Routine Activities Theory Vs Lifestyle Theory

Each of these theories had led to many new theories used today, such as the Rational Choice theory, Biosocial and Psychological Theory, Critical Theory, Cultural Deviance Theory, Life Course Theory, and many more. The one thing in common with every theory is that they all explain at least one behavioral factor that leads to crime. Today, all these theories, and more, are researched and taken into account when trying to understand why a criminal does what they do.

How can theories help us to understand criminal behavior and to design strategies intended to control such behavior?

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

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

Routine activity theory was first proposed by Cohen and Felson in trying to address the rise of criminal rates in the 1970s within a social context. This theory attempts to explain the possibility of crime that is influenced by our daily routines,

It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.

Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) expanded on these principles and introduced routine activities theory as an ecological perspective on criminal behavior. Furthermore, the quintessence of routine activity theory is the assertion that there are three necessary components that must be present for crime to occur: the motivated offender(s) (individuals seeking/able/willing to commit offenses), presence of

The aim of this essay is to compare, contrast and evaluate two sociological theories of crime causation and two psychological theories of crime causation.

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

In 1979, Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson published “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach”; this was the first paper introducing routine activities theory. Most criminological theories before routine activities theory focused more specifically on the socioeconomic factors affecting crime such as poverty, race, etc. Felson and Marcus believed instead that the routine activities of individuals and groups are the driving force behind crime.

The Routine Activities theory was developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson and is derived from rational choice theory (Walsh & Hemmens, p. 122). Cohen and Felson claim that crime is the result of “(a) motivated offenders meeting (b) suitable targets that lack (c) capable guardians” (Walsh & Hemmens, p. 123). The Routine Activities theory is used to explain not only crime rates but also risk of victimization. It is closely related to Lifestyle theory and often combined with it.

As crime continues to occur, criminologists begin to define new theories to explain our seemingly naturalistic tendencies on what mental processes take place for an individual to actually partake in criminal activity. The symbolic interactionist perspective defines itself by its strong beliefs in the fact that criminals are defined by their social processes. The social process theory states that criminality is a function of people’s interactions with various groups, organizations and processes in society. For example, an individual’s connection with family, school, friends, religion and media would all be main factors in determining how their criminal structure within their personality came

Lifestyle Theory is a theory in Criminology created by Glenn Walters in 1990. Unsurprisingly this theory is just as the name would suggest, a lifestyle choice to be a criminal. This theory focuses heavily on the biological factors that influence a person’s ability to commit crime. Walters wrote three concepts to his theory: conditions, choice, and cognition. To start, I will address conditions. In Walters’s theory, he discusses the environmental and biological conditions that are involved in entering the criminal lifestyle. The environmental condition is based around your environment like the name suggests. What that means is that the decision to commit crime is due in part by your living situations and needs. This

Lifestyle theory shows victims’ exposure to their own lifestyle choices. This exposure can lead them to the criminal attacker and situations with their own choices. Examples of such actions are as follows: going out at night alone, living in a bad part of town, associate with known felons, promiscuous, excessive alcohol use, doing drugs, going down a dark alley, etc. Crimes taken place are not random, but a part of the lifestyle choices the victim has portrayed. This impulsive behavior or low self-control comes at a high risk for victimization. (2006) This style of life offers more opportunities for the crime to occur.

The last theory, routine activities, has three variables. The first variable is the availability of target, the lack of guardianship, and the presence of motivated offenders. This means that there are offenders out there and their victim will be those who are unsuspecting and those without any sort of guardianship.