Explaining Offenders Explaining Offences
- Concentric zones ● Cognitive maps
Shaw and McKay (1942) divided Chicago in a study into 5 distinctive zones: P.J. & P.L. Brantingham (1991) argues we all have unique cognitive maps of the
● Zone 1: The central business district. This contained a very small amount local areas we live in. We know specific details such as routes from our homes to
of occupants but it was the hub for commerce and banking in the daytime. where we study, work, go for entertainment etc.
● Zone 2: The interstitial zone (or the zone of transition). Initially it was a According to the Brantinghams, offenders are more likely to commit crimes in areas
zone of considerable affluence, but had decayed and became the cheapest where opportunities link to ‘cognitively known’ areas, and places that are less
zone for housing. Least desirable and new immigrants would settle here first. ‘cognitively known’ are less likely to be burgled.
● Zone 3: The respectable working-class district. This was where the solid This provides an explanation for the pattern of crime e.g. for burglaries.
working class would live
● Zone 4: Suburbia. The more pleasant, middle-class districts further out of
town would be here
● Opportunity theory
● Zone 5: The outer areas on the fringe of the city where the well-off lived.
Clarke (1995)’s theory consists of two elements:
- How attractive the target is - e.g. how much can be gained
by committing a crime against this particular place or person
and, if it is property, how easy it is to carry away and to sell
- Cultural transmission afterwards
Shaw and McKay altered the meaning of ‘social disorganisation’ to - How accessible the target is - e.g. how easy it is to commit
refer to a distinct set of values that provided something alternative to the crime
that of mainstream society. This amended approach came to be
known as the cultural transmission theory.
Crime and
They argued that amongst some groups in the most socially Deviance - ● Routine activities
disorganised and poorest areas of the city, crime became socially Marxist Theory
Environmental Developed onto cognitive maps and opportunity theory.
acceptable and was passed from generation to generation as part of
Crime (1) Argued that crimes are more likely to occur where the day-to-day
the normal socialisation pattern.
activities of victims and offenders are likely to cross/coincide and
Successful criminals provide role models for the next generation by
where there is little in the way of formal or informal control to prevent
demonstrating both the normality of criminal behaviour and that a
an offence taking place.
criminal career was possible.
Cohen and Felson introduce two new issues into the discussion with
routine activities:
1. They point out that crimes are likely to occur where there is
no ‘capable guardian’, such as a police officer, neighbours
- Differential association or informal social control engendered by a sense of
HOWEVER, Shaw and Mckay’s theories are vague and difficult to prove. community.
In response, Sutherland (1966) introduced differential association, which states if a 2. They are pointing out that it is not just place that is
person is likely to become a criminal if they interact with other people who break the important, but also time.
law. E.g. People returning from work, walking along a quiet street
in the evening are more likely to be mugged.
Sutherland suggested that definitions may vary in terms of frequency, duration, priority
and intensity: Crime occurs in:
Frequency: The number of times definitions occur. - Areas that are familiar to criminals
Duration: Over what length of time. - Targets that are potentially most rewarding
Priority: What stage in life (childhood socialisation is more important than other - Places where the perceived risk is low - particularly where
stages). there is nobody to ‘guard’ the person or property
- These targets and risks are linked to the victims’ lives and
Intensity: The status of the person making the definition.
daily activities.
- Concentric zones ● Cognitive maps
Shaw and McKay (1942) divided Chicago in a study into 5 distinctive zones: P.J. & P.L. Brantingham (1991) argues we all have unique cognitive maps of the
● Zone 1: The central business district. This contained a very small amount local areas we live in. We know specific details such as routes from our homes to
of occupants but it was the hub for commerce and banking in the daytime. where we study, work, go for entertainment etc.
● Zone 2: The interstitial zone (or the zone of transition). Initially it was a According to the Brantinghams, offenders are more likely to commit crimes in areas
zone of considerable affluence, but had decayed and became the cheapest where opportunities link to ‘cognitively known’ areas, and places that are less
zone for housing. Least desirable and new immigrants would settle here first. ‘cognitively known’ are less likely to be burgled.
● Zone 3: The respectable working-class district. This was where the solid This provides an explanation for the pattern of crime e.g. for burglaries.
working class would live
● Zone 4: Suburbia. The more pleasant, middle-class districts further out of
town would be here
● Opportunity theory
● Zone 5: The outer areas on the fringe of the city where the well-off lived.
Clarke (1995)’s theory consists of two elements:
- How attractive the target is - e.g. how much can be gained
by committing a crime against this particular place or person
and, if it is property, how easy it is to carry away and to sell
- Cultural transmission afterwards
Shaw and McKay altered the meaning of ‘social disorganisation’ to - How accessible the target is - e.g. how easy it is to commit
refer to a distinct set of values that provided something alternative to the crime
that of mainstream society. This amended approach came to be
known as the cultural transmission theory.
Crime and
They argued that amongst some groups in the most socially Deviance - ● Routine activities
disorganised and poorest areas of the city, crime became socially Marxist Theory
Environmental Developed onto cognitive maps and opportunity theory.
acceptable and was passed from generation to generation as part of
Crime (1) Argued that crimes are more likely to occur where the day-to-day
the normal socialisation pattern.
activities of victims and offenders are likely to cross/coincide and
Successful criminals provide role models for the next generation by
where there is little in the way of formal or informal control to prevent
demonstrating both the normality of criminal behaviour and that a
an offence taking place.
criminal career was possible.
Cohen and Felson introduce two new issues into the discussion with
routine activities:
1. They point out that crimes are likely to occur where there is
no ‘capable guardian’, such as a police officer, neighbours
- Differential association or informal social control engendered by a sense of
HOWEVER, Shaw and Mckay’s theories are vague and difficult to prove. community.
In response, Sutherland (1966) introduced differential association, which states if a 2. They are pointing out that it is not just place that is
person is likely to become a criminal if they interact with other people who break the important, but also time.
law. E.g. People returning from work, walking along a quiet street
in the evening are more likely to be mugged.
Sutherland suggested that definitions may vary in terms of frequency, duration, priority
and intensity: Crime occurs in:
Frequency: The number of times definitions occur. - Areas that are familiar to criminals
Duration: Over what length of time. - Targets that are potentially most rewarding
Priority: What stage in life (childhood socialisation is more important than other - Places where the perceived risk is low - particularly where
stages). there is nobody to ‘guard’ the person or property
- These targets and risks are linked to the victims’ lives and
Intensity: The status of the person making the definition.
daily activities.
