What do routine Activity theory and social disorganization theory have in common
|
Historically, criminological theories have aimed to explain criminal propensity, providing explanations for why some individuals are more likely than others to commit an offense. Conversely, less attention has been paid to the other element of a crime event: opportunity. This trend was radically altered from the 1970s onward, in large part due to Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson’s creation of a “routine activity approach” to understanding crime trends. The scholars proposed that, beyond the necessity of a motivated offender, crimes occur when suitable targets are present and capable guardians are absent. The contribution of routine activity theory increased interest in the role of criminal opportunity substantially, with various streams of research coalescing into a school of criminological thought known as “environmental criminology,” sometimes referred to as “crime science.” Routine activity theory is central to these approaches and is focused on crime reduction through the prevention and control of chances to commit crime. Show
Routine activity theory was initially proposed as a sociological perspective, as Cohen and Felson explored aggregate associations between social trends (such as sociodemographic changes in household activity and urbanization) and the risk of victimization. Their analyses suggested that as changes occurred in the routine activities of Americans post-World War II, crime rates increased. From this original conceptualization, routine activity theory has evolved into the “crime triangle,” which provides a way of analyzing crime problems. The triangle depicts that crime events occur when motivated offenders and attractive targets converge in space and time in the absence of guardianship. Research has further specified that three crime control actions paired with these elements—handling for offenders, guarding for targets, and managing for places—can reduce crime events. There are now hundreds of studies that examine the relationship between routine activities and crime, with many of these empirical investigations organized around the crime triangle. Theoretical advancements have outlined the role of targets and guardians, the levels of responsibility of crime controllers, the attractiveness of targets, the characteristics of (in)effective guardianship, and the social processes related to the presence or absence of handlers, guardians, and managers. Considering the combined contributions of this canon of literature, the evidence is clear in demonstrating the utility of routine activity theory for understanding and preventing crime. The Routine Activity Theory states that the occurrence of a crime is likely if there is a motivated offender and a suitable target, with the simultaneous absence of a capable guardian. Inhaltsverzeichnis
Main proponentsLawrence E. Cohen, Marcus Felson, Ronald V. Clarke TheoryAccording to Cohen and Felson, crime rates depend on the constantly changing lifestyles and behaviours of the population. Depending on the time and place, three factors that are decisive for Cohen and Felson and are responsible for the occurrence or absence of criminal behaviour vary (see diagram).  Accordingly, the requirement for crime is a offender motivated to commit a crime, whereby this motivation can be of very different nature. Then there must be an object suitable for the offender (potential victim, tempting object, etc.). There are various factors that influence whether the object is suitable: value, size/weight and visibility of the object as well as access to the object. Last but not least, the lack of informal or formal control should be mentioned as protection for the object of the crime. This can be personal control, but also technical control: police officers and security personnel, video surveillance and alarm systems, attentive passers-by, neighbours, friends and staff. In summary, the Routine Activity Theory describes crime as a situational event that depends less on the offender’s personality and socialization than on the situation in which the offender finds himself. Implications for Criminal PolicyThe criminal policy consequence of Rational Choice Theory, of Deterrence Theories, but above all of the Routine Activity Theory is the so-called Situational Crime Prevention. This form of criminal policy does not attempt to prevent future crime by rehabilitating, deterring or segregating the perpetrator, but rather by reducing the contextual and situational possibilities for crime. The task of politics is therefore to change our common living environment in such a way that the number of opportunities to commit crimes is reduced. In a later extension, Clarke and Eck (2005) extended the approach to 25 techniques of situational crime prevention. In addition to the theoretical foundations mentioned above, the reference to Sykes’ and Matza’s techniques of neutralization is noticeable here (see 5th column of the table: Reduce Excuses). 25 Situational Prevention TechniquesIncrease the effortIncrease the risksReduce the rewardsReduce provocationsRemove excuses1. Target harden
6. Extend guardianship
(Clarke, 2005, p. 46f.) It is also worth mentioning Clarke’s demand that the judicial system should only be used as a last resort. The focus should be on natural strategies for situational crime prevention, so that it seems convenient and sensible for people in individual situations to behave in a legal manner. An example of this would be an appropriate parking policy aimed at preventing illegal parking. Critical Appraisal & RelevanceThe Routine Activity Theory can be appreciated as a theoretical basis for the first time no longer purely perpetrator-oriented concept of Situational Crime Prevention. Their success in reducing crime has been proven in numerous studies. However, situational crime prevention has to face the criticism of offence shifting, after which crime does not decrease, but merely shifts to temporal, spatial, methodological and other dimensions. Critics also warn that by concentrating on situational factors, the actual root causes of crime remain untouched. In addition, the routine activity approach suffers from the same weaknesses as the rational choice theory and the deterrence theories: because there, too, a rational and therefore deterrent person is assumed, but emotional, psychological, social and developmental factors are ignored. Finally, it could be argued that situational criminal policy stands for a conservative world view characterized by the call for more surveillance and the exclusion of marginalized social groups. Moreover, the “clinical” view of crime as the result of inadequate protection against situational risks does not allow for an empathetic attitude toward crime victims (who, according to this view, have failed to “manage” the risks of crime sufficiently). What are the similarities between social disorganization theory and strain theory?Social disorganization and strain theories both propose that social order, stability, and integration are conducive to conformity, while disorder and malintegration are conducive to crime and deviance.
What are the main ideas of social disorganization theory?Social disorganization theory specifies that several variables—residential instability, ethnic diversity, family disruption, economic status, population size or density, and proximity to urban areas—influence a community's capacity to develop and maintain strong systems of social relationships.
What are the three elements of Shaw and McKay's social disorganization theory?Shaw and McKay highlighted three factors that characterized neighbor- hoods with high rates of delinquency: poverty, population turnover, and racial/ ethnic heterogeneity. Shaw and McKay did not emphasize a direct link between poverty and delinquency (Bursik, 1988).
How does social disorganization theory differ from strain theory?How does social disorganization theory differ from strain theory? Social disorganization theory focuses on environmental conditions rather than personal problems in describing crime.
|
