ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY

ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY

            Scientific studies on the causes of crime and delinquency have been theoretically explained from the history point of view. Any good theory should therefore provide basic lens on how to interpret and comprehend behavior manifestation. Theoretical lens in the field of criminology as a result have been mostly steered by perceptions connected to the sectors of biology, sociology and psychology, and the behavior to be outlined is basically that infringes codified rules of a certain society. This paper describes and gives analysis based on Routine Activities theory of criminology.

Routine Activities theory is a theory of crime activities which differs from the rest of criminological theories out of its major attempt to explain how criminal events are produced rather than focusing on explaining the reasons behind people committing crimes and the motivations to commit crime as the other theories. Although this distinction may appear inconsequential at the first glance, it is very important in any research on crime prevention (Branic, 2015).

Routine Activities theory outlines that, the arrangement of routine activities in any society creates chances for crime. These daily routine activities include the working places, routes used in travelling, groups of socialization, frequent visited shops and so forth. Strongly these activities influence where, when and to whom the crime occurs (Branic, 2015).

These routines basically makes crime events either easy and of low risk, difficulty and very risky. Since these chances vary from time, space and among the people, the same way crime events are likely to vary. As a result research based on routine activities theory has generally examined numerous opportunity settings that are likely to encourage crime and some informed prevention strategies to alter opportunity settings to counter criminal events (Branic, 2015).

Initially, Routine Activities theory was used to explain fluctuations in the trends of crime from time to time. But it has recently been adopted to comprehend and avert crime problems. Out of several hypothesis tests by the researchers the theory has been aligned closely to a number of theories and perspectives commonly known as environmental criminology. Environmental criminology basically centers on the significance of crime opportunity in shaping distribution of crime events across space and time (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 2013).

Cohen and Felson seem to question the increase in the rates of crime despite the factors which were commonly believed to cause violent crimes such as poor economic conditions had generally improved in 1960s. Out of their meditation on the scenario they change crime perception to be an event that takes place at a specific locality and time involving specific people and objects. According to Cohen and Felson crime events required 3 minimal elements to come together in time and space: 1) a prepared offender who is ready to commit a crime; 2) a suitable target; 3) absence of an obstacle which can hinder the crime such as a guardian (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 2013).

Lack of any one of these three elements would be enough to hinder a crime event from taking place. From human ecological theory, Cohen and Felson suggested that structural fluctuations in the society activity patterns influenced the rates of crime by affecting the possibility of convergence in time and space of the 3 basic elements of crime. Due to changes in people routine activities, the possibility of the targets converging in time and space with potential criminals in absence of guardians also changes. Meaning that, crime opportunities and patterns are functions of societal routine activity patterns (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 2013).

For instance, the rates of crime seem to increase after the Second World War. Cohen and Felson out of this case argues that the situation is so because the societal routine activities had begun to shift from home, this increased the possibility that potential criminals would converge in time and space and with favorable targets without any guard. Routine activities taking place near or at home are associated with more guardianship and a very low risk of facing potential criminals. When people carry out routine activities far from home, there is a higher possibility of encountering potential offenders without guards. Additionally, their possessions are left unguarded at home hence creating more chances for crime events to occur (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 2013).

One of the major contributions of Routine Activities theory is its insight that criminal activities are not evenly distributed in the society; neither are they infinite. There is a limit on the number of open targets instead; these targets are viewed as attractive by the criminal. Cohen and Felson gave a suggestion that attractiveness of any target as a function of four qualities: access, visibility, inertia and value. All the other factors being held constant, targeted products or people have the following qualities: perceived worth by the criminal; favorable conditions that makes the illegal action possible; physical visibility factor to potential criminal; and the accessibility to the criminal. Cohen and Felson debated that increased consumer good sales and the design of small durable products were other two additional societal trends which were affecting the crime by means of suitable supply targets. These two trends increased the supply of suitable targets available and as a result led to an increase in crime possibility. As the supply of small durable goods increased, level of attractive targets went up as well and hence increasing crime opportunities (Holt & Bossler, 2013).

Since its foundation, Routine Activities theory has evolved to point out the necessary elements necessitating a criminal event and those which have the potential of preventing it. Parties which prevent a crime activity from taking place have also been categorized according to whom or what the keep watch, offender, place or target, and collectively referred to as controllers. People who utilize informal social control over prospective criminals to hinder them from committing crimes are called Handlers. A probation officer is a good example of a Handler. Handlers always have some sort of personal contact with the potential criminals and their role is to keep the offenders out of trouble. Guardians ensure that offenders don’t access the targets by protecting them. Finally, managers oversee and keep watch on specific places; an example is a shop owner who installs CCTV cameras in the shop. Manager’s principal interest is the place functioning. Controllers in this theory can be elaborated comprehensively by the crime triangle (Holt & Bossler, 2013).

Routine activity theory has guided several researcher’s aimed at understanding a range of phenomena, including the crime trends over time, distributions of crime across space, and victimization resulting from individual differences. Additionally, researchers have put into consideration how opportunities for crime may exist at multiple levels. For example, the characteristics of the neighborhood and the features of a home may influence the possibilities of burglary victimization. Various methods have been used to meet these different requirements (Holt & Bossler, 2013).

Using Routine Activity to predict crime trends

This theory was first used to understand fluctuations in crime trends over time. To achieve this, researchers examine the fluctuations of crime rates over time with changes in micro level routine activity trends to determine whether the changes are linked with changes in crime trends. Initially, Cohen and Felson pointed out to the shift in structural routine activities of society to explain the increase in urban crime rates in 1960’s when the factors which were thought to cause violent crimes like harsh economic conditions had generally improved. They argued that the dispersion in the daily activities away from households caused an upsurge in the target crime suitability and a decline in guardianship (Holt & Bossler, 2013).

In summary, routine activities theory is simply a theory of crime occasions which fundamentally differs from the other theories in criminology. Before its advent, almost all the other theories of criminology focused only on the factors the encourage criminals to act criminally, like sociological, economical and biological. Conversely, this theory narrows down to a number of factors that come together in time and space to create opportunities for criminal actions (Roncek & Maier, 2014).

It is important to note that this theory suggests that crime rates can upsurge and decline even without any notable change in the number of criminals. Instead this can be necessitated by an upsurge in the number of available suitable targets of crime, decline in the effectiveness of controllers or a shift in the routine activities of a society which increase the possibility that these elements merge in time and space (Roncek & Maier, 2014).

The imagination that the criminal is the only contributor to a crime event has both practical and theoretical implications. Firstly, it intimates the rest of the theories that focus on criminal factor only to be the cause of crime as insufficient to describe trends in crime and crime patterns and secondly, it proposes a wider range of prevention possibilities. Whereas the other theories focus on political, social and economic changes as the motivation factors to crime events, routine activities theory suggests suitable crime targets, characteristics of places, and absence of controllers as motivators of crime events (Spano & Nagy, 2013).

Similar to standard criminological theories which rarely outline why crime events tend to take place at some places, particular times and to some targets and not others, routine activities theory also does not explain the reason behind some people committing crimes and not others (Spano & Nagy, 2013).

References

Branic, N. (2015). Routine activities theory. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment.

Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (2013). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a    lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and victims, 11(1), 3.

Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2012). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities        theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30(1), 1-25.

Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (2014). Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of   routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots”. Criminology, 29(4), 725-753.

Spano, R., & Nagy, S. (2013). Social guardianship and social isolation: An application and            extension of lifestyle/routine activities theory to rural adolescents. Rural sociology, 70(3),          414-437.