Discussing and Describing Routine Activities Theory
Introduction
Lawrence
E. Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) came up with routine activities theory after
the World War to explain the rise in victimization rates that were associated
with social changes taking people away from their homes for lengthier portions
of the day. The theory had three basic
ideas that suggested are the reasons for opportunistic criminality. That is, the three elements of opportunistic
crime as described by Cohen and Felson (1979) included a motivated offender, a
suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. Of this, the previous sentence is a very
brief understanding of routine activities theory and does not fully present the
assertions, assumptions about human behaviors, or the scholarship that has
tested the validity of the theory.
Therefore, the following sections in this paper will present a more
detailed description of routine activities theory so that the reader can fully
comprehend the theory, learn about the cogency of the theory as tested by other
scholars, and take in the above-mentioned key concepts to understand why some opportunistic
crime occurs and what implications ought to be configured and tested as
well.
Full
Description of Routine Activities Theory
Once
more, the three key concepts within routine activities theory are a motivated
offender, a suitable target, and absence of a capable guardian (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). More specifically, Cohen
and Felson (1979) addressed the thinking and behavioral patterns of opportunistic
criminals by suggesting that criminal offenders have an inclination to commit a
crime against a person or property and use a selection process that suits the
desires of the offender via locating a person or property that will allow them
to be the most successful in their offending.
The suitable target and absence of a capable guardian are the two
elements of the aforementioned selection process that gives offenders further
motivation after their initial criminal thinking is established (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). It is important to note
that all three concepts must occur at the same time and in the same location
(space) in order for victimization to occur (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Using a crime against a person example, an
offender who decides to commit a robbery will select a victim who most likely
will not defend themselves sufficiently, has no knowledge about who the
offender is, and will do so in an environment where they are less likely to be
caught. The absence of a capable
guardian in this example could include an offender accosting a victim in an
area where there are no other humans around and do or do not have surveillance
equipment in use (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Moreover,
Cohen and Felson (1979) discussed the macro-level and micro-level assumptions of
other criminological theories and used these understandings as a guide to
present the merit of their proposed theory on opportunistic criminality. In sum, Cohen and Felson (1979) argued that
many macro-level and micro-level explanations about criminality do not fully
depict how spatial relationships between offenders and victims, coupled with
the lack of guardianship in an environment, influences the decision-making
process to proceed in opportunistic crimes.
Case in point, social disorganization theory, social bond theory, and
biosocial theories all present the social, environmental, and individual
factors that lead to offending, but do not discuss precise thinking patterns
once the offender has chosen – become motivated – to actually pursue a crime of
opportunity (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011; Siegel, 2007). In other words, macro-level and micro-level
assumptions do cause offenders to engage in criminality, however opportunistic
crime has a distinct train of thought according to Cohen and Felson (1979) in
most cases because of the abundance of activities that take place away from
one’s home; thus, the theory focuses on how “spatio-temporal organization of
social activities helps people translate their criminal inclinations into
action” (p. 589).
Given
the above-mentioned, the following sections will describe in detail the three
elements in routine activities theory.
That is, the motivated offender, suitable target, and absence of a
capable guardian concepts will be discussed so that the reader is able to glean
the primary variables in Cohen and Felson’s (1979) routine activities theory.
Motivated
Offender
Cohen and Felson (1979) defined opportunity-based
criminal acts as “illegal acts in which someone definitely and intentionally
takes or damages the person or property of another” (p. 589). With this being
stated, a motivated offender according to Cohen and Felson (1979) includes an
individual who has criminal dispositions and chooses to participate in criminal
activity based on the weighing of outcomes given a specific victim and
environmental setting. By concentrating
on the precise methods that opportunistic offenders engaged in, Cohen and
Felson (1979) depicted an offender who is, essentially, criminally motivated by
the possible benefits and likelihood of success in specific environments and
with specific victims. Lastly, Cohen and
Felson (1979) depicted an individual who is conscious about which individuals
and settings are more likely to bring success during criminally-based
endeavors.
Research on this concept has mostly
shown that Cohen and Felson’s (1979) presentation about motivated offenders is valid
(Bursik & Grasmik, 1993; Felson, 2002; Groff, 2007, 2008; Hipp, Bauer,
Curran, & Bollen, 2004; Mohammad, Nooraini, & Hussin, 2018; Reyns &
Henson, 2015). Since the theory concentrated
on opportunistic crime and the precise methods that are taken by such criminals,
there is large body of academic evidence that supports routine activity
theory’s criminological depictions. For example, Cho, Sung Hong,
Espelage, and Choi (2017) took the idea of being away from home and applied it
to youths participating in extracurricular activities in schools and suggested
that motivated offenders view any distance from these activities as an
opportunity, and view the participation in the afterschool programs as an opportunity
to offend. More specifically, Cho et al.
