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

To begin with, criminal justice is a system that is designed to maintain social control, which means it is a necessary aspect of every society since “Laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men united to form a society” (Beccaria, 1764: 16). In order words, crime control deals with the methods that are taken by a society to reduce its crime. As a matter of fact, there are various crime control strategies from community policing to risk assessments. In addition to the different tactics for controlling crime, there are several theories that not only attempt to explain the causes of crime, but also outline different ways to handle offenders; for example, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even retribution.

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 a general concept, social learning theory has been applied to the many different fields of social science to explain why certain individuals develop motivation to commit (or abstain from) crime and develop the skills to commit crime through the people they associate with. Social Learning Theory (SLT) is one of the most frequently looked at theories in the criminology field. This theory was introduced by Ronald L. Akers as a reformulation of Edwin H. Sutherland 's (1947) differential association theory of crime meld with principles of behavior psychology (Bradshaw, 2011). Akers retained the concepts of differential association and definitions from Sutherland 's theory, but conceptualized them in more behavioral terms and

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.

Ron Clark describes situational crime prevention as ‘a pre-emptive approach that relies, not on improving society or its institutions, but simple on reducing opportunities for crime’. He identifies three features of measures aimed at situational crime prevention, firstly that they

It is unfortunate that crime exists in our daily lives. There really is no way to stopping crime completely, no matter how many laws or punishment are present, people will continue to keep breaking rules. There are many theories of why that may be the case, for example, Caesar Lombroso and his “atavistic” theory with the Positivist School theory and how people were “born criminals”, or the Rational Choice Theory, devised by Cornish and Clarke, described that people could think rationally and how people will naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure referred to as “hedonism” (Cartwright, 2017, lecture 4). Since it is apparent that crime will continue to exist, it is not only important to understand the study of crime and the feedbacks to it,

There has long been a debate over which, if any, are the most effective methods of crime control. Governments from bottom to top in our nation have poured over the issue with mixed results for as long as there has been a nation. Until very recently deterrence was completely based on fear of punishment. However, recent years have provided us with a more complete understanding of crime and its roots among the more desirable parts of our society, specifically the mind of a criminal. Through the study of psychology, specifically free will, determinism and social identity, we may find that situational crime prevention is a better means to deter crime in our nation.

Summary: This chapter discusses the seven secondary defenses applied to crime after detection. These seven defenses can be split into two categories: discourage and oppose. The four ways which potential victims discourage their attackers: movement away from adversary, communicate ability to escape, distraction, feigns, and startles, and symbiotic protection. The three methods for quick opposition upon attack are chemical and weapon defense, sudden weaponry, and emergency social defense.

Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.

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).

Situational crime prevention grounded in the reasonable choice perspective in that it controls no less than one segment to change the open entryways for wrongdoing and in this manner change the essential authority of potential blameworthy gatherings. To the extent standard activities theory, situational wrongdoing abhorrence can be viewed as the parts by which controllers (i.e., guards, put chiefs, and handlers) dishearten wrongdoing. Over the span of late decades, pros and criminal value specialists alike have used the strategies for situational crime prevention to fathom wrongdoing issues, make interventions, and survey the reasonability of those mediations. Situational wrongdoing foresight was proposed to address uncommonly specific sorts of wrongdoing by efficiently controlling or managing the incite condition in as enduring a way as could be normal considering the present situation, with the explanation behind decreasing open entryways for wrongdoing as observed by a broad assortment of blameworthy gatherings. Situational crime prevention strategies focus on sufficiently changing open door structures of a particular wrongdoing by growing the undertakings, extending the threats, diminishing the prizes, reducing inductions, and removing pardons. All finished, situational crime prevention techniques change the event decision by modifying the liable party's impression of a specific criminal open entryway. Regardless, it should be seen that a blameworthy gathering's

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