Interrelated with the idea of social disorganization are theories that seek to explain individual deviants within these subcultures and the thought processes involved with the committing of crime.
Rational choice theory, developed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke, states that a person considering committing a crime goes through the process of evaluating perceived risks, gains, needs, apprehension possibilities, punishment possibilities, and specific factors regarding the situation and target (Lersch, 2011). Closely related to the theory of deterrence, targets of crime, which can include people, homes, or businesses, carry a perceived reward as well as a perceived risk. Offenders rationalize whether the reward is worth the general risk or if the fear of punishment outweighs the perceived gains (Siegel, 2009). Using a decision model theorized by Cornish and Clarke, decisions to commit crime are weighed by considerations such as offender background factors, previous experience and learning, evaluated solutions, perceived solutions, and readiness (Lersch, 2011). These factors are considered immediately prior to the possible committing of crime and vary from one situation to the next.
Another popular theory that attempts to explain the choice to commit crime is the routine activities theory developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson. Drawing from rational choice theory, this model hypothesized that predatory crimes occur when three specific variables are present: suitable targets, absence of capable guardians, and motivated offenders. The presence of all three variables allows a would-be offender to rationalize committing a crime against the assessed victim (Siegel, 2009). These opportunities were found in the repetitive motions of offenders and victims such as going to work, school, recreational activities, or socializing (Riedel, 2011). Cohen and Felson relayed in their work that motivated offenders were ever-present in this cycle of predictability. However, targets and guardians were capable of being controlled and altered. Though guardians could simply be watchful homeowners and neighbors, Cohen and Felson emphasized that everyday citizens taking notice of others and surrounding properties were the most effective guardians (Lersch, 2011). Suitable targets can include unlocked homes and vehicles and easily-removed, valuable goods (Siegel, 2009).
The last theory of deviance that will be considered is the crime pattern theory, developed by Paul and Patricia Brantingham. This theory is also closely related to rational choice and routine activities theory. The Brantinghams believed that there was a much stronger geographic resonation within the thought process of committing crime. Labeled the action space, it is hypothesized that this is the area in which offenders regularly partake in common, everyday activities such as shopping, going to school, or socializing. Movement from one area, or node, to another creates an awareness space: places and pathways that have a general familiarity to offenders due to the frequency with which they are traversed. City structure and modes of public transportation can also have influence on the development of offenders’ cognitive maps. All of this movement, from one node to another, creates a cognitive map: a mental visualization of all familiar places and paths (Lersch, 2011). It is within the offender’s awareness space that suitable targets will be victimized.
The last portions of this web presentation will tie together the previously mentioned models of deviance with effective methods of reducing victimization. As offender motivation and rationalization can be interpreted, so can we advance ways to combat or curb criminal activity.
Rational choice theory, developed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke, states that a person considering committing a crime goes through the process of evaluating perceived risks, gains, needs, apprehension possibilities, punishment possibilities, and specific factors regarding the situation and target (Lersch, 2011). Closely related to the theory of deterrence, targets of crime, which can include people, homes, or businesses, carry a perceived reward as well as a perceived risk. Offenders rationalize whether the reward is worth the general risk or if the fear of punishment outweighs the perceived gains (Siegel, 2009). Using a decision model theorized by Cornish and Clarke, decisions to commit crime are weighed by considerations such as offender background factors, previous experience and learning, evaluated solutions, perceived solutions, and readiness (Lersch, 2011). These factors are considered immediately prior to the possible committing of crime and vary from one situation to the next.
Another popular theory that attempts to explain the choice to commit crime is the routine activities theory developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson. Drawing from rational choice theory, this model hypothesized that predatory crimes occur when three specific variables are present: suitable targets, absence of capable guardians, and motivated offenders. The presence of all three variables allows a would-be offender to rationalize committing a crime against the assessed victim (Siegel, 2009). These opportunities were found in the repetitive motions of offenders and victims such as going to work, school, recreational activities, or socializing (Riedel, 2011). Cohen and Felson relayed in their work that motivated offenders were ever-present in this cycle of predictability. However, targets and guardians were capable of being controlled and altered. Though guardians could simply be watchful homeowners and neighbors, Cohen and Felson emphasized that everyday citizens taking notice of others and surrounding properties were the most effective guardians (Lersch, 2011). Suitable targets can include unlocked homes and vehicles and easily-removed, valuable goods (Siegel, 2009).
The last theory of deviance that will be considered is the crime pattern theory, developed by Paul and Patricia Brantingham. This theory is also closely related to rational choice and routine activities theory. The Brantinghams believed that there was a much stronger geographic resonation within the thought process of committing crime. Labeled the action space, it is hypothesized that this is the area in which offenders regularly partake in common, everyday activities such as shopping, going to school, or socializing. Movement from one area, or node, to another creates an awareness space: places and pathways that have a general familiarity to offenders due to the frequency with which they are traversed. City structure and modes of public transportation can also have influence on the development of offenders’ cognitive maps. All of this movement, from one node to another, creates a cognitive map: a mental visualization of all familiar places and paths (Lersch, 2011). It is within the offender’s awareness space that suitable targets will be victimized.
The last portions of this web presentation will tie together the previously mentioned models of deviance with effective methods of reducing victimization. As offender motivation and rationalization can be interpreted, so can we advance ways to combat or curb criminal activity.