Routine Activity Theory:

Within the field of study known as "environmental criminology," routine activity theory is

among the primary theoretical frameworks. According to the notion, a criminal act takes place

whenever the following three conditions are met: the first one is a motivated offender, the second

is a suitable target, and the third one is the absence of a guardian.

Main Elements of this theory

In a nutshell, the goal of routine activity theory is to explain fluctuations in crime rates by

identifying the behaviours and trends related to daily life (Cohen & Felson, 1979, 588). In

contrast to traditional approaches to crime prevention, this one focuses on criminal events rather

than the motivations of those who commit them. As a result, it provides a framework for specific

and individualized crime analysis and paves the way for the implementation of tangible policies

and practices that aim to alter the conditions that give rise to criminal activity (Tilley, 2009).

1. Motivated Offender

By focusing on the criminal's daily routine, routine activity theory attempts to understand

criminal behaviour from their perspective. Offenders will only act if they have reason to believe

their intended victim is vulnerable and no responsible adult is there to prevent them. The option

to commit a crime depends on the offender's evaluation of the circumstances. Anyone having the

capability and intent to conduct the act might be considered a suspect (Felson & Cohen, 1980,

389)

2. Suitable Target

The appropriate victim is someone or something to whom the offender poses a credible threat.

Felson favours the term "target" over "victim" since the vast majority of crimes are committed
for material gain, and "victim" is even absent from the crime location or time at which it

happens (Felson & Clarke, 1998). From the perspective of the attacker, the amount of danger

associated with a target is defined by its “VIVA” (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson &

Clarke, 1998). V for value, I for inertia, V for visibility and A for access.

3. Absence of Guardians

The theory's third and final component is the lack of a responsible guardian who can

prevent or interfere in criminal activity (Cohen & Felson, 1979,588-608). If a crime is not

committed when the guardian is present, then it is safe to assume that the guardian is effective in

preventing crime (Felson, 1995, 53-66). The word "guardian" is not limited to police or security

but rather encompasses everyone who passes through an area or performs the role of guarding

people or property. Of course, they can be trusted with the care of their charges, and yet they are

often not around when crimes are committed (Felson & Boba, 2010). 

Travel Log

'Opportunity creates the thief,' as the old adage goes, stresses the importance of the presence of

both a willing offender and an opportunity in the commission of a criminal act. The most

determined criminal, according to this theory, will not act unlawfully unless he has a specific

intent to do so and a window of opportunity to carry it out. Thus, the idea of opportunity is

crucial in explaining why crimes happen to people and their belongings. Routine activity theory

provides an explanation for the occurrence of crime as a result of ordinary human behaviour,

such as shopping or going to work. The time and place of a crime, as well as the perpetrator and

victim, depends on the individual's daily activities, such as getting to and from work, school or

gym, shopping, entertainment, and digital interaction.

The concept of routine activities in criminology examines the varying degrees to which people's

daily routines put them at risk of being a victim. By looking into such mundane activities or by

analyzing travel records, a criminologist might identify "hot zones" where criminal activity is

most concentrated. Since we are already proficient in managing our time and dates on a daily

basis, keeping a travel log is as simple as keeping a regular activity record. This is useful for

figuring out which areas are potentially dangerous because they are not under the watchful eye of

security personnel. The conversation is quite useful for learning more about the location.

Moreover, learn the times when it is best to avoid going there.

Week 3 discussion

If the things are available at a place where there is a high chance of being victimized, the things

get at higher risk of being stolen. Most of the time, in our daily routine, we know about the

places and times that are not safe for us and for our things. This discussion helps to get the

knowledge of saving the belongings or to save things from being victimized. This discussion also

helps to learn more about the routine activity theory it put a great difference in daily routine. The

knowledge using this theory and discussion helps to decrease the risk of being victimized.

Conclusion

When compared to other criminological theories that focus on the offender's motivations, this

one emphasizes on the crime to be an event that happen in particular place and time, it also

provides a useful tool for analyzing and preventing criminal behavior by attempting a

conceptualization that is independent of the three components of crime and their respective

controllers. The theory beautifully covers the travel log and discussion for week3.
References

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity

approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588– 608.

Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach. Human

Ecology, 8(4), 389– 405.

Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime

prevention studies: Vol. 4. Crime and place (pp. 53– 66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life ( 4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tilley, N. (2009). Crime prevention. Cullompton, UK: Willan.