Routine Activity Theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
An Overview of Issues in Criminological Theory Introduction to the Book
W elcome to the world of criminological theory! It is an exciting and complex endeavor that explains why certain individuals and groups commit crimes and why other people do not. This book will explore the conceptual history of this endeavor as well as current theories. Most of us can relate directly to many of these theories; we may know friends or family members who fit dominant models of criminal behavior. This introduction begins by describing what criminology is; what distinguishes it from other perspectives of crime, such as religion, journalism, or philosophy; and how definitions of crime vary across time and place. Then, it examines some of the major issues used to classify different theories of criminology. After exploring the various paradigms and categories of criminological theory, we discuss what characteristics help to make a theory a good one-in criminology or in any scientific field. In addition, we review the specific criteria for proving causality-for showing what predictors or variables actually cause criminal behavior. We also explain why-for logistic and ethical reasons-few theories in criminology will ever meet the strict criteria required to prove that key factors actually cause criminal behavior. Finally, we look at the strengths and weaknesses of the various measures of crime, which are used to test the validity of all criminological theories, and what those measures reveal about how crime is distributed across various individuals and groups. Although the discussion of crime distribution, as shown by various measures of criminality, may seem removed from our primary discussion regarding theories of why certain individuals and groups commit more crime than others, nothing could be further from the truth. Ultimately, all theories of criminal behavior will be judged based on how much each theory can explain the observed rates of crime shown by the measures of criminality among individuals and groups. 1 Stephen Brown, Finn Esbensen, and Gilbert Geis, Criminology, 6th ed. (Cincinnati: LexisNexis, 2007).
Criminal Behaviour in the Context of Various Criminal Theories
Criminal activity has been in society for as much as there has been mankind. Socioeconomic and sociocultural criminogenic factors both contribute to crime. The research of subcultures frequently replaces the study of criminals as a social type. The research on crime and the study of conduct are not synonymous. Attempts to discover the basic differences between crime and non-crime, considered as behavior, and between criminals and non-criminals, considered as different types of individuals, have yielded evidence that seems to undermine the very assumption upon which such attempts have been founded. The belief that there is a fundamental distinction between criminal and noncriminal activity is dubious.The majority of crimes go unreported and unrecorded. Any sample of presumed non-criminals is questionable due to research on self-reported offenses accessible to public and private groups but not the police, white collar crime, and factors connected to differential reported crime.The percentages are comparatively high for lower middle class, minority group, youthful, male, itinerant, and urban populations for the majority of offending categories. It is debatable if variances in behavior among various groups of individuals account for discrepancies in crime rates. Criminology may look into whether laws penalize actions that are typical of those with less authority but not those with more power. People progressively pick up the fundamentals of illegal behavior and disdain the law more and more. When someone is officially assigned to a certain delinquent stigma, they start to identify with the appropriate social group and act accordingly. The qualitative research methodology has been applied to the following article.
Theoretical Developments in Criminology
Twentieth-century theoretical developments in four categories are reviewed: theories of individual differences in offending, theories of variation in offending through the lifecycle, theories of diversity of crime rates among social entities, and theories of differences among social situations in criminal outcomes. The essay notes temporal changes and shows integrative trends and cross-fertilization. It concludes that criminological theorists have made large strides, particularly in the past two decades, and as a result are now able to broadly outline the causes of crime-relevant phenomena. However, much work remains, particularly in more effectively articulating theories for precise explanations and predictions. Favorable trends suggesting continued improvement are identified.
FOR FULL PAPER VISIT www.tropicalessays.com Elijah Anderson, in his book, Code of the Streets, paints a picture of the reality in Philadelphia about crime and violence. He analyzes the daily activities of the families who live in the streets and comes up with a code that can be employed in the understanding of crime and violence behavior. Elijah argues that even if there are people in Philadelphia who can afford corporate lives, most of the population is poor and cannot afford a descent life leading them into crime. Using the data collected from the research, Anderson was able to draw very critical conclusions as they will be discussed in this article.
APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL PHENOMENON
This study aimed to analyze the phenomenon of crime theoretically, by evoking the concept within its cognitive contexts, from the perspective of researchers and academics who have dedicated their studies to developing a clear vision of the concept of crime. The theories that dealt with the subject were varied through the efforts of scientists and researchers belonging to different theoretical ideologies. We find sociological, psychological, biological and even religious theories that aim to understand the criminal phenomenon as a behavior performed by the individual and its impact on society.
