Routine Activity Theory argues that for a crime to occur three major criteria must be involved, namely motivated offender, a suitable target and lastly absence of a capable guardian. The theory tries to depict that crime rates are not generally influenced by macro shifts like the economic recession or unemployment rates ( Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). For instance, while examining the crime rate following World War II, it was noticed that although America was economically successful in contrast to the pre-war despair, crime rates were still high and warranting and showed no signs of dropping. The lifestyle of a person plays a significant role in defining of routine activity theory ( Guerette, Johnson & Bowers, 2016). This means that the more an individual is exposed to criminal behavior in their daily life, the higher the possibility that one will commit a crime ( Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). Markedly, macro social causes do not play a big role in the causation of crime as it does individual lifestyles.
Despite the many empirical research supporting the viability of this theory, it has also been highly criticized based on how it easily it addresses crime. According to critics, the theory only considers three elements of crime, and does not touch on the social factors of committing a crime like individual education and socio-economic status among others ( Guerette, Johnson & Bowers, 2016). Moreover, it is also elucidated that the theory is an account of crime, not clarification. Although these concerns have been highlighted, there is no doubt that the Routine Activity theory is effective when used to elucidate why crime is more common in specific groups and why various kinds of crime happen regularly.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
From a policy perspective the theory argues that if one minimizes three factors, there is a high likelihood that the crime will reduce. For instance, a rise in guardianship and more so time spent at home minimizes the capability and chance to commit a crime. However, how to enforce and achieve this through policy is quite challenging. It is hard to manage and dictate the time spent on an individual at home. Numerous target hardening strategies can be adopted to minimize residential burglary.
Target hardening strategies on the prevention of residential burglary rest on the argument that supported by lax security and can only be minimized if it is made hard for intruders to access the residential homes ( Eck & Weisburd, 2015). One of the strategies that can be adopted is community prevention. This involves the capability of residents to work as a team to deal with the crime issues within their residence. A good example is the adoption of the Neighborhood Watch program that rests on the premise that societal members can look after one another's homes and report any doubtful activity to the police. This strategy is likely to work best where neighbors are well-linked. The next strategy is social prevention ( Donnelly, 2019, Eck & Weisburd, 2015). This entails carrying out interventions into the lives of persons, particularly possible or real offenders in an attempt to minimize their susceptibility to commit burglaries. One of the major techniques used here is the arrest and imprisonment of the offender. Social prevention may also entail long-term strategies like liberal social welfare policies, intervention via early-live programs and drug and alcohol management programs ( Donnelly, 2019). There is a positive correlation to these social programs and the number of burglaries committed. Other hardening strategies police prevention, home prevention, and combined approaches.
In conclusion, regardless of the much empirical research supporting the viability of Routine Activity Theory, it has also been highly criticized based on how it easily addresses crime. Generally, burglary prevention strategies do not offer any magic bullets. Burglars tend to be many and well equipped, with the advancement coming with its challenges. The different strategies have been recommended some touching on the victims and residences, offenders, modus operandi, and community aspects. Notably, not a specific approach or strategy will be effective for all situations. When diverse strategies are combined, the outcome is expected to be effective other than using a specific strategy only.
References
Donnelly, J. W. (2019). Hotspot Homes: An Analysis of the Situational/Contextual Factors, Windows of Opportunity, and Attempted Burglaries on Repeatedly Burglarized Residential Homes (Dissertation). UNLV.
Eck, J., & Weisburd, D. L. (2015). Crime places in crime theory. Crime and place: Crime prevention studies , 4 .
Guerette, R. T., Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. (2016). Situational crime prevention. Advancing Criminology and Criminal Justice Policy , 130-140.
Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2016). Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: The importance of “risk” to the study of victimization. Victims & Offenders , 11 (3), 335-354.
