CRIMINOLOGY

Victimology
Routine Activities

1
 MODULE 11 : ROUTINE ACTIVITIES

Component - I - Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai Registrar

Paper Coordinator
Content Writer/Author(s)
Content Reviewer
Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai
1. Prof(Dr) K. Jaishankar
2. Amit Gopal Thakre
Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai
National Law University
Delhi
Registrar
National Law University
Delhi
1. Professor & Head,
2. Trained Criminologist,
Department of Criminology,
Raksha Shakti University,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Registrar
National Law University
Delhi

Component - I (B) Description of Module

Description of Module
Subject Name Criminology
Paper Name Victimology
Module No. 11
Module Name/Title Routine Activities
Pre-requisites Crime Opportunity Theory, Situational Crime
Prevention, Rational Choice Theory & Self Control
Theory
Objectives  To understand causes of crimes from the
perspective of space-time convergence.
 To study the role of daily common activities
which becomes part of routine life and how
these activities determines ‘suitability of target’
and ‘availability of guardianship’?
 To understand practical solutions embedded in
Routine Activity Theory for preventing and
reducing crimes.
Keywords Space-time convergence, routine activity life, motivated
offender, suitable target, capable guardian, intervention
policies

2
Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Offenders
3. Targets
4. Guardians
5. Discussion
6. Summary and Conclusion

Learning Outcomes
After the completion of this module, you will be able to understand:
 The causes of crime in space-time convergence
 The Routine life activities in determining making of a victim or an offender
 The significance of suitability of a target and guardianship in crimes
 The scope of practical solutions embedded in Routine Activity Theory

3
 Routine Activities
1. Introduction
Routine Activity Theory emerged from the crime opportunity theory that specifically
focuses on space-time convergence leading to crime situations. It is developed by Marcus
Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen (1979) and they have shifted their justification for causes of
crime from poverty and inequality to situations aroused in routine activity life of the victim
and offender. The criminological theories have explained criminality from various angles
with suitable justifications. The question posed was, ‘why some commit crime whereas others
choose to conform?’ and in order to answer it, the criminologists framed theories keeping
criminality as its base. Some of the theories gave the perspective of disorganized
communities, ineffective informal social systems; association with anti-social elements and
others explained criminality through negative effects of incarceration. Unlike other theories,
Routine Activity Theory adopted a different path, i.e., to explain crime and not the
criminality. The focus of explanation was placed on present situations rather than digging up
the past. The criminological question was reversed. The offender was portrayed as a sensible-
decision maker who chooses a particular situation over other to commit a crime and his
decisions are based on what, where, how and who (target) of crime. The popularity of Routine
Activity Theory lies in its perspective of offering practical solutions to prevent and reduce
crimes.
Previous studies show that even if the offender is motivated to commit crime, he
cannot, unless opportunity to commit crime is present (Cloward, 1959; Cullen, 1984),
whereas, on the other side, researches have linked crime rate in a particular location with
number of motivated offenders present in vicinity. This aspect demeans the role of
‘opportunity’ to commit crime. In response to that the supporters of opportunity factor argued
that, for an individual to commit crime, he/she needs to have access to opportunities and the
availability of opportunities in certain geographical areas determines the propensity of crimes
taking place over there. In a way, this theory tends to explain the reason behind people
committing crime through the availability of opportunities to do so.
The Routine Activity Theory led to several discussions and numerous significant
researches to understand the theory’s dynamics and its feasibility. The focus shifted to
manipulating environment in order to eradicate opportunities and this involved installation of
burglary alarm or adopting plastic currency over storing cash in safe. According to Felson,
crime is not happening because of ‘evils of society’ or any other social problems like
socioeconomic inequality. This perspective built on the belief system that shifted its quest to

4
find solution to crime problem from social revolution to modest interventions. Felson
contended that crime can be prevented through simple remedies like installing a lock or fitting
an extra bulb in porch, anything that minimizes the opportunities to commit crime. Felson and
Cohen targeted the counteract mechanism for crimes rather than laying greater emphasis on
explaining root causes of crime. This theory was influential in shaping the evidence based
policies that were interested in ‘what works’.

2. Offenders
Cohen and Felson (1979) noted that for a criminal act to happen, two things are
required, target for the offender and absence of a guardian. In fact, Felson went ahead to
argue that offender is not even that important entity for a crime to happen. It is all about time-
space convergence of target’s availability and absence of guardian. The favorable positioning
of targets and absence of guardians are enough to instigate crime rise in a particular area even
if offenders do not get motivation to commit crimes. This idea is diagrammatically illustrated
below for reader’s ready reference.

