Routine activity theory

Routine activity theory is a criminological perspective that suggests that crime occurs when three key
elements converge: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians. This
theory emphasizes that crime is not just about the criminal but also about the environment and
everyday activities that make individuals and places vulnerable to criminal acts.

1. Routine activity theory was developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979, primarily
to explain the rise in property crimes during the 1970s in the United States.

2. The theory highlights that changes in societal norms and daily routines can significantly
influence crime rates by altering the presence of suitable targets and guardians.

3. It suggests that urbanization and changes in lifestyle, such as increased absences from homes
due to work or leisure activities, create more opportunities for crime.

4. Crime prevention strategies based on this theory often focus on increasing guardianship through
community policing, surveillance systems, and environmental design.

5. The theory has been applied beyond property crime to understand various types of offenses,
including cybercrime, where the digital landscape influences target suitability and offender
motivation.

RAT argues that when a crime occurs, three things happen at the same time and in the same space:

 a suitable target is available

 there is the lack of a suitable guardian to prevent the crime from happening

 a likely and motivated offender is present.

A Suitable Target

The first condition for crime is that a suitable target must be available. The word target has been chosen
carefully, rather than other words such as victim.

There are three major categories of target. A target can either be:

1. A person

2. An object

3. A place

No matter how suitable a target is, an offense won't occur unless a capable guardian is absent and a
likely offender is present.

Absence of a Capable Guardian

The first condition for crime is that there must be a suitable target present. The second condition is that
a capable guardian whose presence would discourage a crime from taking place must be absent.
A capable guardian is anything, either a person or thing, that discourages crime from taking place. These
can be formal or informal.

Some examples of capable guardians:

 Alarm Systems

 Barriers

 Close Circuit Television (Cctv) Systems

 Door Staff

 Fences

 Friends

 Lighting

 Locks

 Neighborhood Watch Groups

 Neighbors

 Police Patrols

 Security Guards

 Vigilant Staff and Co-Workers

Some of the guardians are formal and deliberate, like security guards; some are informal and
inadvertent, such as neighbors.

It is also possible for a guardian to be present, but ineffective. For example a CCTV camera is not a
capable guardian if it is set up or sited wrongly. Staff might be present in a shop, but may not have
sufficient training or awareness to be an effective deterrent.

Likely Offenders

When a suitable target is unprotected by a capable guardian there is a chance that a crime will take
place. The final element in this picture is that a likely offender has to be present.

RAT looks at crime from an offender's point of view. A crime will only be committed if a likely offender
thinks that a target is suitable and a capable guardian is absent. It is their assessment of a situation that
determines whether a crime will take place.

Likely offenders have many different reasons for committing offenses. It is important that you
understand what some of these are. The ability to analyze a situation from an offender's point of view
will increase your effectiveness as a crime reduction practitioner.

The first element of the so-called Routine Activity Theory is that of a likely offender, who can become a
motivated offender when the other two elements are in place: a suitable target and the absence of a
capable guardian. Their theory states that anyone could become a motivated offender, when the
opportunity to commit a crime emerges.

To give an example, if a person (a likely offender) walks by an opened car window without any cameras
or people around (absence of a capable guardian) and sees an envelope with a large amount of cash (a
suitable target), the chances are high that this person will steal the envelope. Of the three elements that
are present within the opportunity of crime, we can at least influence two: the suitable target and the
(absence of a) capable guardian. By influencing these two elements, chances are high that we can also
influence the third and most important element: the likely offender. By taking away the opportunity, the
likely offender will not become a motivated offender

The presence of these components increases the likelihood that a predatory crime will take place.
Targets are more likely to be victimized if they are poorly guarded and ex posed to a large group of
motivated offenders, such as teen age boys.98 As targets increase in value and availability, so too should
crime rates. Conversely, as the resale value of for merly pricey goods such as iPods and cell phones
declines, so too should burglary rates.99 Increasing the number of motivated offenders and plac ing
them in close proximity to valuable goods will increase victimization levels. Even after-school programs,
designed to reduce criminal activity, may produce higher crime rates because they lump together
motivated offenders—teen boys—with vulnerable victims (other teen boys)

Guardianship Even the most motivated offenders may ignore valuable targets if they are well guarded.
Despite containing valuable commodities, private homes and/or public businesses may be considered
off-limits by seasoned criminals if they are well protected by capable guardians and efficient security
systems. Criminals are also aware of police guardianship. In order to convince them that crime does not
pay, more cops can be put on the street. Proactive, aggressive law enforcement officers who quickly get
to the scene of the crime help deter criminal activities.

