Content deleted Content added
adding url for reference |
|||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Theory in criminology}}
{{use mdy dates|date=July 2020}}
[[File:Routine activity theory.png|thumb|300px|A graphical model of the routine activity theory. The theory stipulates three necessary conditions for most crime; a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian, coming together in time and space. The lack of any of the three elements is sufficient to prevent a crime which requires offender-victim contact.]]
'''Routine activity theory''' is a sub-field of [[crime opportunity theory]] that focuses on situations of crimes. It was first proposed by [[Marcus Felson]] and [[Lawrence E. Cohen]] in their explanation of crime rate changes in the United States between 1947 and 1974.<ref name="
After [[World War II]], the economy of Western countries started to boom and the Welfare states were expanding. Despite this, crime rose significantly during this time. According to Felson and Cohen, the reason for the increase is that the prosperity of contemporary society offers more opportunities for crime to occur. For example, the use of automobiles, on one hand, enables offenders to move more freely to conduct their violations and, on the other hand, provide more targets for theft. Other social changes such as college enrollment, female labor participation, urbanization, suburbanization, and lifestyles all contribute to the supply of opportunities and, subsequently, the occurrence of crime.<ref name="
Routine activity theory has its foundation in human ecology and [[rational choice theory]]. Over time, the theory has been extensively employed to study sexual crimes, robberies, cyber crimes, residential burglary and corresponding victimizations, among others. It is also worth noting that, in the study of criminal victimization, the routine activity theory is often regarded as "essentially similar"<ref>{{
==Theoretical framework==
In routine activity theory, crime is likely to occur when three essential elements of crime converge in space and time: a motivated offender, an attractive target, and the absence of capable guardianship.<ref name="
The analytic focus of routine activity theory takes a macro-level view and emphasizes broad-scale shifts in the patterns of victim and offender behavior. It focuses on specific crime events and offender behavior/decisions. Routine activity theory is based on the assumption that crime can be committed by anyone who has the opportunity. The theory also
===Motivated offender===
Motivated offenders are individuals who are not only capable of committing criminal activity, but are willing to do so.<ref>{{
===Suitable target===
In Routine Activity Theory, the term 'target' is preferred over the term 'victim', as they might not be present at the scene of the crime. For example, an owner of a television might be away from their home when a burglar decides to target the television for stealing. The television is the target and the owner's absence indicates the absence of a capable guardian, thereby making the crime more likely according to the theory.{{sfn|Felson|Clarke|1998|p=5}} A suitable target is any type of individual or property that the motivated offender can damage or threaten in the easiest way possible.<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" /> If a target is suitable, this means that there is a greater chance that the crime can be committed, rather than, a target that is hard to achieve. The acronym VIVA provides four different attributes of what makes a target actually suitable, in the judgement of the offender.<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" /> The acronym goes as follows:
: V: Value (The value of achieving the target, in a real or symbolic manner)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />▼
: I: Inertia (The physical obstacles of the target: weight, height, strength, etc.)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />▼
: V: Visibility (The attribute of exposure which solidifies the suitability of the target)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />▼
: A: Access (The placement of the individual, or object, that increases, or lessens, the potential risk of the intended attack)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />▼
▲: '''V: Value''' (The value of achieving the target, in a real or symbolic manner)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />
▲:
▲: '''V: Visibility''' (The attribute of exposure which solidifies the suitability of the target)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />
▲: '''A: Access''' (The placement of the individual, or object, that increases, or lessens, the potential risk of the intended attack)<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology" />
===Absence of a suitable guardian===
Guardianship
==Empirical evidence==
Criminologist {{harvp|Lynch|1987}}, using "___domain-specific" models, demonstrates that occupation-related activities generally have a stronger impact on the risk of victimization at work than sociodemographic characteristics. The specific attributes of activities pursued at work exposure, guardianship, attractiveness—were all related to victimization in ways predicted by activity theory.<ref>{{
In ''A Routine Activity Theory Explanation for Women's Stalking Victimizations'', criminologists {{harvp|Mustaine|Tewksbury|1999}} conducted a self-administered study in the third quarter of 1996 to 861 college or university female students from nine postsecondary institutes from eight states of the US. The study reveals that women's victimization risk of stalking can be explained by individual lifestyle behaviors, including employment, ___location of residence, substance use (drug and alcohol) and self-protection.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mustaine |first1=Elizabeth Ehrhardt |last2=Tewksbury |first2=Richard
{{harvp|Felson|Cohen|1980}} establishes that those who live alone are more likely to be out alone and to have little help in guarding their property, they probably face higher rates of victimization for both personal and property crimes. The 30.6% increase in employed and married
{{harvp|Pratt|Holtfreter|Reisig|2010}} using a sample of 922 adults in Florida show that one's online routine activities, shaped by one's sociodemographic characteristics, strongly shape the person's risk of falling victim of Internet fraud.<ref>{{
==Criticisms==
Routine activity theory is mainly a macro theory of crime and victimization. It requires motivated offenders, but does not explain how such offenders become motivated.{{cn|date=February 2024}}
==See also==
Line 50 ⟶ 49:
==References==
{{
==Sources==
* {{cite book |last1=Felson |first1=Marcus |last2=Clarke |first2=Ronald V |title=Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention |date=1998 |publisher=Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate |isbn=978-1-84082-159-8 |url=https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_thief.pdf }}
==Further reading==
* {{
* {{
* {{Cite journal
* {{cite book |ref=none |doi=10.1002/9781118517390 |title=The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology |date=2014 |isbn=978-0-470-65844-4 |editor-last1=Miller |editor-first1=J. Mitchell }}
* {{
* {{
▲* {{Cite book |first1=Ronald V. |last1=Clarke |first2=Marcus |last2=Felson |date=1993 |chapter=Introduction: Criminology, Routine Activity, and Rational Choice |title=Advances in Criminological Theory: Routine Activity and Rational Choice |volume=5 |pages=1–14}}
[[Category:Criminology]]
| |||