5
 To support this idea, Cohen and Felson explained the reason behind it. According to
them, after World War II the citizens of the United States have faced a sudden social structure
shift in their routine activities as they tend to spend significant amount of time away from
home. This led to increase in number of day time burglary cases where the targets within
homes are left unattended. Similarly, the rise in number of cases of robbery was reasoned for
people out in open (office, school, community or any kind of leisurely activity) coming in
contact with motivated offenders too often especially when there’s no guardian present.
Generally, the Cohen and Felson through their research has shown that the era of 1960s that
improved socio-economic situation of the society changed their routine activities to stay away
from home which was linked with rise in crime rate (significantly burglary, rape, serious
assault, robbery and homicides) due to absence of guardian at the place of crime.

3. Targets
Routine Activity Theory is framed on macro level analysis of victimization process.
Cohen and Felson used the word suitable targets and not the victim because they do not want
to restrict their theory to persons only. They wanted to cover property as well. In yet another
interesting perspective of rise in crime rate due to nature of target, Cohen and Felson
explained that property crimes are happening largely due to availability of good quality of
targets rather than economic deprivations. According to them, the targets which are durable,
movable, have good resale value gives profit and are preferably selected by offenders.

To understand the issue of victimization from a different angle, Garofalo (1987) did a
victim survey and contended that some people are more prone to getting victimized due to
their lifestyle. They live a risky life and make decisions which are prone to exploitation from
offenders. This opens up the scope for victims to guard themselves against crimes by
refraining from being in risky situations.

6
4. Guardians
Cohen and Felson use the term ‘capable guardian’ and not police specifically because
their perspective of a controller is beyond the mechanism of criminal justice system. For
Routine Activity Theory, capable guardian involves everyone who could guard the target.
This may include family, friends, neighbors, or any one from the public. The guardian could
also be a non-living thing such as a CCTV or electronic system installed at home. The
importance of presence of a guardian in preventing crimes was also empirically supported by
Pratt and Cullen’s (2005) research based on meta-analysis which specifically studied the
significance of guardianship in crimes.

The Routine Activity Theory opened ways for scientifically exploring the
significance of guardianship from various perspectives. One may examine important role of
guardian apart proving deterrence effect or study the contribution of guardianship in overall
crime prevention through the implementation of routine activity theory.

5. Discussion
The readers will get to understand the aspect of practicality that this theory brings
into policies meant for safer society. The theory is a working module inclusive of guidelines
for preventing crimes by placing legitimate obstacles in space and time between offender and
target. It was suggested that target needs to be made less attractive and watched over by a
capable guardian. The theory can be researched well by the aspiring scholars to understand
the nuances of variations in opportunities for offenders, guardianship with the crime pattern in
a city or locality. The theory also has apparent links with environmental design of society that
plays crucial role in reducing criminal opportunities. Newman (1972) in line with routine
activity theory proposed an idea about ‘defensible space’ which according to him are

7
dwellings with certain characteristics that includes associations of houses for better sense of
belonging, highlighted paths of movements, defining areas of activities and acceptable level
of surveillance for better visualization of activities in internal living areas. The same idea
resonated in Jeffery’s (1971) theory on crime prevention through environmental design. All
these perspectives gives the reader a better understandings of crime from the view point of
environment and are very much empirically testable and applicable in day to day lives. To
make crime difficult, rational choice theory promotes ideas that reverberate in situational
crime prevention (SCP) as well. The measures include systematic manipulation of
environment for permanent fixing of risk factors and make crime less rewarding. The main
difference between RAT and Rational Choice is that RAT explains about the situation and the
elements in it and how these elements could be barred from achieving their goals by placing
barriers at right points where as Rational Choice explains how offender chooses to do crime.
Similarly, SCP could be stated as mechanism for RAT to prevent crimes. SCP suggests
intervention measures, to follow them up and try to understand how effective they are in
crime prevention.
The Routine Activity Theory led to emergence of numerous household safety
measures such as locking vehicle wheel, high fences around home, bell at the entrance, easier
visibility of house by the neighbors and improving lightings. To visually represent the idea of
routine activity theory, Eck (2003) designed a ‘crime triangle’ which broadly depicts the
importance of presence of a controller who plays a role of nullifier of crime opportunities.
The controller in case of Offender, Target and Place are stated to be Handler, Guardian and
Manager respectively. A group of researchers raised the concern of policing particular high
risk areas might lead to shifting of crime in adjacent areas, also called as ‘displacement of
crime’ might occur but this has been refuted empirically by Eck and Weisburd (1995) stating
that instead of shifting of criminal activities, there is diffusion of benefits which means that
the targeted policing may favorably lead to crime reduction in areas adjacent to hot spots.
Routine Activity Theory emphasis on the aspect of social bonds as well. As per the
theory, if there’s a strong social bond between a potential offender and his/her
family/community then the probability of committing crimes becomes too low. A stronger
social bond tends to nullify the attraction resonating from criminal opportunities. Apart giving
sociological solutions to crime, RAT played crucial role in executing problem-oriented
policing (POP) and problem analysis at community level. POP is based on SARA model
(Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment of the problem). Such kind of software and
analysis gives policing an upper hand to deal with problems proactively. In furtherance to
police action based on response to the problem, the crime mapping may yield crime patterns

