CMY3701
Assignment 1
Semester 1
Unique NO: 351504
DUE: 8 APRIL 2026
,CMY3701 – Explanation of Crime | Assignment 1, Semester 1, 2026 Unique No.: 351504
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY AND SECURITY SCIENCE
EXPLANATION OF CRIME
CMY3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 1
UNIQUE NUMBER: 351504
DUE DATE: 08 APRIL 2026
Total Marks: 25
, CMY3701 – Explanation of Crime | Assignment 1, Semester 1, 2026 Unique No.: 351504
SECTION A (15 MARKS)
Question 1.1: Critical Evaluation of Cohen and Felson's (1979) Routine Activity
Theory as an Explanation of Criminal Behaviour
1. Introduction
The attempt to understand and explain criminal behaviour has long occupied criminologists
and social scientists. Among the most enduring and influential theoretical frameworks
developed in the latter half of the twentieth century is the Routine Activity Theory (RAT),
introduced by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in their landmark 1979 publication in
the American Sociological Review. Although the question refers to 'Rational Choice
Theory,' it is important to note that Cohen and Felson (1979) are primarily credited with
Routine Activity Theory, which draws significantly on rational choice assumptions. This
essay therefore addresses Cohen and Felson's (1979) Routine Activity Theory as it embeds
rational choice principles, while also engaging with the broader Rational Choice
perspective developed by Cornish and Clarke (1986). This critical evaluation explains the
core assumptions of the theory, discusses how offenders are thought to make decisions, and
applies the framework to contemporary examples of crime, before offering a critical
assessment of the theory's strengths and limitations.
2. Theoretical Background and Core Assumptions
Cohen and Felson (1979) developed Routine Activity Theory as a response to a paradox
they observed in post-World War II American society: despite rising economic prosperity
and improvements in living standards, crime rates increased dramatically during the 1960s
and 1970s. They argued that traditional criminological theories, which focused on the
social, psychological, and economic deprivation of offenders, could not adequately account
for this trend (Cohen & Felson, 1979:588). Instead, they proposed that changes in the
routine activities of everyday life such as women entering the workforce, the proliferation
of portable consumer goods, and increased time spent away from home created more
opportunities for crime.
The central thesis of Routine Activity Theory rests on three converging elements that must
be present simultaneously for a crime to occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and
the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979:589). The theory does not attempt
Assignment 1
Semester 1
Unique NO: 351504
DUE: 8 APRIL 2026
,CMY3701 – Explanation of Crime | Assignment 1, Semester 1, 2026 Unique No.: 351504
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY AND SECURITY SCIENCE
EXPLANATION OF CRIME
CMY3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 1
UNIQUE NUMBER: 351504
DUE DATE: 08 APRIL 2026
Total Marks: 25
, CMY3701 – Explanation of Crime | Assignment 1, Semester 1, 2026 Unique No.: 351504
SECTION A (15 MARKS)
Question 1.1: Critical Evaluation of Cohen and Felson's (1979) Routine Activity
Theory as an Explanation of Criminal Behaviour
1. Introduction
The attempt to understand and explain criminal behaviour has long occupied criminologists
and social scientists. Among the most enduring and influential theoretical frameworks
developed in the latter half of the twentieth century is the Routine Activity Theory (RAT),
introduced by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in their landmark 1979 publication in
the American Sociological Review. Although the question refers to 'Rational Choice
Theory,' it is important to note that Cohen and Felson (1979) are primarily credited with
Routine Activity Theory, which draws significantly on rational choice assumptions. This
essay therefore addresses Cohen and Felson's (1979) Routine Activity Theory as it embeds
rational choice principles, while also engaging with the broader Rational Choice
perspective developed by Cornish and Clarke (1986). This critical evaluation explains the
core assumptions of the theory, discusses how offenders are thought to make decisions, and
applies the framework to contemporary examples of crime, before offering a critical
assessment of the theory's strengths and limitations.
2. Theoretical Background and Core Assumptions
Cohen and Felson (1979) developed Routine Activity Theory as a response to a paradox
they observed in post-World War II American society: despite rising economic prosperity
and improvements in living standards, crime rates increased dramatically during the 1960s
and 1970s. They argued that traditional criminological theories, which focused on the
social, psychological, and economic deprivation of offenders, could not adequately account
for this trend (Cohen & Felson, 1979:588). Instead, they proposed that changes in the
routine activities of everyday life such as women entering the workforce, the proliferation
of portable consumer goods, and increased time spent away from home created more
opportunities for crime.
The central thesis of Routine Activity Theory rests on three converging elements that must
be present simultaneously for a crime to occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and
the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979:589). The theory does not attempt
