible to consider the notion that some people may be more predisposed to committing a criminal behaviour or could become a criminal by committing an offence (Gottfredson, Hirschi 1990). For example, people in certain areas have a higher rate of crime. This higher crime rate in those areas seems to remain constant over time (Hayes, Prenzler, 2009). There may be many reasons influencing this phenomenon including socio-economic, and the limited resources associated with this (including less money and fewer services). This may be a factor contributing to the reason people living in these areas become a criminal – that is, to survive (Baumer & Gustafson, 2007).