The rate at which criminal activities have been increasing over the past years is quite high. No single day passes by without a case of robbery being heard of. Crime cases handled in courts today make the largest number of cases. Robbery, theft, and assault top the list of offenses committed and presented in our courts today. Significantly, it should be noted that most of the crime offenses committed were undertaken within the offenders’ familial locations. Most of the people who engage in crimes do not just go to commit their activities in foreign places. It all happens in areas which they are quite familiar with especially where their families are. So as to prove whether if this notion is true, this paper intends to evaluate a research article titled “Family Matters: Effects of Family Members’ Residential Areas on Crime Location Choice,” by Menting et al. 2016).
For quite a long time, it has been the notion that a family plays a huge role in the participation of one of its members in crime. Well, this has in a way proved to be true because children raised up from careless, reckless, and dysfunctional families have mostly ended up in crime. However, little known to many people is that the family also influences where the offenders choose to commit their crimes. As Menting et al. observe in their article, the family is of great significance in the Etiology of crime. This paper analyses this article with an aim to see how efficient it was in arguing out the sufficiency and truth in the role of the family in the location of a crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
To start with is the hypothesis of the article. Menting et al. (2016) hypothesized that the places or locations where family members of those engaging in crime activities are located are always at the greatest risk of being targeted. They look at the current trend in crimes committed, and it is notable that most offenders are based in the areas where their families are located. The awareness space of a criminal is always quite imperative in regards to where they carry out their activities. Menting et al. (2016) argue that most people tend to visit their homes more than any other place. This is what fuels home to become their awareness space given the additional truth that this is the place where most of them have grown up in thus are consciously aware of.
To come with conclusive resolutions, the first step taken by Menting et al. (2016) was to study the variables involved in the study. Some of the variables were independent with only one dependent variable. The independent variables were:
1) Residential areas of offender’s parents.
2) Residential areas of the offender's siblings.
3) Residential areas of offender’s children.
The dependent variable was:
1) The choice of one particular area from a geographical set of alternatives to commit a crime (Menting et al., 2016).
To effectively construct the dependent variable, Menting et al. (2016) included crimes committed from 2006-2009 as per recordings of The Hague in their study. The independent variables too were constructed by locating the specific addresses of these persons from The Hague. The data that they used was still up to 2009.
To be able to obtain relevant and efficient data in their research, Menting et al. (2016) used the documents and records which they were able to get from The Hague or even with their assistance. For every crime committed there is always a record kept. This record provides significant information of where background of the offender, the type of offence committed, and where the crime was committed. With this type of information, it was quite easy for them to study and see the patterns in crime proprietary in most of the record cases and their relation to their presented case of argument. They could easily identify where a person comes from, the people they are related to, and the proximity of crime location to these relatives. They examined The Hague area and got most of the documents from crimes that were registered around the same place in a certain given time.
For their study, Menting et al. (2016) used some prior literature to support their argument. Most of the articles they used were written by Wim Bernasco, who is one of the few people that had researched deeply on the relationship of crime choice of location and area of residence of family members. One of this, titled “A sentimental journey to crime: Effects of residential history on crime location choice,” clearly plays a great role in cementing the article by Menting et al. (2016). Three other articles co-written by Bernasco still addressing the same issue of the location of crime played a crucial role in solidifying the arguments that were presented in this case study.
The reference to Jonathan Alston’s “The serial rapist’s spatial pattern of target selection,” was also a great plus to this study. Well, it is known that most rapists, from prior research, only assault people from within their locality. Few or no cases of external rape cases have been heard of in the crime sector. In essence, every piece of previous literature they used was quite essential in developing their argument and supporting their hypothesis. They also did not use limited sources for their study, and this was a plus to their study because it indicated how well they had researched about the same despite conducting a case study.
After running their case study, the findings suggested that it was true that most of the locations where offenders choose to commit crime are those which they are familiar with where their close relatives are. According to the records obtained, a large percentage of the offenders charged for crimes had committed them in areas where their parents or siblings were located. This case study solidified and proved the hypothesis presented by Menting et al. (2016). It was evident that areas with relatives of criminals were at the greatest risk of being attacked. Most criminals do not just commit a crime anywhere. It has to be somewhere they are quite conversant with. And this are places they have visited or grown up in as earlier noted.
From this, it is possible to generalize this research. Significantly, there is a way people tend to associate more with the areas of their growth. Not only is it in criminal activities but also in other areas like conducting of business. Most individuals establish businesses in areas where they are already conversant and familiar with. It is where their awareness space is located where they feel comfortable to start a business venture. Therefore, in most aspects of life, the location of a person’s family or close relatives influences their decision making in partaking of an activity greatly.
The research design was well chosen in regards to the subject question of the research. Menting et al. (2016) used directly obtained records from crime handling institutions. This was the best method to use in studying the relationship of the location of a crime to the residence of an offender’s family members because each and every detail they needed was provided in the records. Significantly, they were also able to access information over a wide period. This enabled them to compare and contrast the data in different time frames. Such information over differing time frames was very crucial in proving how true their hypothesis was, not only at that time but since time immemorial. Again, it was first-hand information, and so the possibility of its authenticity being tampered was very low.
Additionally, the data from this research was clearly outlined. They used exact figures as per the records obtained to come up with their findings. No presumed values were used in the provision of data. All the data they collected was given in the article as purely as it was from the records they obtained. From there, they did their calculations in percentages to clearly present their argument. Not only did they just give numbers but also explanations. For every single calculation done, an explanation followed. This was quite imperative as it helps one to understand how they got to certain conclusions. The results from their research were quite substantively important to their research because they showed how true what they were advocating for was.
From this case study, some other hypothesis and questions can be raised. For instance, does it mean that criminals cannot commit crimes in areas where they have no relatives? Should families always feel at risk of criminal activity in the case where one of their members becomes a criminal? And in such cases, what should they do to avoid being victims? Further, the case study presents other hypotheses. It suggests that a person has a direct attachment to the location which they grew up in or where they have spent the most time in. It also suggests that crime and family are interdependent. Additionally, the research also suggests that all types of crimes are influenced by this aspect of the location of family members. The truth of this matter is, however, not clearly brought out. Have we not heard of terrorists who partake their activities in countries that are far from their own?
However, this research had some drawbacks. For a start, Menting et al. (2016) only concentrated on one specific area, the Greater The Hague area. The Hague area is largely urban, and its population does not fully represent that of Netherlands let alone the world. To ensure efficiency of the results obtained from the study, the research should be done on a wider geographical area and even in different parts of the world.
Again, they did not measure awareness spaces directly. What they did was indirect measurement basing their argument on the idea that people visit most of their family members quite often. This information is, however, non-substantial because we are not told how true the statement is. Perhaps these offenders could spend a lot of time at work or school as compared to home. Lastly, the research was generalized. There are different types of crimes, and not all of them can be directly influenced by the presence of a person’s relative in a certain local.
Menting et al. (2016) did a great job in their research and their report on the same was also well presented. They provided substantial evidence to support their hypothesis, and this was a great plus indeed. However, there is a great need for them to look at the few areas which they did not fully address and come up with a more conclusive report.
Reference
Menting, Barbara; Lammers, Marre; Ruiter, Stuijn; Bernasco, Wim. (2016). “Family matters: Effects of family members’ residential areas on crime location choice.” Criminology , 54(3). 413-433.