(2017) stated that some extracurricular activities lack capable guardianship
and therefore provide an opportunity for more bullying and other victimizations
because of the environmental conditions at some academic institutions. The overall results of the study confirmed
the motivated offender concept in routine activities theory. That is, the researchers stated that
juveniles were less likely to be victimized in environments that had capable
guardianship, and even stated that the physical presence of school officials
brought a lesser likelihood of victimization whereas other security features
(physical surveillance and metal detectors) had minimal deterrent effects for
victimization (Cho, Sung Hong, Espelage, & Choi, 2017). Thus, offenders’ motivation diminished or
increased based on the settings and their levels of guardianship (Cho et al.,
2017).
Of
this, much of the same literature, however, points out that Cohen and Felson
(1979) failed to address the underpinnings of why the motivated offender exists
(Bunch, Clay-Warner, & Lei, 2015; Drawve, Thomas, & Hart, 2017; Jones
& Pridemore, 2018; Piscitelli & Doherty, 2018; Podaná, 2017). Albeit that Cohen and Felson (1979) discussed
this issue in their theory, the fact remains that much criticism has been
directed toward this lack of explanation about what drives opportunistic
criminals to initiate their offending in the first place (Bunch et al., 2015; Cohen
& Felson, 1979; Drawve et al., 2017; Jones & Pridemore, 2018; Piscitelli
& Doherty, 2018; Podaná, 2017). Bunch,
Clay-Warner, and Lei (2015) performed a study that suggested that victim
demographics may be the primary reasons that motivate offenders. The findings in their study confirmed the
suitable target concept in routine activities theory, however, it also points
to an understanding that offenders commit criminal acts against persons based
on which characteristics suit their needs and will bring success in their
criminality (Bunch et al., 2015). Such a
postulation suggests that criminal motivation may arise from other concepts
that are not found in routine activities theory, and that offending occurs
because of a different selection process about who is able to be victimized (Bunch
et al., 2015).
Suitable
Targets
Routine activities theory described
suitable targets in a three-part fashion and then further discussed the details
of the three types of targets that were identified (Cohen & Felson, 1979): items
that were of interest to motivated offenders, properties that had suitable
characteristics for success in opportunistic criminality, and persons who were
easily victimized. Cohen and Felson
(1979) discussed how expensive and movable items are sought the most by
motivated offenders and verified their ideations through comparing data in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report and national data on consumer
expenditures during their time. Next,
Cohen and Felson (1979) discussed settings and human characteristics that were
more susceptible to being victimized.
Unoccupied and poorly secured residences, vehicles, and business
establishments were said to be highly targeted by motivated offenders (Cohen
& Felson, 1979). These
concentrations not only confirmed the environmental factors that were posed by
Cohen and Felson (1979), but also the absence of a capable guardian concept in
their theory. Other settings are
mentioned by Cohen and Felson (1979) as well, such as individuals participating
in recreational activities in areas that are away from their homes and peer
groups in locations that are subjected to peer pressures and distant from
guardianship.
Regarding human characteristics that
makeup a suitable target for motivated offenders, Cohen and Felson (1979) suggested
that single-adult households, adolescents, and young adults are more likely to
be victimized because of their participation in activities by themselves and
interaction with peer-based activities rather than family-based activities. Senior citizens and people with disabilities
are also mentioned by Cohen and Felson (1979) as being a more likely suitable
target when compared to other citizens.
Case in point, the vulnerability of senior citizens and disabled persons
makes for a suitable target for motivated offenders because of their lack of
resistance during victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Cohen and Felson (1979) also discussed general
ideas about individuals being in places alone and away from their regular
settings. In sum, Cohen and Felson
(1979) presented how suitable property and human targets are chosen by
motivated offenders based on the value of items, vulnerability of victims, and
ability to carry out offending without being subjected to intervention (absence
of a capable guardian). Thus, sometimes suitable
targets interact with capable guardians or the lack of.
Turning to the research on this
concept, again, much of the literature supports the ideas presented by Cohen
and Felson (1979). Many studies have
revealed that opportunistic criminals do have a selection method for committing
property crimes and crimes against a person (Cho et al., 2017; Culatta,
Clay-Warner, Boyle, & Oshri, 2017; Miller, 2013; Navarro & Jasinski,
2011; Pratt, Holtfreter, & Reisig, 2010; Reyns, 2013). Moreover, most of the testing on routine
activities theory has concluded that opportunistic offenders are guided by the
ease of success for their criminal activities (Cho et al., 2017; Reyns, Henson,
& Fisher, 2015; Schreck & Fisher, 2004). Miller (2013) performed a study that
confirmed this. That is, he discovered
that suitable targets for offenders does include spatial variables and the
knowledge of this by opportunistic offenders (Miller, 2013). Explaining more, Miller’s (2013) study
verified the suitable target concept because he was able to determine that offending
and victimization occurred more often as individuals traveled away from their
homes and participated in activities that required extensive traveling. Thus, allowing offenders to identify targets
because of the lack of connectivity that a person has in an area, as well as
acknowledging the inability to identify or deter offenders in specific areas
(Miller, 2013).