Organized crime, situational crime prevention and routine activity theory
Trends in Organized Crime, September 2012, Volume 15, Issue 2-3, pp 87-92,
Mainstream criminology traditionally focuses on offenders instead of criminal events and criminal activities. Furthermore, crime is explained by motivations and special characteristics of offenders. The prevailing line of reasoning is roughly that there is something wrong about offenders who continue along the path of crime, either in a biological sense (for example, a lack of self-control) or in a social sense (for example, a lack of conventional ties or stakes in conformity). However, organized crime research shows, first, that some offenders are quite normal in many respects, though they are involved in serious forms of crime; and, second, that not all crimes are the same or just symptoms of latent characteristics such as low self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). One of the major contributions of Ronald Clarke and Marcus Felson to criminology is shifting the focus of some criminologists from a preoccupation with offenders to a detailed analysis of criminal events and criminal activities. Furthermore, studies by Clarke, Felson and others have demonstrated how situational crime analysis may help us to identify circumstances which facilitate crime as well as viable opportunityreducing measures, regardless of the motivation of offenders (e.g. Felson and Clarke 1998). If crime needs the convergence in time and space of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and absence of a capable guardian (the 'crime triangle'), this means that crime can be prevented by keeping motivated offenders away from suitable targets at specific points in time and space or by increasing the presence of capable guardians. In various publications, Clarke has explained-mainly based on a rational choice perspective on offending-the techniques of situational crime prevention: e.g. increasing the effort, increasing the risks, reducing the rewards, reducing provocation,
Activity Fields and the Dynamics of Crime
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2010
Our current understanding of the role of the social environment in crime causation is at best rudimentary. Guided by the theoretical framework of Situational Action Theory, and using data from the ESRC financed Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS+), this paper aims to propose how we can better theorise and study the role of the social environment, particularly the person and place interaction, in crime causation. We will introduce, and illustrate the usefulness of, a space–time budget methodology as a means of capturing people’s exposure to settings and describing their activity fields. We will suggest and demonstrate that, combined with a small area community survey and psychometric measures of individual characteristics, a space–time budget is a powerful tool for advancing our knowledge about the role of the social environment, and its interaction with people’s crime propensity, in crime causation. Our unique data allows us to study the convergence in time and space of crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and crime events. As far as we are aware, such an analysis has never before been carried out. The findings show that there are (a) clear associations between young people’s activity fields and their exposure to criminogenic settings, (b) clear associations between their exposure to criminogenic settings and their crime involvement, and, crucially, (c) that the influence of criminogenic exposure depends on a person’s crime propensity. Having a crime-averse morality and strong ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people practically situationally immune to the influences of criminogenic settings, while having a crime-prone morality and poor ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people situationally vulnerable to the influences of criminogenic settings.
Our current understanding of the role of the social environment in crime causation is at best rudimentary. Guided by the theoretical framework of Situational Action Theory, and using data from the ESRC financed Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS?), this paper aims to propose how we can better theorise and study the role of the social environment, particularly the person and place interaction, in crime causation. We will introduce, and illustrate the usefulness of, a space-time budget methodology as a means of capturing people's exposure to settings and describing their activity fields. We will suggest and demonstrate that, combined with a small area community survey and psychometric measures of individual characteristics, a space-time budget is a powerful tool for advancing our knowledge about the role of the social environment, and its interaction with people's crime propensity, in crime causation. Our unique data allows us to study the convergence in time and space of crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and crime events. As far as we are aware, such an analysis has never before been carried out. The findings show that there are (a) clear associations between young people's activity fields and their exposure to criminogenic settings, (b) clear associations between their exposure to criminogenic settings and their crime involvement, and, crucially, (c) that the influence of criminogenic exposure depends on a person's crime propensity. Having a crime-averse morality and strong ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people practically situationally immune to the influences of criminogenic settings, while having a crime-prone morality and poor ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people situationally vulnerable to the influences of criminogenic settings.
2010
Our current understanding of the role of the social environment in crime causation is at best rudimentary. Guided by the theoretical framework of Situational Action Theory, and using data from the ESRC financed Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS?), this paper aims to propose how we can better theorise and study the role of the social environment, particularly the person and place interaction, in crime causation. We will introduce, and illustrate the usefulness of, a space-time budget methodology as a means of capturing people's exposure to settings and describing their activity fields. We will suggest and demonstrate that, combined with a small area community survey and psychometric measures of individual characteristics, a space-time budget is a powerful tool for advancing our knowledge about the role of the social environment, and its interaction with people's crime propensity, in crime causation. Our unique data allows us to study the convergence in time and space of crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and crime events. As far as we are aware, such an analysis has never before been carried out. The findings show that there are (a) clear associations between young people's activity fields and their exposure to criminogenic settings, (b) clear associations between their exposure to criminogenic settings and their crime involvement, and, crucially, (c) that the influence of criminogenic exposure depends on a person's crime propensity. Having a crime-averse morality and strong ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people practically situationally immune to the influences of criminogenic settings, while having a crime-prone morality and poor ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people situationally vulnerable to the influences of criminogenic settings.