The Routine Activities Theory And The Interchangeable Lifestyle Theory

Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. Each household is interviewed twice during the year. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial or ethnic groups, city dwellers, and other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.”

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.

The offenders, as well as the potential targets, usually are not found in the same place at the same period. The criminals ' mobility behaviors can be explained by the Routine activity theory that considers the availability, mobility as well the activities of individuals as the most precursors for a crime to take place. The theory states that for a crime to take place it has to be motivated by the offender and they must converge in space and time by the victim, and they should be no guardian in place (Carlo, and Marie-Noële, 15). Therefore, the crime activities can be viewed to be parasitic with the individual’s activities or the routines that shape the possibility of such events to take place.

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,

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.

Bradley R. E. Wright, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt and Ray Paternoster Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2004 41: 180 DOI: 10.1177/0022427803260263 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/2/180

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

Victimization can happen to anyone, and if certain factors exist, the risk of being trafficked through prolonged victimization increases tremendously. In the case of Sara, being forced into prostitution and continuously abused is what led her to becoming an offender. Larry J. Siegal, in his book, Criminology: The Core, explains the factors which leads to victimization and to committing crime through these theories: the victim precipitation theory, lifestyle theory, deviant place theory and the routine activities theory. These theories along with some mental disorders are apparent in the case of Sara Kruzan, with the Deviant Place Theory and the Routine Activities Theory being more prevalent. Although severely victimized, Kruzan became an offender

Among society, there are many variances in people’s perceptions of safety and the threat of crime. This small essay will discuss whether members of society that are considered the most fearful of crime are accurate in their concerns and are also most likely to become victims of committed crimes. The fear of crime refers specifically to the fear and anxiety a person may feel resulting from a specific perceived threat or out of fear of potentially becoming a victim of crime, as opposed to the actual probability of becoming a victim of crime (Hale, 1996). According to Makkai and Prenzler (2014), both gender differences and age differences are variables that may affect an individual’s level of fear of becoming a victim of crime. Thus, the members of society who are considered to be the most fearful of crime are women, as well as younger and older individuals in respect to age (Davis & Dossetor, 2010; Hale, 1996; Makkai & Prenzler, 2014).

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.

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.

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.

This study talks about the causes that might lead a college student to become a victim of crime looking at the lifestyle and routine activities theory, and how students avoid getting themselves into dangerous situations. According to the study conducted by Daniel R. Lee & Carly M. Hilinski-Rosick, the study suggest that there is a relationship between the daily activities of a student and the characteristics of the student, and the fear of crime. (Lee, Hilinski-Rosick) . There study was conducted on twelve college and university campuses across the United States. Fear is an important factor, because if a student is aware of the types of crimes that exist based on what they’re doing. The student is more likely to not go out at night or drink and walk home by themselves, because they’ll know they can become victims of crime. Therefore this student would avoid putting themselves in situations like these to prevent themselves from becoming victimized. The lifestyle theory suggest that certain behaviors that a person lives by might cause them to become victims of crime. While the routine activities theory suggest that in order for a crime to occur there must be an offender, a target

The social process and traditional structure theory explained why female crime rates are rather lower than males. The social process theory tend to explain the traditional crime with regards to differential opportunity to lean criminal techniques and values. The use of the traditional theory shows evidence in which considered the overlap on the causes of crimes committed by both genders. Studies shows that both male and female offenders that came in contact with the criminal justice system often came from a social background that are typically of low socioeconomic status, poorly educated, under or unemployed, and minority groups (Steffensmeir and Allan, 1995). The only difference between male and female offenders is, female