Crime opportunity theory

Crime Opportunity theory is a theory that suggests that offenders make rational choices and thus choose targets that offer a high reward with little effort and risk. The occurrence of a crime depends on two things: the presence of at least one motivated offender who is ready or willing to engage in a crime, and the conditions of the environment in which that offender is situated, to wit, opportunities for crime. All crimes require opportunity but not every opportunity is followed by crime. Similarly a motivated offender is necessary for the commission of a crime but not sufficient. A large part of this theory focuses on how variations in life-style or routine activities affect the opportunities for crime (Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo 1978; Cohen and Felson 1979; Cohen, Felson, and Land 1980).

Opportunity thus becomes the limiting factor that determines the outcome in environments prone to crime because the offender generally has little or no control over the conditions of the environment, and the conditions that permit particular crimes are often rare, unlikely or preventable.

Key concepts

Routine activities

The idea that daily activities create the convergence in time and space of the three elements necessary for a crime to occur: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians. The theory argues that available opportunities are an important component in the crime calculus. Choices in lifestyle on the part of potential victims may create or curtail crime opportunities for the motivated offender [1]

Rational choice

The rational choice perspective tries to understand crime from the perspective of the offender. It is directly concerned with the thinking processes of offenders, how they evaluate criminal opportunities, why they decide to do one thing rather than another, and why they choose to obtain their ends by criminal and not legal means. This perspective has helped to explain why displacement does not always occur and has helped develop different ways to reduce opportunities for crime (Cornish and Clarke, 1986; Barnes, 1995).

Situational crime prevention through environmental design

According to criminologist C. Ray Jeffery, crime results partly from the opportunities presented by physical environment therefor it is possible to alter the physical environment so that crime is less likely to occur. He argues that sociologists overstated the social causes of crime, and neglected both biological and environmental determinants.[2] Situational Crime Prevention introduces discrete managerial and environmental changes to reduce the opportunity for crimes to occur. It is focused on the settings for crime and seeks to predict the occurrence of crime. It suggests that much offending can appropriately be viewed not simply as the product of deep social, economic, and psycho-logical causes but also as the result of deliberate choices by individuals. Therefore by making criminal action less attractive to offenders, criminal behavior can be curved.[3][4]

Critical developments

Since its conception, the opportunity theory has received much analysis, criticism, and reform. Through research and experimentation the theory has been improved by several different scholars each emphasizing their own ideas. Some of those ideas are stated below:

Empirical support

There have been several studies conducted both inside and outside of the United States that illustrate the importance of opportunity in crime. See for example, "The Role of Opportunity in Crime Prevention and Possibe Threats of Crime Control Benefits" [6]

Suicide trends

In England and Wales during the 1960s and 1970s opportunity proved to be a strong and surprising component in suicide trends. In 1958 almost 50 percent of the nearly 5,300 people who killed themselves in England and Wales did so by domestic gas. During the 1960s, domestic gas began to be manufactured from oil rather than from coal making it less poisonous. Consequently the number of people killing themselves with gas began to decline. By the mid-1970s when natural gas had been introduced throughout most of the country, less than one percent of suicides were by domestic gas, compared with about 50 percent at the beginning of the period. Suicides did not displace wholesale to other methods. Between 1968 and 1975, total suicides dropped by about one third from nearly 5, 300 to nearly 3, 700. This was during a time of much economic uncertainty when one might have expected suicides to increase and, indeed, was generally increasing in other European countries. The reason people not turn to other methods of suicide is that all other methods have disadvantages not possessed by gas. It is dramatically more difficult to kill oneself with guns, pills overdose, or jumping out of a tall building because all these methods require courage and resolution. Lethal domestic gas, on the other hand, required little preparation and involved no pain. It is easy to understand why it was the favored method of suicide in Britain for so long. Nor is it so surprising that when the opportunity to use it was removed, the overall suicide rate declined (Clarke and Mayhew, 1988).