In
contrast, many of the scholars who have analyzed this concept infer that the
selection processes for locating a suitable target can also be explained
through life-course theories, social disorganization theory, social learning
theory, and even social bond theory (Bunch et al., 2015; Lilly et al., 2011; Fox
& Farrington, 2016; Fox, Jennings, & Piquero, 2014; Siegel, 2007). More specifically, the above-mentioned
theories present a detailed understanding of why criminal offenders choose
specific targets and even explain how the selection was configured (Lilly et
al., 2011; Siegel, 2007). Routine
activities theory does not have an in-depth description of why offenders choose
suitable targets except for ease of success and financial incentives that can
be acquired through victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Lilly et al.,
2011; Siegel, 2007). For example, Fox
and Farrington (2016) presented various paths that led offenders to criminality
as well as specific paths once the offenders began engaging in burglaries. Furthermore, their study determined that some
burglars will participate in burglaries because of what the offenders have
become used to, as well as learned which burglaries offer the best rewards (Fox
& Farrington, 2016). This finding
does confirm the suitable target concept in routine activities theory in some
respect, but also presents additional understandings about how offenders become
involved in offending and how suitable targets are discovered based on the
individual characteristics of the offender (Fox & Farrington, 2016). Which, in turn, means that some offenders
will commit crimes because of the known rewards, normalization processes, and
personal goals when participating in criminal activity (Fox & Farrington,
2016). Again, routine activities theory
vaguely discusses the individual rationales for specific offenses or offenders
(Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Absence
of a Capable Guardian
Cohen and Felson (1979) discussed guardianship
in a format that, again, included property crimes and crimes against the
person. Guardianship includes any
device, system, group, or individual that can act as a barrier to victimization
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). With this
being stated, Cohen and Felson (1979) presented notions about how better
guardianship would, in turn, decrease the rate of victimization. Thus, motivated offenders will be less likely
to participate in criminality if there are adequate forms of guardianship that
make their offending more difficult to acquire a beneficial result (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). For example purposes, a
capable guardian could be a locked entrance or exit, a lock on a safe, security
cameras, community watch groups, an alarm system, and individuals that can
assist in deterring victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Research has also verified this
concept. Precisely, scholars tend to
infer that any deterrent guides opportunistic offenders away from a situation
that may pose a benefit to them (Cho et al., 2017; Culatta et al., 2017;
Miller, 2013; Navarro & Jasinski, 2011; Pratt et al., 2010; Reyns, 2013). Studies have shown that opportunistic
offenders choose to participate in crime in areas where they are more likely to
be successful in other words, and the more security features that are abundant,
the less likely an offender will engage in criminality (Cho et al., 2017;
Culatta et al., 2017; Miller, 2013; Navarro & Jasinski, 2011; Pratt et al.,
2010; Reyns, 2013). Reyns,
Henson, and Fisher (2015) supported this concept in routine activities theory. Specifically, these authors found that
Internet-based crimes are committed because offenders are aware of the minimal
or no guardianship in online platforms and are even able to disguise their
identities so that they can be successful in their criminal endeavors (Reyns et
al., 2013). Moreover, this study
presented findings about how specific websites and individuals are targeted on
the Internet based on offenders’ desires that allow for easy and fulfilling victimizations
(Reyns et al., 2013). Frauds, other
deceiving criminal activities, and cyber bullying where described as the major
offenses in this study that confirmed the absence of a capable guardianship
concept in routine activities theory (Reyns et al., 2013).
Criticism
has also arisen for this concept as well.
Specifically, many criminologists discredit Cohen and Felson’s (1979)
capable guardian concept because there are many offenses that still occur when
there are security factors in a setting (Boivin, 2018; Bouchard & Spindler,
2010; McNeely, 2015). More specifically,
opportunistic offenders are aware of guardianship in some areas and still
proceed to commence victimization.
Research has also shown that opportunistic offenders have even used
utilities to bypass the guardianship that exists in some environments. This can be seen when offenders disguise
their faces and bodies, disarm security alarms, offend in areas that they do
not hail from, or commit offenses regardless of which guardianship is known or
not known. Because of this, critics
suggest that other criminological theories may better explain offending
decisions than routine activities theory (Bouchard & Spindler, 2010; Cho
& Lee, 2018; McNeely, 2015; Nogueira de Melo, Pereira, Andresen, & Fonseca
Matias, 2018). In particular, McNeely
(2015) integrated lifestyle choices with routine activities theory and
suggested that personal desires, group-based interactions, and informal codes
of conduct cause victimization and that these variables should be examined more
often rather than only turning to the three concepts in routine activities
theory. McNeely’s (2015) discussion also
infers that offenders target victims and areas based on the familiarity of an
area and rate of opportunities to offend.
Thus, she presented how the concept of guardianship should be understood
as effective deterrents for specific forms of criminality and not a general
ideation about identification and intervention toward victimization (McNeely,
2015). Which, again, brings up notions
about studying broader explanations for the onset of criminality and
victimization.
Crime
as the Outcome
Even with the
discrepancies that have been highlighted by researchers, routine activities
theory does posit how crimes of opportunity come about (Cohen & Felson,
1979). The theory may not be present
details about specific offenders, but does posit information about why property
crimes and crimes against the person are committed. That is, offenders acquire some form of
motivation, select a suitable target, and acknowledge the lack of guardianship
in a particular situation (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Property crimes – burglaries and thefts – and
most crimes against the person certainly depict the accuracy of the key concepts
in routine activities theory. However, many
criminologists have performed more detailed analyses and downward applications toward
understanding why property offenses and crimes against the person are committed
and determined that routine activities theory may be better applied in a
meso-level or micro-level application (Lilly et al., 2011; Siegel, 2007). Nonetheless, the theory offers adequate
insight into why property offenses and some crimes against the person are
committed by offenders when it is applied at the macro-level and is even
merited when specific offenses and offenders are studied.
