Pros And Cons Of Routine Activity Theory

A motivated offender would at face value be anyone who is willing and able to commit a crime, but what motivates them? That is the question that makes this theory important; to understand the mindset of the offender you first must understand their situation. This is where the routine activity part begins to take shape, to differentiate itself from other theories of opportunity. Now you would think a person’s upbringing, their friends or family, survival, necessity, and many more factors are what motivate the offenders. While those are real factors, Routine Activities Theory says that social factors like that have an insignificant effect on crime overall; it boasts that regardless of those social factors crime will still occur when an opportunity arises. Although, those are things potential offenders come in contact with on a routine basis which can motivate and influence them to commit crimes in order to better their situation in their societies. This theory tries to capitalize more on crime being a lifestyle choice rather than a circumstantial one. Now that the offender’s motivation is understood the second factor is a suitable target. A suitable target is quite simply the victim of the motivated

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.

It is associated to rational choice theory and routine activity theory as mentioned by Joyce (2013) in her book on Criminal Justice. Rational choice theory where if the potential offender know that the risk to commit a crime is high, it will decrease their motivation to commit knowing that he or she will get caught easily. In short, the risks outweighs the benefits. Routine activity theory where crime is possible at a certain time and place, with absence of capable guardian and suitable target and potential offender come together (Joyce, 2013, p.73), for example, a female walking back home alone in the alley at night, with no passer-by will make her a potential victim for

The rational choice theory gives insight in to why otherwise law abiding citizens would commit crime. Most burglars do not burglarize because they want something specific from the victim's property nor are they saving the cash proceeds for a long-term goal. They burglarize because they need the money right now to pay off bills, buy food and clothes for their family or to purchase alcohol and illegal drugs. Most burglars would turn to making an honest living, but, even that does not meet their immediate desires for cash. Nor would the earned wages support their lifestyles. (Wright & Decker, 1994).

This theory also is related to the lifestyle–routine activities perspective, because it is rational for offenders to want to choose targets that are proximate to their location, exposed, attractive or suitable, and unguarded. The argument is that rational offenders will be likely to reoffend against targets that previously brought them benefits. For example, say a savvy identity thief finds a way to steal a victim’s credit card number over the Internet, completely unbeknownst to the victim. From the standpoint of rational choice theory, it is likely that the offender will not only use the credit card information to make fraudulent purchases, but continue to use it until the card has been reported as stolen and no longer is valid to make purchases. For this reason, repeated identity theft victimization is rational on the part of the offender when compared to the alternative, which is to use the credit card information only a single

The routine activities theory is based on the concept of the crime triangle. This triangle consists of a “motivated offender a suitable target and the lack of guardianship” (Cohen & Felson, 1979). When Hot spot policing is employed its focus is directed at two of the three elements of the triangle. Those elements are the suitable target and the lack of a capable guardian (Hoover, 2014). Some of the major tenants of this perspective are geographic targeting, focused patrol, saturation patrol, and interactive programs. There are other tenants such as simple visibility and foot patrol but I will focus on the three mentioned above. Geographic targeting uses techniques which address crime based on the “hot spot” theory. Hot spots are another

There are a vast number of issues concerning child exploitation from the actions of the offender and the victim. Child exploitation is a complex issue that does not have one simple solution; this crime is nothing new, but technology is allowing it to evolve. Child exploitation is moving from sending child pornography through the postal service and targeting only children an offender has close proximity to. Technology and the Internet have widened the opportunities for offenders and have allowed for potentially ay juvenile to become victimized. The recommendations will focus on targeting key issues presented in the Routine Activities Theory; limiting a motivated offender, making targets unsuitable, and creating capable guardians online.

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,

In 1990, a new theory was brought to the public’s eye, which is able to explain all types of crime at all times. This new theory was called the theory of low self-control otherwise known as the general theory of crime. Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson were the two theorists that came together to the form general theory of crime. The theory recognized that many individuals are not always born well. These individuals are “born predisposed toward selfish, self-centered,

Initially, the main belief was that criminal behavior was based on rational choice or thought, where criminals were believed to be intelligent beings and weighed the pros and cons before deciding to commit a crime; classicists Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham introduced this view. Essentially, these criminals would compare the risks of committing the crime, such as getting caught, jail or prison time, being disowned by family and friends, and so forth; and the rewards, such as money and new possessions. After making comparisons, the person would make a decision based on whether the risk was greater than the reward. This is like what is presented in an article on Regis University Criminology Program’s website, which states that a criminal “operates based on free will and rational thought when choosing what and what not to do. But that simplistic view has given way to far more complicated theories” (“Biological Theories Primer”). Nowadays, biological theories make attempts in explaining criminal behavior in terms of factors that are primarily outside of the control of the individual.

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for

First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the

I believe a weakness of this theory is that it does not explain why everyone commits crime. It also shifts the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the factors that may have caused the crime to take place. An example would be instead of the person who steals being blamed for the crime, the blame is then on the environment because it is a low

However, the view that crime pays well and many commit crime for a lucrative lifestyle is simplistic and an unlikely explanation for the range in criminal behavior and circumstances surrounding that behaviour. It has be noted that while some may view crime as an avenue to gaining a lifestyle, crime