Routine activities theory relates the pattern of offending to the everyday patterns of social interaction. Crime is therefore normal and is dependent on available opportunities to offend. If there is an unprotected target and there are sufficient rewards, a motivated offender will commit a crime.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
The number of motivated criminals in the population also affects crime levels. It is held that offenders are less likely to commit crimes if they can achieve personal goals through legitimate means. This implies that criminal motivations can be reduced if offenders perceive that there are alternatives to crime. The presence of capable guardians is also held to deter individuals from offending. Guardianship can be the physical presence of a person who is able to act in a protective manner or in the form of more passive mechanical devices such as video surveillance or security systems.
The essential aspect of routine activities theory is the interaction of motivation, opportunity and targets. In this way, the presence of guardians will deter most offenders, rendering even attractive targets off limits.
Policy‐Making and Political Culture in Sweden
Therefore, the presence of opportunity coupled with a lack of guardianship increases criminal motivations and the likelihood of an offence taking place. There is some research that supports the rational nature of crime. This support, however, is confined primarily to instrumental crimes, such as property and drug offences. These offences are generally crimes of opportunity. In this way, if offenders come across an opportunity to commit an offence, but perceive a high likelihood of capture, they will likely refrain from partaking in the activity.
Property offenders tend to stay away from locations that are occupied, have security measures, or are in areas where neighbours look out for one another.
Conversely, property offenders are enticed by unlocked doors and windows, secluded areas and unsupervised property. Similarly, it appears that drug dealers tailor their transactions in a similar fashion, as they tend to work in locations where they are able to clearly see anyone approaching and where there is an insignificant presence of watchful guardians. In terms of common street crime, it was found by Clarke and Harris that auto thieves are selective in their choice of targets, selecting different types of vehicles depending on the purpose of the theft.
This suggests that the decision with respect to a target and opportunity is rationally motivated. This rationale of decision-making is also found to hold true for sex-trade workers. Maher suggests that women rationally choose whom to solicit, whom to engage with and what risks they are willing to take to fulfill an interaction.
For substance offenders, the decision to use has been reported as being related to the benefits associated with use. Specifically, according to Petraitis et al. In terms of the distribution of drugs, MacCoun and Reuter found it to be related to the economics of the trade; drug dealers often cite the desire for a supplementary income as a prime motivator for getting involved in the drug trade.
Matsueda et al. Perceived risk is formed in part by information gleaned from informal peer groups, as well as from direct experience with the legal system. Theft and violence are a function of the perceived risk of arrest, subjective psychic rewards including excitement and social status and perceived opportunities. The perceived risk of punishment has a small but significant effect.
Similarly, Honkatukia et al. The preeminence of instrumental violence, and its use in situations where youth feel they lack power, supports the notion that crime emerges out of a rational thought process.
With respect to violence, it has also been found that perpetrators are selective in their choice of target; they select people who appear vulnerable, without the means to protect themselves. By way of example, Wright and Rosi found that violent offenders avoid victims who may be armed and dangerous, preferring to select more defenceless victims who are less likely to resist. More recently, Siegel and McCormick conclude that although some acts of lethal violence are the result of angry aggression, others seem to show signs of rational planning.
Therefore, although violent acts appear to be irrational, they do seem to involve some calculations of the risk and rewards Taken together, these studies indicate that there is an element of rationality in the decision to engage in offending behaviour.
Carmichael and Piquero , however, found mixed support for the rational nature of decision-making. They found that individuals who perceive higher informal sanction severity are less likely to report assault intentions, while individuals who perceive a thrill from engaging in the assault are more likely to report assault intentions.
The research demonstrates that perceived anger is an important component of decision-making, and that it influences how rational choice considerations are interpreted by would-be offenders. The authors concluded that although rational choice considerations and perceived emotional arousal are both important in this regard, emotional impulses exert particularly strong influences on decision-making. Further, the rational nature of violent offences was not confirmed by Wright et al.