Full
Critique of Routine Activities Theory/Literature Review
Supporting Literature
Supporting
analyses on routine activities theory have been done in full and partial
testing. That is, scholars have tested
each key concept separately and altogether in routine activities theory and,
for the most part, supported the assertions in the theory (Miller, 2013; Pratt,
Holtfreter, & Reisig, 2010).
Additionally, many variations have been configured regarding the testing
of routine activities theory. For
example, some scholars have analyzed criminal data on opportunistic offenders’
arrest paperwork and court documents and, in turn, made positive correlations
between motivated offender, suitable target, and absence of a capable guardian
measures (Cho et al., 2017; Culatta et al., 2017; Miller, 2013; Navarro &
Jasinski, 2011; Pratt et al., 2010; Reyns, 2013). Research testing routine activities
theory has utilized property offenses and crimes against persons. Much of the aforementioned data is measured
as robberies, burglaries, thefts, internet-based offenses, and crimes of
violence in areas that were expected by offenders to have the most success (Cho
et al., 2017; Culatta et al., 2017; Miller, 2013; Navarro & Jasinski, 2011;
Pratt et al., 2010; Reyns, 2013). Groff
(2007, 2008) provided support for routine activities theory in two of her
publications. Both studies are an
example of a full analysis on routine activities theory. Specifically, she analyzed individuals’ time
away from home and robberies and determined that as time away from home
increased so did robberies (Groff, 2007, 2008).
Albeit, she does not provide many findings on specific motivation for
offenders, her studies still supported the concepts in routine activities
theory and posited that offenders can become motivated because of the knowledge
of the opportunity to offend and the lack of guardianship in particular
environments (Groff, 2007, 2008). Groff
(2007, 2008), in turn, confirmed that guardianship does have a deterrent effect
on victimization in specific locations and simultaneously confirmed the other
key concepts in routine activities theory.
Other
measures that have supported routine activities theory included social
scientists – mostly criminologists and psychologists – performing surveys and
in-person interviews with offenders to measure the self-reports of the three
concepts (Geoffrion, Sader, Ouellet, & Boivin, 2015; Hass & Hannis,
2017; Messner, Zhou, Zhang, & Liu, 2007; Ricciardelli & Sit, 2016;
Teasdale, Daigle, Hawk, & Daquin, 2016).
For instance, many responses in these types of measurements have
entailed verbiage by offenders that stated that they chose to commence an
opportunistic criminal act because of the vulnerability of the victims or the
properties were not adequately secured and thus allowed for easier success in
their criminality (Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Nelson & Desroches,
2014; Santos, 2018; Wright & Fornango, 2002; Wright, Bookman, &
Bennett, 2006). In particular, Nelson
and Desroches (2014) interviewed a sample of bank robbers and postulated that
many of the participants were motivated by jaded views of greed by financial
institutions, erroneous justifications, and an understanding that bank
robberies were a victimless crime.
Moreover, they also discovered that the participants chose specific
locations because of the lack of guardianship in some banks and thus would
allow for easier success in their victimizations (Nelson & Desroches,
2014). Although the study was not
quantitative, it offered plausible insight into the how the three concepts in
routine activities theory are valid.
That is, banks robbers acquired a motivation and located a suitable
target based on the absence of capable guardianship (Nelson & Desroches,
2014). Morris and O’Donnell (1996)
presented similar findings about bank robberies as it relates to routine
activities theory. For instance, they
found that most of their sampled bank robbers were motivated by financial
incentives and planned their criminal endeavors to minimize risks via the
learning of which financial institutions had the least amount of guardianship,
as well as which jurisdictions catered to their motives (Morris &
O’Donnell, 1996). This included banks in
areas with low police patrols and even causing distractions that turned law
enforcers’ attention away from a specific area (Morris & O’Donnell, 1996). Which, in turn, exhibits the validity of the
key concepts in routine activities theory; especially the suitable target and
absence of a capable guardian ideations.
As
previously mentioned, partial testing has also been done with the key concepts
of routine activities theory by applying each of its key concepts or being
combined with other criminological theories.
Chan, Heide, and Beauregard (2011) did this by conjoining social
learning theory and routine activities theory in a study about sexual homicides. Specifically, they were unable to discuss how
the onset of motivation for these offenders came about, but were able to
validate that sexual murderers based many of their criminal actions on
selecting a suitable target grounded on the knowledge of individual
vulnerability in precise geographical locations that lacked guardianship (Chan,
Heide, & Beauregard, 2011). Smith,
Glave Frazee, and Davison (2000) also tested routine activities theory with
social disorganization theory and determined that robberies and other crimes
were committed by offenders who were dealing with disadvantages and social
stressors that emanated from social disorganization. In other words, their partial testing of
suitable targets and guardianship, coupled with integrating social
disorganization theory variables, confirmed all the key concepts in routine
activities theory (Smith, Glave Frazee, & Davison, 2000). This particular study brought proper insight
into the motivation concept in routine activities theory, that is.
