Chapter 13: Routine Activity And Rational Choice

Chapter 13 Routine Activity And Rational Choice

Chapter 13: Routine Activity and Rational Choice Theory I. Routine Activity Theory: Opportunities & Crime -â€-†Felson & Cohen 1. Opportunity & Crime -†Opportunity is a necessary condition to commit crimes -†Distribution of opportunities & individuals’ access to opportunities -†Explains why higher crime rate in certain areas, why some commit crimes -†Opportunity theories: environmental criminology -†↓ oppo, ↓ crimes -†Ignored social conditions, structural & political issues -†Avoid large discussion 2. Chemistry for crime: offenders, targets, guardians (notes) -†3 elements -†Routine activities: poor areas has temptation but no control, proved by research 3. View of offenders 4. Hot Spots (notes) 5. Women, Male Peer Support & RAT (notes) -â€-†Schwartz & Pitts 6. Policy implications: reducing opportunities for crime -â€-†Situational crime prevention -†Clarke: 3 ways (notes) Situational Crime Prevention -†Felson: 1) Natural strategies: space design 2) Organized strategies: guards 3) Mechanical strategies: alarms, cameras -†Eck: Crime Triangle: offender (handler: family), target (guardian), place (manager) -†Risk of displacement: limited. 1) Hard to find new opportunity 2) Hard to switch to another crime 3) Changed criminal opportunity structure in an area II. Rational Choice Theory -â€-†Cornish & Clarke 1. Rational choice & crime: people are not empty vessels, but decision makers 1) Expected Utility: benefit > cost of crime 2) Criminal decision making 2. Policy implications: make offenders know that crimes pay 3. Are offenders’ choices rational? -†Maybe react to poor life, seek for quick pleasure -†Ideological commitment > theoretical -†Bouffard -â€-†emotions shape criminal decision making: 1) Negative emotions: costs of crime 2) Positive emotions: benefits 3) Emotional states change context of crime 4. Test of RC Theory -†Difficult to test -†Test on: moral beliefs about breaking the law, opportunities, informal social sanctions.. -†No new theories, but new ideology -†Justification for massive punishment -†If people commit crimes because they lack legitimate opportunities, does penalties deter them? III. Perceptual Deterrence Theory 1. Theory 1) Early studies: deterrent effect, certainty > severity 2) Theory: People choose to break the law because they perceived that the costs outweighs the benefits. The decision depends on the perceptions not on actual objective risks of being sanctioned/rewarded. 3) Different from rational choice theory i. PD does not assume rationality, but perception that might be rational or wild guess ii. Focused on punishments, neglected situational aspects of decision making (central in RC) iii. Unclear policy proposals: actual levels vs. perception of punishment. Get tougher =? reduction of crime? iv. Easy to test in questions 2. Assessing the theory 1) Cullen’s meta-â€analysis: measure more variables -†Certainty: white-â€collar crime -â€Effects diminished -†Severity & celerity 2) Conclusion from findings: i. PD due to legal sanctions is modest to weak ii. Need richer perspectives on how deterrence is specified -†Non-â€legal costs: stigma of arrest, commitment costs, attachment costs (Socially-â€imposed costs & self-â€imposed costs) -†Focused too much on costs, neglected perceived benefits (excitement, revenge..) -†How perceptions are shaped by individual differences -†Complex ways in which perceptions are formed and influence behavior 3. Policy implications: certainty, not severity -â€-†Mark Kleiman 1) Project HOPE succeeded, but not in Delaware. Increase certainty 2) Durlauf & Nagin -†Severity does not work: recidivating much -†Deterrence-â€oriented interventions work: more money should be taken from severity to certainty (police’s ability to ensure certainty) IV. Situational Action Theory The fundamental arguments of SAT are -â€-†Wikstrà¶m 1. Acts of crime are moral actions (actions guided by rules about what it is right or wrong to do) -†subculture 2. People engage in acts of crime because they (i) see acts of crime as viable action alternatives and (ii) choose (habitually or deliberately) to carry them out -â€RC 3. The likelihood a person will see crime as an action alternative and choose to carry it out depends on his/her crime propensity and his/her exposure to criminogenic settings -â€oppo 4. The role of broader social conditions and individual development should be analysed as the causes of causes 5. Relevant causes of the causes are only those social conditions and life events that influence the development of people’s crime propensity and the emergence of and people’s differential exposure to criminogenic settings

Paper For Above instruction

The intricate relationship between routine activity theory, rational choice theory, perceptual deterrence theory, and situational action theory offers a comprehensive framework for understanding criminal behavior and informing crime prevention strategies. Each theory provides unique insights into the motivations, decision-making processes, and situational factors that influence criminal activity, highlighting the multifaceted nature of crime and the importance of tailored interventions.

