The Increase Of Crime After The Word War II

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 essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.

In criminology, is very important to study why people commit crime when deciding how crime should be handled and prevented. This type of study is known as criminal profiling. Many theories have developed over the years, and they continue to be researched, alone and in combination, as criminologists seek the best solutions in reducing specific types and levels of crime. While all crime theories are designed to try to explain and understand criminal activity and the people that commit them, it is an ongoing science. No one theory can define all crime. However, it can be used usefully to help us understand crime a little better and help criminologists find new ways to deal with and eliminate criminal behavior. I am going to discuss one

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,

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

Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

The Routine Activities Theory (RAT) requires three elements for a crime occur. (1) It needs a motivated offender with criminal intentions and the ability to act

Three broad models of criminal behaviors are the following: psychological, sociological and biological models. Actually, it is difficult to completely separate them and it is generally accepted, that all of them play a role in the interpretation of behavior. Though psychological principles can be applied across all the three models, they all have some specific ones, which would help in implementing across different crime control policies.

When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).

The deviation from the conventional routine of the average United States citizen after World War II, was of particular interest to Cohen and Felson (1979); during this time, economic and social welfare of the public increase, yet crime such as aggravated assault and rape increased more than two-fold between 1960 and 1975 (Cohen & Felson, 1979, p. 588-608). Due to lifestyle changes that elevated the time spent away from home, it gave room for the opportunity for crime to increase. Homes had less time with capable guardians and more people were out in public increased the likelihood of interaction with motivated offenders---** cite

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,

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

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.