Hot Spots Motivated people—such as teenage males, drug users, and unemployed adults—are the ones
most likely to commit crime. If they congregate in a particular neighborhood, it becomes a “hot spot” for
crime and violence. People who live in these hot spots elevate their chances of victimization. For ex
ample, people who live in public housing projects may have high victimization rates because their fellow
residents, mostly indigent, are extremely motivated to commit crime. Yet motivated criminals must have
the opportunity to find suitable undefended targets before they commit crime. Even the most desperate
criminal might hesitate to attack a well-defended target, whereas a group of teens might rip off an
unoccupied home on the spur of the moment. In hot spots for crime, therefore, an undefended yet
attractive target becomes an irresistible objective for motivated criminals. Given these principles, it is
not surprising that people who (a) live in high-crime areas and (b) go out late at night (c) carrying
valuables such as an expensive watch and (d) engage in risky behavior such as drinking alcohol, (e) with
out friends or family to watch or help them, have a signifi cant chance of becoming crime victims.

According to Marcus Felson, crime began to increase in the United States as the country changed from a
nation of small villages and towns to one of large urban environments. Because metropolitan areas
provide a critical population mass, predatory criminals are better able to hide and evade apprehension.
After committing crime, criminals can blend into the crowd, disperse their loot, and make a quick escape
using the public transportation system. As the population became more urban, the middle class, fearing
criminal victimization, fled to the suburbs. Rather than being safe from crime, the suburbs produced a
unique set of routine activities that promote victimization risk. In many families, both parents are likely
to commute to work, leaving teens unsupervised. Affluent kids own or drive cars, date, and socialize
with peers in unsupervised settings, all behaviors that are related to both crime and victimization. The
downtown shopping district was replaced by the suburban shopping mall. Here, strangers converge in
large numbers and youths hang out. The interior is filled with people, so drug deals can be concealed in
the pedestrian flow.

Routine Activities and Lifestyle Routine activities the ory and the lifestyle approach have a number of
similarities. They both assume that a person’s living arrangements can af fect victim risk and that people
who live in unguarded areas are at the mercy of motivated offenders. These two theories both rely on
four basic concepts: (1) proximity to criminals, (2) time of exposure to criminals, (3) target
attractiveness, and (4) guardianship. Based on the same basic concepts, these theories share five
predictions: People increase their victimiza tion risk if they (1) live in high-crime areas, (2) go out late at
night, (3) carry valuables such as an expensive watch, (4) engage in risky behavior such as drinking al
cohol, and (5) are without friends or family to watch or help them.

 Rational choice theory

Rational choice theory of criminology views offenders as rational actors who weigh the costs and
benefits of committing a crime. It assumes individuals decide to offend based on a cost-benefit analysis
of both personal factors and situational factors, choosing to commit crimes when the perceived benefits
outweigh potential costs.

Rational choice theory assumes that there are very many potential offenders among us. Whether or not
these potential offenders will actually commit a crime depends on the situation—if the costs of
committing a crime in a particular situation outweigh the benefits, they will commit the crime. If the
benefits outweigh the costs, they will not commit the crime. In other words, it is all about opportunities
and how these opportunities present themselves.

Rational choice theory, developed by Cornish and Clark (1986), is linked to deterrence theory in that
individuals make rational decisions to avoid punishment and are deterred by criminal sanctions. Major
elements of rational choice theory are that individuals (1) study the consequences of crime against the
benefits of crime prior to committing a crime and (2) select criminal behavior when the rewards offset
the costs. Factors that may be considered by an individual contemplating a criminal act are the
possibility of being caught, arrested, imprisoned, and stigmatized. For an individual who is employed, a
criminal act can also result in losing one’s job and career. However, the potential rewards may appear
more attractive, such as monetary gain, respect from others, and the thrill of “getting away with a
crime.” This theory provides a foundation for security strategies that increase the risks and
consequences of crime.