Criticism
As
mentioned in the full description of routine activities theory, criminologists
and other social scientists typically criticize the lack of explanation about
micro-level and other macro-level assumptions that motivate offenders and cause
victimization in routine activities theory (Groff, 2015; Lilly et al., 2011;
McNeely, 2015; Siegel, 2007).
Elaborating more, routine activities theory has been criticized for its
jump to explaining a selection process for offending without much background
about how an offender arises to the rank of criminal status. Micro-level theorists, especially, attack the
viability of routine activities theory and the examinations that have been done
on it (Groff, 2015; Lilly et al., 2011; McNeely, 2015; Siegel, 2007). Specifically, these researchers have
presented studies that suggest that the targeting of victims has much more
behavioral patterns that are rooted in environmental, peer association,
biological, and social stressor variables and that Cohen and Felson (1979) failed
to address any of these factors and did not conclude a reasonable depiction of
opportunistic offending (Groff, 2015; Lilly et al., 2011; McNeely, 2015;
Siegel, 2007). For example, there are
many instances of victimization that occur without regard for guardianship and
other reasons. Geoffrion, Sader,
Ouellett, and Boivin (2015) examined barroom aggression through routine
activities theory with a micro-level lens and concluded that the motivated
offender and suitable target concepts were valid, but their study questioned
the validity of guardianship because the studied offenders still engaged in
aggression with security personnel close by.
Thus, confirming criticism about how individuals will participate in offending
even if there are capable guardians present.
Franklin
(2016) also integrated micro-level theories with routine activities theory and,
in turn, brought merited criticism toward the key concepts in routine
activities theory as well. More
precisely, she determined that sexual assault victimizations did relate to the
postulations in routine activities theory, but made a strong inference about
how social learning patterns contributed to higher likelihoods of victimization
and offender motivation (Franklin, 2016).
Which, in turn, infers that offenders become motivated through learned
processes that are described in social learning and social control theories and
that routine activities theory fails to fully describe how learned behaviors
contribute to offending and victimization (Franklin, 2016).
Biosocial
theorists are also harsh critics of routine activities theory. Many of their studies suggest that a
combination of biological traits and environmental factors cause criminal
behaviors and, in turn, discredit the key concepts of routine activities
theory. Beaver and Wright (2005)
verified this notion in their “Biosocial Development and Delinquent Involvement”
article. Explaining more, the scholars
stated: “Puberty, it appears, influences a broad array of psychological and
social factors related to the delinquent conduct of males” (p. 177). Albeit this study concentrated on puberty on
juveniles, the results of the study still inferred that biological
underpinnings cause criminal behaviors and that there are more detailed
explanations for the key concepts within routine activities theory – which
Cohen and Felson (1979) failed to discuss.
Further, many biosocial theorists point toward micro-level understandings
of criminality based on gene traits the cause uncontrollable anger, hostility,
and depression symptoms that cause individuals to act in a manner that is
deemed unlawful and deviant (Beaver & Wright, 2005; Lilly et al., 2011;
Siegel, 2007). Vaughn (2016) posited
that biosocial criminology is one of the best approaches to take when
describing criminal occurrences when compared to other understandings and stated:
“Although there are many aspects to temperament, two interrelated constructs
standout as possessing omnibus power for behavioral problems and crime across
the life course: effortful control and negative emotionality” (p. 704). His support for research on micro-level
assumptions with biosocial qualities, essentially, suggested that routine
activities theory and other criminological inquires are less merited when
examinations on inherited human characteristics are properly understood and
applied in particular social settings (Vaughn, 2016). In total, biosocial supporters claim that
micro-level theories, coupled with environmental factors that are described in
some macro-level theories, explain criminality and victimization better than
the general ideas that are found in routine activities theory (Beaver &
Wright, 2005; Lilly et al., 2011; Siegel, 2007; Vaughn, 2016).
Regarding
the macro-level criticism on routine activities theory, Schaefer and Mazerolle
(2017) brought additional censure toward the key concepts in routine activities
theory via a crime control analysis.
Specifically, these authors discussed how guardianship occurs at greater
levels because of an individual’s connectivity and social status in a community
and stated that victimization is more likely to occur in socially disorganized
communities because of the lack of social cohesion and abundance of social
stressors (Schaefer & Mazerolle, 2017).
