Routine Activities Theory : The Classical School Of Criminological Theory

Routine activity theory is when offenders use their everyday routine to capture their next victim or create a plan for any illegal

“The problem analysis triangle (also known as the crime triangle) comes from one of the main theories of environmental criminology- routine activity theory. This theory, originally formulated by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, states that predatory crime occurs when a likely offender and suitable target come together in time and place, without a capable guardian present” (Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E., 2011). The triangle is there to help you make sure that all of the components of a crime are there and that they are covered. With the new formulation the triangle has added and outer lever known as a “controller” to the previous elements. The “controller” has different roles for each element for instance the Handler has ties to the offender

The routine activities theory is based on the concept of the crime triangle. This triangle consists of a “motivated offender a suitable target and the lack of guardianship” (Cohen & Felson, 1979). When Hot spot policing is employed its focus is directed at two of the three elements of the triangle. Those elements are the suitable target and the lack of a capable guardian (Hoover, 2014). Some of the major tenants of this perspective are geographic targeting, focused patrol, saturation patrol, and interactive programs. There are other tenants such as simple visibility and foot patrol but I will focus on the three mentioned above. Geographic targeting uses techniques which address crime based on the “hot spot” theory. Hot spots are another

This book also provides readers with information criminal behavior. This book also teaches readers how to approach each crime with the routine activity theory.

To prevent crime, it is imperative that the law enforcement agencies and scholars examine why people commit crime. A number of theories have emerged and many still continue to be explored in exclusion and in combination to seek the best solutions that can ultimately reduce the types and the levels of crime. One such theory that is still being explored is social disorganization theory. According to this theory people's tendency to take part in criminal activities is largely determined by the neighborhood where they are brought up in especially if conditions favorable to crime and delinquency prevail in such places. When communities becomes incapable of realizing common goals and solve problems that its residents face, there is a high likelihood that its residents will engage in criminal activities (Sampson & Grove, 1989). Some of the problems that are likely to increase incidences of crime in neighborhoods when communities fail to address them are poverty, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, and weak social networks. They decrease a neighborhood's capacity to control the behavior of people in public.

There are a vast number of issues concerning child exploitation from the actions of the offender and the victim. Child exploitation is a complex issue that does not have one simple solution; this crime is nothing new, but technology is allowing it to evolve. Child exploitation is moving from sending child pornography through the postal service and targeting only children an offender has close proximity to. Technology and the Internet have widened the opportunities for offenders and have allowed for potentially ay juvenile to become victimized. The recommendations will focus on targeting key issues presented in the Routine Activities Theory; limiting a motivated offender, making targets unsuitable, and creating capable guardians online.

The Routine Activities Theory (RAT) requires three elements for a crime occur. (1) It needs a motivated offender with criminal intentions and the ability to act

The Routine Activities theory was developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson and is derived from rational choice theory (Walsh & Hemmens, p. 122). Cohen and Felson claim that crime is the result of “(a) motivated offenders meeting (b) suitable targets that lack (c) capable guardians” (Walsh & Hemmens, p. 123). The Routine Activities theory is used to explain not only crime rates but also risk of victimization. It is closely related to Lifestyle theory and often combined with it.

The offenders, as well as the potential targets, usually are not found in the same place at the same period. The criminals ' mobility behaviors can be explained by the Routine activity theory that considers the availability, mobility as well the activities of individuals as the most precursors for a crime to take place. The theory states that for a crime to take place it has to be motivated by the offender and they must converge in space and time by the victim, and they should be no guardian in place (Carlo, and Marie-Noële, 15). Therefore, the crime activities can be viewed to be parasitic with the individual’s activities or the routines that shape the possibility of such events to take place.

Finally, the last variant of the victimisation theory that offers a macro perspective to criminal behaviour is the routine activities theory, developed by Cohen and Felson (1979). The pair argued that for crime to occur, three elements have to be in situ simultaneously. The existence of an offender with strong criminal intentions, a target or victim and the absence of a figure of authority are all compelling factors which criminality successfully thrives. Applying this model in association with the Every Child Matters DfES 2004) to a diverse deprived community in Britain where the offenders are unemployed teenagers, school dropouts, and alcohol or drug addicts. The lack of a stable family background eliminates the presence of a guardianship

Routine Activities Theory has four basic elements, time, place, objects, and persons. These elements were place into three main categories of variables. These variables “increase or decrease the likelihood that persons will be victims of ‘direct contact’ predatory crime” (Akers, 2009, p. 35). These categories are motivated offenders, suitable targets, and capable guardians. The main proposal of the theory is that criminal activity will increase “if there is a ‘convergence in space and time of the three minimal elements of direct contact predatory violations” (Akers, 2009, p. 35). This means that if there is more than one person who is motivated to participate in the criminal activity, then the likelihood of the crime will increase. It is also likely to increase if a target is available and if there is not a formal or informal

Routine activity theory was first proposed by Cohen and Felson in trying to address the rise of criminal rates in the 1970s within a social context. This theory attempts to explain the possibility of crime that is influenced by our daily routines,

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.

In 1979, Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson published “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach”; this was the first paper introducing routine activities theory. Most criminological theories before routine activities theory focused more specifically on the socioeconomic factors affecting crime such as poverty, race, etc. Felson and Marcus believed instead that the routine activities of individuals and groups are the driving force behind crime.

Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen introduced the routine activity theory in 1979. They together proposed the problem analysis triangle, which represents the three characteristics a person must have in