Thinking About Crime Beginning in the late 1970s, a number of criminologists began producing books
and mono graphs expounding the theme that criminals are rational ac tors who plan their crimes, fear
punishment, and deserve to be penalized for their misdeeds. In a 1975 book that came to symbolize
renewed interest in classical views, Thinking about Crime, political scientist James Q. Wilson debunked
the view that crime was a function of external forces, such as poverty, that could be altered by
government programs. Instead, he argued, efforts should be made to reduce crimi nal opportunity by
deterring would-be offenders and incar cerating known criminals. People who are likely to commit
crime, he maintained, lack inhibition against misconduct, value the excitement and thrills of breaking
the law, have a low stake in conformity, and are willing to take greater chances than the average person.
If they could be convinced that their actions will bring severe punishment, only the to tally irrational
would be willing to engage in crime.

Wilson made this famous observation: Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart
from innocent people. And many people, neither wicked nor innocent, but watchful, dissembling, and
calculating of their chances, ponder our reaction to wickedness as a clue to what they might profi tably
do.14 Here Wilson is saying that unless we react forcefully to crime, those “sitting on the fence” will get
a clear message— crime pays.

This theory was first posited in 1987 by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish. The fundamental concept
within rational choice theory is rationality. Rationality refers to the role of reasoning in human
behaviour and views crime as the outcome of an individual thinking through the possible rewards and
downsides of a criminal act.

Rational choice theory purports that a potential offender must make four primary choices: (1) whether
or not to commit a crime, (2) whether or not to select a particular target, (3) how frequently to offend,
and (4) whether or not to desist from crime.

Whether or not to commit a crime

There is a plethora of reasons as to why an individual may commit a crime (e.g., psychological, familial,
social, and economical). However, here, crime is still seen as a decision, as we are not coerced into a life
of crime. There is a clear conscious choice in becoming an offender (see Clark & Cornish,
1987). “Legitimate and illegitimate opportunities are considered and the “best” choice for that
individual is made. Sometimes, the rational choice is to offend” (Andresen, 2010, p. 30).

Whether or not to select a particular target

The rational choice of whether or not to select a particular target is of utmost importance. Potential
offenders must interpret cues given off by the environment to decide upon what or whom to offend: Is
the target valuable enough to risk getting caught? Is the area familiar to the offender? Are there
potential guardians in close proximity

How frequently to offend

The rational choice regarding how often to offend is mainly dependent on a number of factors: the
potential offender’s social network, peer influences, monetary (or other) needs, and their ability to
successfully avoid detection. The main point here is that frequency is still a choice.

Whether or not to desist from crime

Desisting from crime or continuing crime is another rational choice. A potential offender could have
issues with committing a crime: exhausting targets, age-related issues, getting detected – all of which
are internal issues. On the other hand, getting married, suffering from an injury, or being offered
employment represent external issues that interfere with a life of crime.

Rational choice theory is a core theoretical model in the fields of political science, economics, sociology,
and psychology, yet many criminologists continue to doubt its applicability as a general theory of crime.
Some critics claim that RCT, which is a theory that highlights the rational weighing of the pros and cons
of a certain action, is suitable in other fields like economics but may be limited to property crimes or
other instrumental acts that may result in financial gain. Other critics claim that RCT fails to incorporate
the theoretical constructs that are highlighted in other theories of crime, though in many cases this has
turned out to be inaccurate.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Since the theory of rational choice is based on the assumption of individual benefit maximisation, the
task of criminal policy is to reward conformal behaviour in such a way and at the same time punish
criminal behaviour in such a way that the former becomes more rational for the individual. Society, the
state and its criminal law must therefore be conceived in such a manner that it is more benefit-
maximizing, i.e. more rational for the individual, to prefer conformist action to criminal action.

In concrete terms, this means, firstly, that incentives for legal behaviour must be created. Secondly,
access to criminal activity must be blocked in order to limit the decision-making situation from the
outset to conforming alternatives. Thirdly, the rational choice theory calls for a deterrent criminal law.

It is thus closely linked to deterrence theories and – due to its close relationship to the Routine Activity
Approach – to the concept of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

In the case of a theory that deals with the rationality of human beings, the first thing that certainly
catches the eye is the lack of explanatory power for emotional, affective and impulsive actions. The
classical “manslaughter” can hardly be justified with “rational choice”.