Which is a finding about how broader social factors cause crime and
victimization and that routine activities theory does not adequately describe
these variables and thus can be deemed a basic or general explanation for the
onset of criminality and reasons for victimization (Schaefer & Mazerolle,
2017). Turning to other macro-level
criticisms, life-course theory supporters are also known to regularly criticize
the primary concepts in routine activities theory. With this being stated, many criminologists
have integrated routine activities theory and life-course theory and supported
the general ideations by Cohen and Felson (1979), however, their criticism is
usually based on the notion that, again, wider discussions about the onset of
motivation for offenders and their criminal activities is necessary and, in
turn, better explains why individuals participate in criminal behaviors. For example, Spano and Freilich (2009)
analyzed the key concepts in routine activities and discovered that lifestyle
choices in deviant and non-deviant settings better explain why offending and
victimization occur. Moreover, this
study asserted that the key concepts in routine activities theory were valid,
but when a deeper inquiry into the lifestyle choices of offenders and victims
is undergone there is a clearer depiction of why criminality takes place (Spano
& Freilich, 2009). This is an
understanding of how downward applications of routine activities theory have
merit and that the integration of micro-level and macro-level applications
offer plausible insight into the reasons for criminality and
victimization. Which, again, points
attention toward the fallacies in routine activities theory.
In
sum, the criticism on routine activities theory – whether it be at the
macro-level or micro-level or integration of both levels – mostly suggests that
the general ideations by Cohen and Felson (1979) are valid, but when more
detailed examinations are conducted about specific offenses, offenders, and
victims, that other criminological inquiries have better applicability when
compared to routine activities theory.
Of this, critics of routine activities theory tend to apply a breakdown
of social and individual factors and thus apply detailed concepts about the
understandings of the key ideas in routine activities theory.
Conclusion/Implications
Overall, the research and testing on routine activities theory mostly depicts it as a strong theory regarding the explanation for opportunistic criminality and victimization. There are many examinations that separate the key concepts and test them together and, again, much of the research infers that routine activities theory is viable (Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Nelson & Desroches, 2014; Santos, 2018; Wright & Fornango, 2002; Wright et al., 2006). Opportunistic criminality, especially for robberies, property offenses, and other crimes against the person, has been and is commenced due to the three concepts that were exhibited by routine activities theory according to most of the research that has been produced about the subject (Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Nelson & Desroches, 2014; Santos, 2018; Wright & Fornango, 2002; Wright et al., 2006). Routine activities theory advocates tend to purport the idea that even if there are underlying causes for the onset of criminality that the decision-making process for opportunistic offenders is merited and can be applied to the majority of victimizations (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Lilly et al., 2011; Siegel, 2007).
In
contrast, researchers who criticize routine activities theory typically suggest
that the theory is only valid for specific offenses and victimizations, and did
not explain the onset of criminality properly (Lilly et al., 2011; Siegel,
2007). More specifically, many of the
critiquing criminologists and other social scientists suggest that other
criminological theories better explain the causation of criminal thinking and
behaviors and that routine activities theory only presents the selection
process of opportunistic criminals once they decide to engage in offending
(Lilly et al., 2011; Siegel, 2007).
Explaining further, social learning theory, social disorganization
theory, social bond theory, biosocial theories, and social strain theories have
been used to contradict the postulations of routine activities theory (Lilly et
al., 2011; Siegel, 2007). Supporters of
micro-level and other macro-level theories deduce that opportunistic
criminality is based on environmental factors and social pressures that create
a motivated offender and that the targeting, seeking vulnerability, and lack of
guardianship is not always part of their decision-making processes (Lilly et
al., 2011; Siegel, 2007). Which, again,
entails ideations that routine activities theory may only be valid for specific
offenders who readily admit to targeting a person or property based on
vulnerability and the likelihood of success toward victimization (Lilly et al.,
2011; Siegel, 2007).
Implications
It appears that routine activities
theory is viable when only used as a general explanation for the selection
process for criminal offenders toward committing property offenses and crimes
against the person. However, the
motivation of criminal offenders concept has minimal scholarly objectives when
it is thoroughly examined with other broader social and individual contexts in
mind. Given this, it would be wise for
social science research to take an integrated approach when applying routine
activities theory in the understanding of criminality and victimizations. This tends to lead to stronger correlations
and detailed explanations about why criminal behaviors occurred and, in turn,
could produce better policy implications for future studies, law enforcers, and
lawmakers. Further, by figuring out the
background of the examined offenders, a better understanding of the onset of
criminal thinking can be explained and merited when routine activities theory
is being applied. Again, this is an
integrated approach toward explaining and understanding criminal behaviors – a
combination of macro-level and micro-level applications, that is. Overall, routine activities theory explains
the selection process for offenders but should have further analysis applied
when attempting to discover the in-depth reasons for criminal activity
(Bouchard & Spindler, 2010; McNeely, 2015).
Given
the above-mentioned implications, social scientists should better examine
environmental settings where victimizations occur (Bouchard & Spindler,
2010; McNeely, 2015). More precisely,
researchers should determine if environments actually include suitable targets
and a lack of capable guardianship or if victimization occurred because of
other reasons (Bursik & Grasmik, 1993; McNeely, 2015). This is mentioned because of the plethora of
data that includes opportunistic offenses being committed regardless of
guardianship that exists in a setting (Lilly et al., 2011; McNeely, 2015;
Siegel, 2007). Basically, more detailed
investigations into why some areas are chosen for victimization should be
undergone or if there is even a selection process being used by offenders, which,
again, can include integrating biosocial and other theories with routine
activities theory. Social scientists
should also delve deeper into understanding physical features of an environment
that may motivate an offender to participate in criminal activity other than
the assumptions that are mentioned in macro-level explanations like social disorganization
theory and routine activities theory.
