M8D1, M8D2 and M8A1 - Problem-Oriented Policing Program

Criminal Justice

M8D1: Theory, Research, and Public Policy

Routine Activity Theory

Routine Activity Theory is a theory associated to crime. It provides an easy and powerful focus on the causes of crime related problems. The theory at its heart and basis is the concept that in the nonexistence of efficient controls, offenders will focus upon striking and attractive targets. These criteria are based on three elements. The first is that there should be a motivated offender, an appropriate objective, as well as the nonappearance of an able guardian. Offenders choose their victims based upon the target's susceptibility. To determine injured party selection, offenders will frequently examine sufferer location, behaviors, attitudes, life style, living situation, and social connections (Clarke & Felson, 1993). For example, suppose an offender wishes to break into a home that will give easy entry, extensive valuables, and negligible chances for apprehension.

Motivated offenders are people who are not only able of committing illegal activities, but are enthusiastic to do so. The level of motivation varies depending on the situation. For example, a thief or burglar might be provoked by the absolute excitement of the activity. Another might commit any sort of criminal activity for the desire of wealth to help out a drug addiction. In the presently situation, the offender might consider he or her has not anything to lose. The supposed predictability of displacement was a result of the "dispositional" prejudice of the most predictable criminological theory that regarded conditional or situational factors as playing a secondary role in the charge of crime. They go to discover empirical proof supporting the supposition of the Routine Activity Theory, especially that worldwide social causes do not participate and play a role as big as in the causation of offense as personal life style does (Wikstrom, 2010). While regulation enforcement personnel and protection guards stand for clear protectors, research has abandoned the idea of the unsuspecting citizen presumptuous a significant role in responsibility with no prejudice toward the attendance or absence of against the law acts (Woodworth & Porter, 2010). Routine Activity Theory can be able to be used as a method to give details why crimes occur, and to forecast who has the uppermost probability of committing crimes based on three requirements (Clarke &Weisburd, 2006).

Property Crime in Contrast with Routine Activity Theory

Routine activity theory has the capability to account and provide description for property crime victimization. It is possibly the most significant matter for the current scenario. One has to see that the abstract grounding is much clear when taking into consideration property crime oppression as the dependent variable. Creating damage to someone's automobile and others are all examples of damage or defacement. These are criminal activities against possessions (Copers, 1999). Burglary can be obvious in three types: an illegal entrance of an unlocked arrangement, a breaking and inflowing of a protected structure, and an effort of burglary (Degarmo, 2011).

Violent Crime in Contrast to Routine Activity Theory

The criminal acts of violence and ...