However, the theory of rational choice seems to make sense above all in the field of white-collar crime,
since it is able to present the cost-benefit calculations carried out in managerial and executive circles in
favour of deviant actions as the origin of criminal machinations.

However, the rational choice theory in its basic conception does not manage to explain crime beyond
economic motives, because there is obviously much more than money for which (delinquent) action is
worthwhile.

Criticisms of rational choice theory often focus on the rationality of it. Even though it is based on the
idea of bounded rationality and not on pure rationality, critics still find that there is too little attention
for factors like emotion and impulsivity. They argue that criminal behavior is driven by factors that may
even be called irrational at times. It is true that rational choice theory assumes that personal factors play
a role, but it does not try to understand how criminal motivations and dispositions develop. And so
critics find the perspective too simplistic.

Rational Choice Theory and Crime Prevention

Because rational choice theory puts the focus on crime and not so much on the offender, and because it
focuses on opportunities and situations, it is easily linked to crime prevention. In line with rational
choice theory, crime prevention is not a matter of changing the offender, but of changing the situation.
In other words, it’s about making sure to change situations so that the benefits of committing crime are
smaller than the costs. In order to do that, we need to study situations, find out what it is about these
particular situations that makes them vulnerable to crime, and then change them. This is also called
situational crime prevention.

 Situational crime prevention

Situational crime prevention focuses on the settings where crime occurs, rather than on those
committing specific criminal acts. The emphasis is on managerial and environmental change that
reduces opportunities for crimes to occur (Clarke, 1997). Situational crime prevention is based on two
related theories.

 Rational choice theory (Felson and Clarke, 1998), which states that potential offenders rationally
choose to commit crime, and also the methods used in order to do so. This choice is influenced
by the offender’s need to maximise reward while minimising risk.

 Routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979), which states that, in order for a crime to
occur, there must the presence of three linked elements: motivated offenders, suitable targets
and the absence of capable guardians. Capable guardians can include people such as security
guards or the police, as well as environmental factors, such as locks or other security devices.

Situational crime prevention aims to increase risk and/or minimise reward, thus making either the
commission of a criminal act too difficult, or the reward for committing the act too low to risk being
caught.

Increased risk can be achieved by minimising the number of suitable targets or adding ‘capable
guardians’.

Cornish and Clarke (2003) produced 25 techniques of situational crime prevention, which detailed
various types of interventions to reduce crime. The 25 techniques were split into five specific groups:

 increasing the effort

 increasing the risk

 reducing the rewards

 reducing provocations

 removing excuses

Interventions relating to neighbourhood crime described in this report tend to fall into the ‘increasing
the effort’ and ‘increasing the risk’ categories (for further information, see the 25 techniques of
situational crime prevention(opens an external website in the same tab)).

A similar concept to situational crime prevention is crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED). CPTED and situational crime prevention are both concerned with changing the environment to
reduce opportunities for crime. CPTED is associated with design solutions that often focus on
architecture and planning, and is also known as ‘designing out crime’ (Cozens and Love, 2015).
Situational crime prevention tends to be broader in nature, referring to any opportunity-reducing
measure that has the potential to increase the difficulties or risks of offending (Clarke, 1989).

 Situational crime prevention is based in the belief that crime can be deterred by making
strategic changes to an environment. It does this by focusing on how (rather than why) crime
happens—and therefore, how it can be prevented.

SCP is based on four components:

1. Rational choice, which involves understanding the thought process of offenders who choose
how to commit a crime
2. Specificity, which looks at specific types of crimes to understand the opportunities that allowed
the offender to commit a crime
3. Opportunity structure, in which analysts gather information from both offenders and victims to
create a “map” of the path the offender took to committing a crime
4. Techniques for crime prevention that reduce the opportunity for crime

 Removal of target: Parking a luxury car in a garage rather than on the street in
an area where vehicle break-ins or auto theft are a problem.
 Increase natural surveillance: When urban planning, including well-lit streets
and housing designs that allow neighbors to see one another’s properties.
 Control tools/weapons: Restricting the purchase of guns or other weapons, or
not allowing juveniles to purchase spray paint.
 Increase formal surveillance: Install alarms or security cameras in conspicuous
places so offenders are aware of any surveillance measures.
 Alert conscience: Roadside signs that flash your speed if you’re driving too
fast, or warnings at the beginning of a movie that state “piracy is not a
victimless crime.”