For example, opportunity offenses via the Internet and in areas with
high human traffic should be analyzed more often because opportunistic
offenders also use these settings because of the ability to conceal their
criminal behaviors and the ratio of successes that they can achieve (Pratt et
al., 2010; Reyns & Henson, 2015).
Moreover, many of the above-mentioned areas have minimal guardianship. Thus, allowing for a more thorough enquiry
into the concepts in Cohen and Felson’s (1979) theory and the testing that been
done in the past (Bouchard & Spindler, 2010; Cohen & Felson, 1979; Bursik
& Grasmik, 1993; McNeely, 2015).
Lastly, more insight about routine
activities theory should come from data collected through interviews with
victims – both organizational and individual victims (McNeely, 2015; Sheikh
& McNamara, 2014). This would allow
researchers to confirm all three concepts in Cohen and Felson’s (1979) theory
with more accurate information (Bouchard & Spindler, 2010; Bursik &
Grasmik, 1993; McNeely, 2015; Nelson & Desroches, 2014; Sheikh
& McNamara, 2014). In-person
interviews with victims can also serve as a veracity toward known offenses
committed by offenders who are part of a study.
This notion ties in with the idea of using smaller sample sizes to
examine criminality and how relevant it is to routine activities theory.
References
Apel, R., &
Horney, J. (2017). How and why does work matter? Employment conditions,
routine activities, and crime among
adult male offenders. Criminology, 55(2), 307-343.
.
Beaver, K. M.,
& Wright, J. P. (2005). Biosocial development and delinquent
involvement.
Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 168-192.
Bernasco, W., &
Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas?:
A
new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. The
British Journal of
Criminology, 45(3),
296-315.
Boivin, R. (2018).
Routine activity, population(s) and crime: Spatial heterogeneity and
conflicting propositions about the
neighborhood crime-population link. Applied
Geography,
95, 79-87.
Bouchard, M.,
& Spindler, A. (2010). Groups, gangs, and delinquency: Does organization
matter. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 921-933.
Bunch, J., Clay-Warner, J., & Lei, M. K. (2015.
Demographic characteristics and victimization
risk: Testing the mediating effects of routine
activities. Crime & Delinquency, 61(9),
1181-1205.
Bursik, R. J. J.,
& Grasmik, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods
and crime: The dimensions of
effective community control. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Chan, H. C.,
Heide, K. M., & Beauregard, E.
(2011). What propels sexual
murderers: A
proposed integrated theory of social
learning and routine activities theories.
International
Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 228-250.
Cho, S., Sung
Hong, J., Espelage, D. L., & Choi, K. S.
(2017). Applying the lifestyle routine
activities
theory to understand physical and nonphysical peer victimization. Journal
of
Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 26(3), 297-315.
Cho, S., &
Lee, J. M. (2018). Explaining physical, verbal, and social
bullying among bullies,
victims
of bullying, and bully-victims: Assessing
the integrated approach between social
control
and lifestyles-routine activities theories.
Children and Youth Services
Review, 91,
372-382. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.018.
Cohen, L. E.,
& Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American
Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
Culatta, E.,
Clay-Warner, J., Boyle, K. M., & Oshri, A.
(2017). Sexual revictimization: A
routine
activity theory explanation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-25.
Drawve, G.,
Thomas, S. A., & Hart, T. C.
(2017). Routine activity theory
and the likelihood
of arrest: A replication and extension with conjunctive
methods. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(2),
121-132.
Felson, M. (2002).
Crime in everyday life (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fox, B. H., &
Farrington, D. P. (2016). Is the development of offenders related to
crime scene
behaviors for burglary? Including situational influences in
developmental and life-course
theories of crime. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology,
60(16), 1897-1927.
Fox, B. H.,
Jennings, W., & Piquero, A. R.
(2014). Serious, chronic, and
violent offenders.
In W. Church, & D. Springer (Eds.),
Juvenile justice sourcebook: Past, present and future (pp. 554-579). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Franklin, C.
A. (2016). Sorority affiliation and sexual assault
victimization: Assessing
vulnerability using path
analysis. Violence Against Women, 22(8), 898-922.
Geoffrion, S.,
Sader, J., Ouellet, F., & Boivin, R.
(2015). Aggressive incidents
inside a
Montreal
barroom involving patrons, barmaids and bouncers: A micro level examination
of
routine activity theory. Crime Science, 4(1), 1-10.
Groff, E. R. (2007).
Simulation for theory testing and experimentation: An example using
routine activity theory and street
robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2),
75-103.
Groff, E. R. (2008).
Adding the temporal and spatial aspects of routine activities: A further test
of routine activity theory. Security
Journal, 21(1-2), 95-116.
Groff, E. R. (2015).
Informal social control and crime events. Journal
of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 31(1),
90-106.
Hass, A. Y., &
Hannis, C. (2017). In their words: A qualitative analysis of the overlap in
victimization
and offending. International Review of Victimology, 23(1), 81-94.
Hipp, J. R.,
Bauer, D. J., Curran, P. J., & Bollen, K. A. (2004).