8
across the city that will extrapolate on opportunities emerging for criminal activities in
specific pockets of the city and could be intervened well in time.
The theory could also be used to understand and even predict distribution of crime in
space and time in a particular locality. One may examine the routine activity of people in a
particular area with the people of adjacent or any other area and try to find out the difference
in crime rates. This could be further examined to understand whether there’s a significant link
between lifestyles of the residents with the pattern of crimes in their respective areas. In one
such similar interesting research taken up by Messner and Blau (1987), they found that
there’s a link between the type of leisurely activities people prefer and crime rates in their
areas. They took their samples from 124 Metropolitan Areas in United States during 1980’s
and compared the rates of crimes for the two groups. One which preferably stays at home,
watching television; whereas, other group likes to take up outdoor activities, such as sports.
They found out that greater involvement in outdoor activities led to higher crime rates as
compared to the group which stays at home.

6. Summary and Conclusion

The term routine is applied in the theory because of its mundane nature and not a
special act, i.e. to say the opportunities to commit crimes coming across routines lives of
people explains the routine activity theory. However, the theory is criticized to ignore the role
of poverty and inequality as causes for crimes in the area but Felson again linked both the
factors with Routine Activities by justifying the high concentration of crimes only near those
areas which are isolated during night time and are frequented by less number of people.
Felson also seem to overlook the significance of political factor in influencing patterns of
crimes arisen due to emergence of opportunities in certain city pockets. This led to an area
untouched by Felson which failed to explain why certain people burdened with risk factors
leading to crime have vulnerable lifestyles.
In terms of compatibility of theories, Routine Activity is very much similar to the
Rational Choice Theory. Felson (1998) argued that offenders act on insistence of pleasure or
pain principle. If crime is hard to commit and involves instant pain then the offender will be
less likely to commit it. Felson also linked his theory with the self-control theory by
suggesting working on strengthening self-control of offender so that he/she do not fall prey to
the lure offered by tempting opportunities. It is obvious that if the offender’s pursuit to attain
instant gratification is resisted then it would affect his/her decision to offend significantly.
A large number of prominent scholars (Bottoms, 1994; Brantingham & Brantingham,
1993; Eck & Weisburd, 1995) have moved the initial focus of routine activity theory.

9
Initially, routine activity theory was not focusing on detailing offender but it eventually
became an important factor because the scholars were of the view that studying routine of
victims only would not be able to explain the whole picture. It is also important to understand
the routine of offenders and how they choose to victimize their targets. This approach was
named as offender search theory. The theory further builds on the idea that offenders are
actively involved in creating opportunities for crime. They develop a cognitive map that lets
them decide on where, on whom and when to commit a crime. This cognitive map is ever
evolving and mostly the offender chooses areas near their homes. Conclusively, the
researches so far suggest considering both, the victim and the offender’s perspective and their
routine activities in space and time to explain crime. Routine Activity Theory was successful
in explain causes for certain types of crimes which includes copyright infringement, theft and
white-collar crimes which are predominant in 21st century. However, it may not explain
crimes like cyber crimes in toto (Yar, 2005; Jaishankar, 2008; Leukfeldt & Yar, 2016).
The practical implications of Routine Activity Theory are very much relevant for
modern day policing and are playing important role in framing policies for prevention.
Routine Activity Theory has been very significant in contributing to the knowledge of
criminology field in terms of introducing analysis of crime patterns on spatio-temporal basis.

References
Bottoms, A. E. (1994). `Environmental criminology'. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R.
Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 585-656). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on
the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 13(1), 3-28.
Cloward, R. A. (1959). Illegitimate means, anomie, and deviant behavior. American
sociological review, 164-176.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American sociological review, 588-608.
Cullen, F. T. (1984). Rethinking crime and deviance theory: The emergence of a structuring
tradition. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld.
Eck, J. (2003). Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and
evaluation. Crime prevention studies, 15, 79-114.
Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime and place, crime prevention studies. Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press. Crime and Place, Crime Prevention Studies, 4 Monsey.

10
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. Police research series,
paper, 98.
Garofalo, J. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. Positive
criminology, 23-42.
Jaishankar, K. (2008). Space Transition Theory of cyber crimes. In Schmallager, F., &
Pittaro, M. (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp.283-301). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Jeffrey, C. R. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage
Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M. (2016) Applying Routine Activity Theory to Cybercrime: A
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263-280. DOI:
10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409.
Messner, S. F., & Blau, J. R. (1987). Routine leisure activities and rates of crime: A macro-
level analysis. Social Forces, 65, 1035-1052.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space (p. 264). New York: Macmillan.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A
meta-analysis. Crime and justice, 32, 373-450.
Yar, M. (2005). The Novelty of ‘Cybercrime’: An Assessment in Light of Routine Activity
Theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427.

11