Routine Activity Theory Analysis

Criminology is the study of why individuals commit crimes. Several sociologists and criminologists have developed theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior and why it occurs. In earlier times, theories such as biological determinism and phrenology were often used to explain criminal behavior. Those theories have since been proven to be unreasonable and unrealistic. As time passed, sociologists and criminologists created more plausible theories including the rational choice, classical, conflict, labeling, life course, critical, strain, social disorganization, routine activity, social control, and positivist theories. In attempts to better understand these criminological theories, an individual could apply one (or more) of these theories to real-life events or things he/she has seen on television. I have chosen to apply the rational choice theory to the popular movie Taken starring Liam Neeson and explain the many examples found throughout the movie.

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.

Using criminological terms and concepts, focus on a jurisdiction, neighborhood, or geographic locale with which you are familiar. Regarding a human behavior which you select to focus on in that geographical space, write two concise yet comprehensive paragraphs on how social disorganization theory can inform your understanding of behavior and place, and one weakness which would find your understanding somehow lacking, and why. Then write two equally compelling paragraphs on how routine activities theory would foster your understanding, and one weakness which might leave your understanding lacking, and why.

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,

The last sign detailing the neighborhood watch community states that they "report all suspicious persons and activities to their Law Enforcement Agency". This statement aligns

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

Through out the years Criminologists has conducted a great amount of research and through that research Criminologist has developed different theories in order to better understand and explain criminal behavior. Theories try to help make sense out of many observations that are conducted presenting the facts of the principal that connects and explains the theories. If good theory has been developed; then it becomes very valuable to Criminologist, because it shows the knowledge that is beyond the facts that has been presented; which will show Criminologist how to predict how others might behave (Andrews, D and

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).

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.

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,

Clark and Homel (1997) mention in this study that they have classified three different forms of surveillance when it comes to the prevention of any given situational crime. In their opinion, the three different types of surveillance contain formal surveillance, natural surveillance, and surveillance by employees. Clark and Homel (1997) explain why the reason they came about with these different types of situation crime preventions is because they are comparing the effectiveness of these surveillances by examination of the outcome of what is

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.

What makes a criminal a criminal? Can anyone become a criminal? Answering and understanding these questions is the core work of criminologists as most criminologists attempt to make sense of why people do certain things (Garland, Sparks 2000). This essay will consider the notion that any person could become a criminal and in so doing consider the initial question. This essay will outline a range of theories that attempt to describe human behavior in relation to criminal behavior given the complexities of behaviour. Several theories will be considered as no single theory of behavior can account fully for the complexities and range in criminal behaviour. The theories range from social-control, to classical, to biological, to personality