Crimes of opportunity or
crimes
of emotion? Testing two explanations of
seasonal change in crime. Social
Forces, 82(4),
1333-1372.
Lai, Y. L., Ren,
L., & Greenleaf, R. (2017). Residence-based fear of crime: A routine activities
approach. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
61(9), 1011-1037.
Lilly, J. R.,
Cullen, F. T., Ball., R. A. (2011). Criminological
theory: Context and
consequences (5th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, R. W.,
& Pridemore, W. A. (2018). Toward an integrated multilevel theory of
crime at
place: Routine activities, social disorganization,
and the law of crime. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology.
McNeely, S. (2015).
Lifestyle-routine activities and crime events. Journal
of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 31(1),
30-52.
Messner, S. F.,
Zhou, L., Zhang, L., & Liu, J.
(2007). Risks of criminal victimization
in
contemporary
urban China: An application of lifestyle/routine
activities theory.
Justice Quarterly, 24(3),
496-522.
Miller, J. (2013).
Individual offending, routine activities, and activity settings: Revisiting
the routine activity theory of
general deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 50(3),
390-416.
Mohammad, T.,
Nooraini, I., & Hussin, N. A. M.
(2018). Operationalizing routine
activity theory in juvenile
delinquency: A social work
perspective. International
Social
Work, 1-12.
Morris, S. A.,
& O’Donnell, I. (1996). Analysis of the decision-making practices of armed
Robbers. In R. Homel (ed.). The
politics and practice of situational crime prevention.
Crime prevention studies (Vol.
5, pp. 159-188). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
Navarro, J. N.,
& Jasinski, J. L. (2011). Going cyber: Using routine activities theory to
predict
cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 32(1),
81-94.
Nelson, A., &
Desroches, F. J. (2014). ‘Heroes’ and victims: Incarcerated bank robbers’
accounts
of victims and victimization. International Review of Victimology, 20(2),
211-226.
Nogueira de Melo,
S., Pereira, D. V. S., Andresen, M. A., & Fonseca Matias, L. (2018).
Spatial/Temporal variations of
crime: A routine activity theory
perspective.
International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(7), 1967-
1991.
Piscitelli, A.,
& Doherty, S. (2018). Connecting social disorganization to broken
windows to
routine activities. The
Canadian Geographer, 62(4), 589-596.
Podaná, Z. (2017).
Violent victimization of youth from a cross-national perspective: An
analysis
inspired by routine activity theory. International Review of Victimology, 23(3),
325-340.
Pratt, T. C.,
Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D.
(2010). Routine
online activity and internet fraud
targeting:
Extending the generality of routine activity
theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 47(3),
267-296.
Reyns, B. W. (2013).
Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding
routine
activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses.
Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 50(2),
216-238.
Reyns, B. W.,
& Henson, B. (2015). The thief with a thousand faces and the
victim with
none: Identifying determinants for online identity
theft victimization with routine
activity theory. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology,
60(10), 1119-1139.
Reyns, B. W.,
Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S.
(2015). Guardians of the cyber
galaxy: An
empirical and theoretical analysis
of guardianship concept from routine activity theory
as it applies to online forms of
victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
32(2),
148-168.
Ricciardelli, R.,
& Sit, V. (2016). Producing social (dis)order in prison: The effects of
administrative
controls on prisoner-on prisoner violence.
The Prison Journal, 96(2),
210-231.
Santos, R. G. (2018).
Offender and family member perceptions after an offender-focused hot
spots policing strategy. Policing: An International Journal, 41(3),
386-400.
Schaefer, L.,
& Mazerolle, L. (2017). Putting process in routine activity
theory: Variations in
the control of crime opportunities. Security
Journal, 30(1), 266-289.
Schreck, C. J.,
& Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers
on violent
victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyles
theories. Journal of
Interpersonal
Violence, 19(9), 1021-1041.
Siegel, L. J. (2007).
Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies (9th
ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Higher Education.
Sheikh, S., &
McNamara, M. E. (2014). Insights from self-blame and victim
blaming.
Psychological
Inquiry: An International Journal for
the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 25(2), 241-244.
Smith, W. R.,
Glave Frezee, S., & Davison, E. L.
(2000). Furthering the
integration of routine
activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of
street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38(2), 489-523.
Spano, R., &
Freilich, J. D. (2009). An assessment of the empirical validity and
conceptualization of individual level multivariate
studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 305-314.
Teasdale, B.,
Daigle, L. E., Hawk, S. R., & Daquin, J. C.
(2016). Violent victimization in
the
prison context: An examination of the gendered
contexts of prison. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 60(9), 995-1015.
Vaughn, M. G. (2016).
Policy implications for biosocial criminology: Toward a renewed
commitment to prevention
science. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 703-710.
Wright, R., &
Fornango, R. (2002). Drug dealers, robbery and retaliation: Vulnerability,
deterrence and the contagion of
violence. British Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 454-
466.
Wright, R.,
Bookman, F., & Bennett, T.
(2006). The foreground dynamics
of street robbery in
Britain. British
Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 1-15.
Comments
Post a Comment