Situational Crime Prevention Theory

Routine activity theory states that for a crime to be committed, three important factors need to be present including: a motivated offender, an accessible target, and the absence of a capable guardian against a violation. Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen introduced the routine activity theory in 1979, where they believed that an individual who has these three characteristics gives them a greater possibility of committing a crime. Moreover, situational crime prevention is known as strategies of ways for preventing or reducing the opportunities for criminals to commit crimes that derive from the routines of an individual’s everyday life. Ronald V. Clarke introduced situational crime prevention theory in 1983, where he believed that removing the situation instead of removing the criminal could prevent crime. In this paper, I will be discussing what routine activity/situational crime prevention theory is, and apply two peer-reviewed articles from Google Scholar that test the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory by discussing what the authors are trying to figure out and discuss their findings, and lastly, tie the routine activity/situational crime prevention theory articles to our textbook in hopes to fully understand in depth what the theory encompasses.

In crime, there are two types of prevention, Situational and Social crime prevention. Situational crime prevention makes it harder for people to commit crimes without being caught. Situational strategies of crime prevention may include CCTV cameras which are great for proving that a person committed the crime but do not stop the crime completely. Soial crime prevention strategies include putting children into schooling to prevent them from living on the street and committing

This essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.

As human beings we all see and hear about crimes from a day to day basis. We all question why we have crime and what makes a person commit a crime.

Wilson and Kelling’s key idea is that disorder and the absence of controls leads to crime. Their solution is to crack down on any disorder using a twofold strategy. First an environmental improvement strategy that any broken window must be repaired immediately, otherwise more will follow and the neighbourhood will be on the slide. Secondly the police must adopt a zero tolerance policing strategy. Instead of merely reacting to crime, the must proactively tackle even the slightest sign of disorder, even if it is not criminal. This

Following this study, there were two derivatives of the Chicago School theory (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). The first is the situational crime prevention theory, this theory examines the opportunities to commit a crime which is attributed to Robert Clarke. The theory placed an emphasis on poorly designed structures, moreover, the

Crime prevention through environmental design through changing neighborhoods in order to keep criminals off the street(Zahm, 2007).

Situational crime prevention constitutes primary crime prevention measure. This is to say that it is aimed at deterring crime before it occurs. Situational prevention, like other similar primary prevention measures, focuses on subduing crime opportunities instead of the attributes of criminals or even potential criminals. It seeks to curtail opportunities for certain groups of crime by increasing the risks and difficulties associated with them and significantly reducing the rewards. Situational prevention is made up of three key elements: a sound theoretical framework, an authoritative methodology for dealing with specific crimes, and a collection of opportunity-reducing approaches (Felson & Clarke, 1997).

This crime prevention is cost-effective by modifying the environment’s contextual factors and condition to prevent crime.

What defensible space, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), or situational crime prevention techniques are in use in this location? What types of crime/criminals do they attempt to prevent/deter?

In the past, those who study crime have focused on the offenders instead of crime itself; but this is beginning to change by “shifting the focus from a preoccupation with offenders to a detailed analysis of criminal events and criminal activities” (Kleemans et al, 2012, p. 87). Those under this following believe “that crime can be prevented by keeping motivated offenders away from suitable targets at specific points in time or space by increasing the presence of capable guardians” (Kleemans et al, 2012, p. 87). Each type of crime has different motives and desires and can be studied in a situational way. Several had tried this approach with organized crime activity treating it as sets of events and developing the following concepts:

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.

Clark and Homel (1997) mention in this study that they have classified three different forms of surveillance when it comes to the prevention of any given situational crime. In their opinion, the three different types of surveillance contain formal surveillance, natural surveillance, and surveillance by employees. Clark and Homel (1997) explain why the reason they came about with these different types of situation crime preventions is because they are comparing the effectiveness of these surveillances by examination of the outcome of what is

The focus of this paper will be based upon different crime prevention strategies implemented by members of the communities, local and government authorities.

The hypothesis claims that “changes in routine activity patterns can influence crime rates by affecting the convergence in space and time of the three minimal elements of direct-contact predatory violations” and that “the absence of any one of these elements [motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of suitable guardians against a violation] is sufficient to prevent the successful completion of a direct-contact predatory crime.” (1) The authors claim that controls for routine activities, therefore, are essential to maintaining order and keeping the crime rate down. They also note that and understanding of temporal and spatial relationships are key to understanding the changing crime rates. Illegal acts are events that occur in space and time and involve specific persons and/or objects. The spatio-temporal organization of everyday activities is what allows criminals to turn their criminal ideas into reality. Dispersion of activities away from the household has led to a change in the spatio-temporal relationship that increases the opportunity for crime, which in turn increases the crime rate itself.