Is It Important To Examine Crime Trends At A Local Level
The Article Is It Important To Examine Crime Trends At A Local Micro
The article “Is It Important to Examine Crime Trends at a Local ‘Micro’ Level?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Street to Street Variability in Crime Trajectories” discusses the impact of criminal proceedings on crime victims as secondary victimization (Groff, Weisburd, & Yang, 2010). After reflecting on the article, choose two criminological theories, and use them to explain why the crime trends are at their current rates and how any of the major components of the classical school of crime causation can address the aforementioned crime trends.
Paper For Above instruction
In analyzing local crime trends through the lens of criminological theories, it is vital to understand the underlying social and behavioral factors influencing criminal activity at a micro-level. The article emphasizes the importance of examining crime variability between streets, highlighting that crime is not uniformly distributed but varies significantly within small geographic areas. To critically analyze these trends, two criminological theories — Routine Activities Theory and Strain Theory — provide valuable insights into why crime rates fluctuate and how classical school components can be applied for effective intervention.
Routine Activities Theory (RAT), developed by Cohen and Felson in 1979, posits that for a crime to occur, three elements must converge: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This theory emphasizes the routine activities of individuals and how their daily patterns influence crime rates. In the context of local micro-level crime trends, RAT suggests that changes in everyday routines—such as increased traffic, shifts in shopping habits, or community events—can alter the likelihood of these three elements aligning. For instance, a street with high foot traffic and vigilant neighborhood watch programs may experience lower crime rates because capable guardianship disrupts the opportunity for crimes. Conversely, areas lacking surveillance or with routine activities that expose targets may see increased criminal activity. Addressing such trends involves modifying environmental factors, employing targeted surveillance, and fostering community cohesion to enhance guardianship at specific local sites.
Strain Theory, pioneered by Robert K. Merton in 1938, postulates that societal structures can create pressure or strain on individuals, especially when they are unable to achieve culturally prescribed goals through legitimate means (Merton, 1938). Such strain results in adaptive behaviors, including criminal activity, to cope with socio-economic disadvantages. Applied to the current crime trends, Strain Theory explains that neighborhoods with high unemployment, poverty, and limited social mobility are more susceptible to elevated crime rates. These structural strains motivate individuals to engage in criminal acts as an alternative means of attaining success. To mitigate these trends, addressing the root causes such as economic inequality, lack of access to education, and inadequate social services is necessary. Policies aimed at reducing societal strain by providing alternative pathways for success can lessen the motivational incentives for crime at the micro-level.
The classical school of crime causation, notably influenced by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, attributes criminal behavior to rational calculation and free will, emphasizing components such as deterrence, certainty of punishment, and swift adjudication. These components can effectively influence current crime trends by instilling a perception of high risk associated with criminal actions. For example, increasing police presence, employing deterrent signage, and ensuring quick legal proceedings contribute to the certainty and swiftness of punishment, thereby discouraging potential offenders. Importantly, the classical approach underscores the importance of proportional and predictable sanctions, which can be tailored to specific street-level crime patterns identified through micro-level analysis.
In conclusion, understanding the current crime rates through criminological theories like Routine Activities Theory and Strain Theory offers a comprehensive framework for addressing localized crime trends. While environmental and routine modifications informed by RAT can reduce immediate opportunities for offending, addressing structural inequalities highlighted by Strain Theory tackles the root causes that motivate criminal behavior. Integrating these theoretical insights with classical components focused on deterrence provides a holistic approach to crime prevention, emphasizing the importance of contextual, behavioral, and structural strategies tailored to specific micro-areas.
References
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
Groff, E. R., Weisburd, D., & Yang, S. (2010). The impact of criminal proceedings on crime victims as secondary victimization. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(2), 321-342.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
Burgess, E. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. Publications of the American Sociological Society, 19, 73-85.
Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Routine activity and transportation: Crime and victimization in the transportation system. Crime and Delinquency, 39(4), 573-592.
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. Crime and Inequality, 37-54.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88.
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity as a threat to victims: A time to revisit routine activities theory? Crime Prevention Studies, 9, 1-22.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.