These people, who live a lifestyle of desperation, can not afford to pay for the basic necessities of life except by impulsive robberies. These robberies also tend to fit patterns of aggressive and violent behaviour that has no regard for the needs or feelings of others. Robbery, therefore, was not a rational choice based on a consideration of alternatives and measured consequences; rather, robberies were an impulsive act of desperation used as a source of income for a lifestyle of immediate personal gratification. Though alcohol and anger interacted to increase one measure of aggressivity, the perceived costs and benefits of violence were unaffected.
This challenges the robustness of the rational choice model, as the theory was unable to uniformly explain aggression across experimental conditions. Routine activities theory is commonly used to explain why and how youth are at a heightened risk of being involved in offending behaviour and of being victimized.
Young unmarried males experience the highest frequency of victimization; their nightly activities, then, provide significant support for the theory, as it is these that take them away from the security of the home. By being out at night, these youth come into increased contact with offenders, partake in high-risk behaviours such as drug and alcohol use, participate in delinquent activities themselves, and frequent high-risk situations and areas Kennedy and Ford, ; Lauritsen, Sampson and Laub, Therefore, as a consequence of their routine activities and lifestyle, they are at a substantially higher risk for victimization.
Similarly, as people age, their risk of victimization decreases, and this may be the result of alterations in their routine activities. By putting oneself in a risky environment or disorganized neighbourhood, youth increase their likelihood of criminal involvement. Further supporting the situational nature of offending, Campbell et al.giolive.ro/wp-content/2019-12-21/pimix-chico-busca-chico.php
Criminal Law Reform Now : Research events : Crime Research Centre : University of Sussex
Similarly, Gouvis found that schools act as a social milieu for violence, with social disorganization and routine activities influencing block-level violent crime rates. During the after-school period, blocks near schools that are categorized by resource deprivation experienced higher rates of violence than blocks near schools with more resources. This finding suggests that a lack of resources results in less supervision of youth, which creates more opportunities for offending. Hummer , however, did not find support for the situational nature of offending, as it was found that these factors were insignificant in reducing violent or property crimes on campuses.
In terms of guardianship, Schreck and Fisher found that tightly knit families are better situated to provide direct protection for children, as well as to reduce their exposure to motivated offenders. Children who associated with delinquent peers tended to experience enhanced exposure to motivated offenders and to be ineffectively supervised and were seen as more suitable targets for violence. The effects of peer context, however, did not seem to detract from the influence of family variables; each appears to predict violent victimization independently.
Chapter 7. Deviance, Crime, and Social Control
The findings also revealed that demographic variables remain important predictors, net of the routine activities, family, and peer variables. Similarly, Spano concluded that, over all, routine activities theory receives mixed support in terms of the influence of deviant lifestyles as a risk factor and social guardianship as a protective factor, with these factors exerting inconsistent influence depending on race and sex.
Much offending behaviour appears to be impulsive, without consideration of the consequences.
- Knowledge and Data Management in GRIDs.
- CRIMINAL LAW REFORM: CONTINENTAL EUROPE?
- Assertion (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition).
- Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible.
- Towards a Rational Legislative Evaluation in Criminal Law.
- Review of the Roots of Youth Violence: Literature Reviews!
In this way, the likelihood of apprehension or the seriousness of the sanction do not appear to cross the minds of offenders when they make the decision to offend. Offenders, particularly property offenders, may give some consideration to the chances of being caught; however, this does not appear to be the deciding factor in the decision to offend. It appears that, instead of thinking of the long-term negative consequences, offenders focus primarily on the immediate benefits associated with the offence.
This suggests that offenders may not be as rationally motivated or calculating as it is often assumed. Rational choice and routine activities theory both hold that crime rates are a product of criminal opportunity. It is thus thought that by increasing the number of guardians, decreasing the suitability of targets or reducing the offender population, the crime rate should decline.
A central implication of understanding offending in terms of a rational calculation means that the criminal justice system is capable of controlling crime, that aggressive law enforcement and severe punishment should deter offenders, and consequently, produce a notable reduction in criminal offending. The question, however, remains: Is crime rational? The inherent difficulty with these theories is they are premised on the assumption that offenders are rationally calculating individuals.