Motorcycle theft & Residential burglary

In Germany during the 1980s a study of motorcycle theft identified opportunity as its crucial element. The thefts of motorbikes had drastically declined from about 150,000 in 1980 to about 50,000 in 1986. This tremendous decline was the result of a new law passed in 1980 making it illegal to ride a motorbike in Germany without a helmet. The law was gradually enforced more strictly during the period and resulted in the large decline in motorcycle thefts. There is some limited evidence of displacement because between 1980 and 1983 thefts of cars went up from about 64,000 to 70,000 and the theft of bicycles also saw a noticeable increase. (Clarke, 1980:141) Altogether, it was clear that at best only a small proportion of the 100,000 motorbike thefts saved by the helmet laws were displaced to thefts of other vehicles (Mayhew et al., 1989). In the United States, a study was completed to investigate the dramatic increase in residential burglary during the 1960s and 1970s. A careful analysis by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) showed that this increase was to a combination of two changes; temptation and opportunity. Temptation had been increased by the vast increase in light-weight electronic goods such as TV’s and VCR’s in people’s homes that could readily be sold. The opportunity to commit burglary was greatly increased as a result of far more women going out to work (Cohen and Felson 1979).

Van Dijk's chains

The criminologist Van Dijk noticed a typical pattern in the theft of bicycles that also emphasizes the role of opportunity. He observed that the victim of a bike theft would steal a bike from someone else to replace it. That victim would in turn steal a bike from another owner, and so on. Thus a single bicycle theft would have a multiplier effect, leading to several additional bicycle thefts. The chains could apply to the theft of any items with these four attributes: widely owned, necessary for daily use, easily taken, and sufficiently expensive (Dijk 1994).

Criticisms and theoretical questions

Although the crime opportunity is a useful tool for evaluating criminal environments, like any other theory there are numerous criticisms:

Crime prevention implications

The opportunity theory has direct application to crime prevention. Concepts like problem-oriented policing, defensible space architecture, crime prevention through environmental design, and situational crime prevention seek to reduce opportunities for crime for particular kinds of targets, places, and classes of victims. Each is concerned with preventing very specific kinds of crime and none of the four attempts to improve human character. Most important, all four seek to block crime in practical, natural, and simple ways, at low social and economic costs.[7]

Sixteen opportunity-reducing techniques have also been identified, falling under four objectives derived from rational choice theory: increasing the perceived effort of crime, increasing the perceived risks, reducing the anticipated rewards, and removing excuse for crime. Criminologist Ronald V. Clarke discusses twenty three studies that have documented the success of the use of these opportunity-reducing in his book, “Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies”.[8]

References

  1. ↑ http://www.personal.psu.edu/exs44/597b-Comm&Crime/Cohen_FelsonRoutine-Activities.pdf; and http://www.popcenter.org/learning/pam/help/theory.cfm
  2. ↑ Jeffery, C. R. (1977). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (Second Edition). Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
  3. ↑ Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (Second Edition). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
  4. ↑ http://crimeprevention.rutgers.edu/topics/SCP%20theory/theory.htm
  5. ↑ Dijk, Jan van (1994). "Understanding crime rates: On interactions between rational choices of victims and offenders". British Journal of Ciminology 34: 105–121.
  6. ↑ Özkan GÖK*(2011), "The Role of Opportunity in Crime Prevention and Possibe Threats of Crime Control Benefits", Turkish Journal of Police Studies Vol: 13 (1)
  7. ↑ Cohen, Lawrence E.; Felson, Marcus; Land, Kenneth (1980). "Property Crime Rates in the United States: A Macrodynamic Analysis; 1947-1977; with ex ante forecasts for the 1980's". American Journal of Sociology 86: 90–118. doi:10.1086/227204.
  8. ↑ Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (Second Edition). Albany, NY.: Harrow and Heston.

See also

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, September 22, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.