Routine activity theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:29, 9 July 2025

Revision as of 12:45, 9 July 2025

Line 18:

===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.<ref>https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_thief.pdf{{Bare URL PDFsfn|Felson|Clarke|1998|p=5}} page 5</ref> 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" />

Line 26:

===Absence of a suitable guardian===

Guardianship refers to a person or an object that is effective in deterring criminal offenses,<ref name="Social Inequality">{{cite journal |last1=Cohen |first1=Lawrence E. |last2=Kluegel |first2=James R. |last3=Land |first3=Kenneth C. |title=Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of A Formal Theory|journal=American Sociological Review|date=1981|volume=46 |issue=5 |pages=505–524|doi=10.2307/2094935 |jstor=2094935 }}</ref> and sometimes crime is stopped by simple presence of guardianship in space and time.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Felson|first=Marcus|date=1995|title=Those who discourage crime|journal=Crime and Place|volume=4|pages=53–66}}</ref> A guardian would not necessarily have to be a policeman or a security guard but rather a person whose proximity or presence would lower the chances of a crime happening. This could include a housewife, a doorman, a neighbor or a co-worker. Whilst inadvertent, the presence of a guardian has a powerful impact on the likelihood of a crime taking place. Thus when the guardian is not within the vicinity of the target, the likelihood of a crime occurring is significantly higher.<ref>https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_thief.pdf{{Bare URL PDFsfn|Felson|Clarke|1998|p=4}} Page 4 </ref>

==Empirical evidence==

Line 50:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

==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==