Routine activities theory (15):
ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY is a theory (associated primarily
with Marcus Felson) which suggests that for crime to occur three
factors must be present, namely a motivated offender; a suitable
victim; and the absence of capable guardians (Newburn, 2007:952).
The routine activities theory was developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus
Felson.
Cohen and Felson (Vold et al, 2002:205) argue that certain changes in the
modern world have provided motivated offenders with a far greater number of
opportunities to commit crime.
These theorists contend that there has been a marked increase in the
availability of crime targets (coupled with the absence of capable guardians) in
the modern world as a result of an overall change in our ‘‘routine activities’’ –
that is, how normal people live their lives in terms of work, home life, child
rearing, education, and leisure.
When people are at home they function as guardians of their own property.
But the routine activities of modern life have led to the dispersion of activities
away from the family and household and homes are increasingly left
unattended during the day.
This means that many households no longer have capable guardians for
extended and fairly predictable periods of time; as a result, they have become
‘‘candidates’’ for burglary.
In addition, there has been a large increase in portable goods, goods which are
therefore attractive targets to thieves (e.g. electronic goods).
The following guardians can contribute to the safeguarding of
your property: Police controls, dogs, alarms, burglar proofing,
security gates, fencing, electrical fencing, services offered by
security companies, domestic servants and pensioners living
on the property.
As people spent more time in society – going to and from work, school and
leisure activities – they were likely to encounter with motivated offenders in
circumstances where there was inadequate guardianship.
The opportunity for robbery and assault thus increased.
The focus on opportunity suggests a pragmatic approach to preventing crime:
decrease opportunities for offending, and crime will be reduced.
Advice to reduce crime opportunities often leads to a focus on aspects of the
environment that are most easily altered (e.g. whether a house has a burglar
alarm and whether a shop minimises the amount of money in its cash
registers).
Cohen and Felson believe that most violent and property crimes involve direct
contact between the offender and the target.
They propose that, for a personal or property crime to occur, there must be at
the same time and place a perpetrator, a victim, and/or an object of
property.
The crime event is also more likely to occur if there are other persons or
circumstances in the locality that encourage it to happen.
Elements that increase or decrease the likelihood that persons will be victims of
personal (direct contact) or property crime are:
ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY is a theory (associated primarily
with Marcus Felson) which suggests that for crime to occur three
factors must be present, namely a motivated offender; a suitable
victim; and the absence of capable guardians (Newburn, 2007:952).
The routine activities theory was developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus
Felson.
Cohen and Felson (Vold et al, 2002:205) argue that certain changes in the
modern world have provided motivated offenders with a far greater number of
opportunities to commit crime.
These theorists contend that there has been a marked increase in the
availability of crime targets (coupled with the absence of capable guardians) in
the modern world as a result of an overall change in our ‘‘routine activities’’ –
that is, how normal people live their lives in terms of work, home life, child
rearing, education, and leisure.
When people are at home they function as guardians of their own property.
But the routine activities of modern life have led to the dispersion of activities
away from the family and household and homes are increasingly left
unattended during the day.
This means that many households no longer have capable guardians for
extended and fairly predictable periods of time; as a result, they have become
‘‘candidates’’ for burglary.
In addition, there has been a large increase in portable goods, goods which are
therefore attractive targets to thieves (e.g. electronic goods).
The following guardians can contribute to the safeguarding of
your property: Police controls, dogs, alarms, burglar proofing,
security gates, fencing, electrical fencing, services offered by
security companies, domestic servants and pensioners living
on the property.
As people spent more time in society – going to and from work, school and
leisure activities – they were likely to encounter with motivated offenders in
circumstances where there was inadequate guardianship.
The opportunity for robbery and assault thus increased.
The focus on opportunity suggests a pragmatic approach to preventing crime:
decrease opportunities for offending, and crime will be reduced.
Advice to reduce crime opportunities often leads to a focus on aspects of the
environment that are most easily altered (e.g. whether a house has a burglar
alarm and whether a shop minimises the amount of money in its cash
registers).
Cohen and Felson believe that most violent and property crimes involve direct
contact between the offender and the target.
They propose that, for a personal or property crime to occur, there must be at
the same time and place a perpetrator, a victim, and/or an object of
property.
The crime event is also more likely to occur if there are other persons or
circumstances in the locality that encourage it to happen.
Elements that increase or decrease the likelihood that persons will be victims of
personal (direct contact) or property crime are:
