The routine activity theory (RAT) asserts that everyday routine life activities provide ample chances for offenders' commitment to criminal activities. Developed by Felon and Cohen in 1979, the approach above suggests that conventional activities attract criminal victimization of unsuspecting individuals because they proffer a convergence of three essential conditions for perpetrating crime; suitable targets, motivated offenders, and unavailability of guardianship. Since the inception of the routine activity theory, numerous qualitative and quantitative researches have been conducted by elites to analyze the model above. Elements, such as individual susceptibility to victimization, incidences of victimization for cities, neighborhoods, nations, states, and nature of criminal activities, whether property, white-collar or violent offenses, have been analyzed to conceptualize the factors that fully promote crime and victimization in society. Outcomes of the majority of the above studies affirm the routine activity theory as sufficient for aiding in the understanding of the societal distribution of crime prevalence and victimization risks.
However, the RAT theory appears has weaknesses in explaining criminal behavior by failing to indicate the arrest probabilities of offenders who perpetrate aggravated assault. RAT does not account for the chance that criminal behavior may likely result to arrest, particularly when unique motivational factors are present. For instance, the model fails to note that when intoxicated criminals participate in violent crimes, they are likely to be arrested because of the criminal's ignorance of the victim's self-protection ability level. Further, intoxicated criminals have a higher arrest incidence because they might not hide their identity while committing a crime or fail to conceal evidence. Moreover, crime victims have a higher susceptibility to cause the arrest of criminals if they are aged between 15 and 55 years because they can identify the perpetrator easier than children or senior citizens aged above 65. Furthermore, criminal activities conducted in public have a higher chance of resulting to arrest, especially if they were committed in full view of witnesses. Other measures neglected by the routine activity theory may upsurge the incidence of criminal apprehension even when the main elements of the model are available to include: the victimization of females, attacking personal residences, and if the perpetrator is female or White.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A conjunctive analytical study by Drawve, Thomas, and Hart (2014) sought to establish the strengths, weaknesses, and validity of the RAT theory. The researchers used a statistical model to estimate the outcomes of RAT's "main effects" as independent variables and arrest likelihood as the dependent variable. Drawve, Thomas, and Hart (2014) analyzed the eventualities of 250,000 aggravated assaults recorded by the National-Based Reporting System between 2007 and 2009. The researchers limited the aggravated assault to single offenders or victims and African American or White offenders or victims. By applying the logistic regression statistical model to evaluate outcomes of the criminal scenario described above, the researchers validated the RAT model's assertions. Drawve, Thomas, and Hart (2014) noted that indeed, intoxicated offenders (motivation), nighttime incidences and victims aged between 55 and 15 (suitable target), and criminal activities perpetrated in personal residences and on non-strangers (guardianship) were favorable elements for the commitment of illegal activities, as suggested by the RAT theory.
However, Drawve, Thomas, and Hart (2014) noted that the incidences of the likelihood of arrest in the cases analyzed above were significantly underreported. For instance, the arrest probability if a female victim was assaulted compared to the male counterpart was not recorded by the National-Based Reporting System. Therefore, the researchers concluded that while the RAT theory's suggestions of "main effects" necessary for crime perpetration were valid, the model did not analyze significant crime perpetration elements, such as race, incidence time, victim's age, offender's gender.
References
Drawve, G., Thomas, S. A., & Hart, T. C. (2017). Routine Activity Theory and the Likelihood of Arrest: A Replication and Extension With Conjunctive Methods. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 33 (2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986216689747