Routine Activity Theory (RAT), developed by Felson and Cohen, emphasizes the significance of opportunities in the commission of crimes. According to RAT, crime occurs when a motivated offender converges with a suitable target in the absence of capable guardianship. The theory posits that the spatial and temporal distribution of opportunities largely explains variations in crime rates across different areas. Environmental criminology underscores that reducing opportunities through measures such as improved space design, increased surveillance, and guardianship can significantly diminish crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The concept of hot spots further supports targeted policing efforts, focusing resources on high-crime areas to prevent offending (Eck, 2006). Additionally, the theory examines demographic factors such as gender and peer influences, which can affect offenders' likelihood and patterns of offending. Policy implications suggest situational crime prevention methods, including natural, organized, and mechanical strategies, effectively limit criminal opportunities (Clarke, 1997). However, concerns about displacement effects highlight that crime may shift to other locations or types but often with limited overall impact (Eck, 2006).

Rational Choice Theory (RCT), articulated by Cornish and Clarke, treats offenders as decision-makers who weigh the expected benefits against the costs of crime. It assumes that individuals act rationally, seeking to maximize their perceived utility. The theory implies that increasing the perceived costs or decreasing the perceived benefits of criminal acts can deter offenders. Policy measures thus focus on altering offenders’ decision calculus, such as enhancing surveillance, increasing penalties, and emphasizing the potential risks associated with offending (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Emotions also play a crucial role in cognitive processes behind decision-making, as Bouffard (2014) highlights, noting that negative emotions like fear or remorse can inhibit crime, while positive emotions such as thrill or revenge can motivate offenders. Despite its practical utility, the theory faces challenges in testing and in accounting for irrational behaviors, as offenders may react to circumstances like poverty or emotional distress rather than purely rational calculations.

Perceptual Deterrence Theory (PDT) extends the discussion by emphasizing perceptions of certainty and severity of sanctions rather than actual risks. It argues that individuals decide to commit crimes based on their subjective perceptions of the costs and benefits, which may be influenced by personal, social, and contextual factors (Cullen, 1988). Meta-analyses suggest that perceived certainty of apprehension is more effective in deterrence than severity. Unfortunately, this theory has limitations, including the difficulty in altering perceptions and the tendency for individuals to overestimate or underestimate risks. Policy applications advocate increasing the perceived likelihood of arrest and prosecution; however, practical measurements of perception are complex, and the impact on actual crime reduction remains mixed (Durlauf & Nagin, 2011). Enhancing enforcement visibility and public awareness campaigns are among strategies to strengthen perceived risk.

Situational Action Theory (SAT), proposed by Wikström, offers a dynamic perspective, emphasizing the moral and situational aspects of criminal acts. It posits that acts of crime are moral actions influenced by individual morality and social subcultures, with crime occurring when individuals perceive illegal acts as viable options and choose to act upon them (Wikström, 2004). The likelihood of offending depends on personal propensities—such as crime motivation—and exposure to criminogenic environments, which are shaped by broader social and developmental factors. This theory underscores the importance of social conditions and life events that influence individual development and exposure to risky settings over the life course, advocating for multifaceted intervention strategies that address social inequalities, community cohesion, and individual development (Wikström & Bray, 2019). By integrating moral reasoning and situational factors, SAT provides a comprehensive framework for understanding why and when individuals commit crimes, highlighting the importance of social context in crime prevention.

In sum, these theories collectively deepen our understanding of criminal behavior by highlighting opportunity, rational decision-making, perceptions, and moral engagement. Effective crime prevention hinges on a combination of strategies that reduce opportunities, alter offenders’ perceptions of risk, and address underlying social and moral factors. Enhanced intelligence-led policing targeting hot spots, community development initiatives promoting social cohesion, and policies focusing on changing perceived risks are essential in creating a comprehensive approach to reducing crime. Future research should aim to empirically test these theories' integration and explore how technological and social innovations can further shape effective interventions in crime prevention.

References

• Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
• Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational prevention of crime. Crime Prevention Studies, 6, 91-150.
• Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). Reasoning criminality. Routledge.
• Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. (2011). Deterrence and the approximation of optimal sanctions. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(1), 19-35.
• Eck, J. E. (2006). Screening and segmentation strategies. In D. Weisburd & A. Leiter (Eds.), The criminology of place: Street segments and curvature. Routledge.
• Wikström, P. (2004). A process analysis of situational mechanisms; a critique of social disorganization theory. Criminology, 42(3), 697–721.
• Wikström, P., & Bray, S. (2019). Developing a Dynamic Action Theory of Crime over the Life Course. European Journal of Criminology, 16(1), 63–81.
• Bouffard, J. A. (2014). Emotions and criminal decision making: Theoretical and policy implications. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 319–329.
• Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1985). Environmental solutions to crime. Crime & Delinquency, 31(1), 37-58.
• Schwartz, J., & Pitts, M. (2012). Women, Peer Support, and Routine Activity Theory. Women & Crime