"YEAR OF THE BICENTENARY OF PERU: 200 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE"

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF TUMBES

FACULTY OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL OF LAW

THE THEORY OF OPPORTUNITY

STUDENTS.

 FRANCO NIÑO, GILDA ADRIANA

 GASTAÑAGA MORALES, ANDRE YURI
 MORAN CARMEN, ANYELLA NEREYDA
TEACHER:

DR. NORMAN MENDOZA GARCIA

SUBJECT:

CRIMINOLOGY

TUMBES – PERU
CHAPTER 1 – BACKGROUND
1.1. ORIGIN OF THE THEORY
It was formulated by Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen in a work
published in 1979: Social Change and Crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. The theory of routine activities links criminal activity with the situational
context of perpetrator and victim, giving weight to the routine patterns of both, both
legal and illegal. Such patterns are the main factors in the successful commission
of the crime. There is interdependence between the lifestyle of society and the
routine activities of the criminals themselves.

The theory gave rise to rational choice theories formulated in the following
years. They arise as a result of a new criminological approach to crime, which
stops focusing on the criminal and begins to pay attention to the criminal event
itself and the factors that influence it. This classic approach is based on a
pessimistic view of the human condition, leaving behind positivist positions and
considering crime the result of a lack of adequate control .

In Situational Crime Prevention (PSD) 'opportunity' is considered the 'main

cause of crime'. Felson and Clarke (1998) suggest that there are 10 ways in which
this theory can help when practicing crime prevention. They called these forms the
'principles'

The opportunity theory of crime helps to classify these differences so that

the decisions made are those that produce the most appropriate responses and
preventive actions.

Opportunity theory, according to Felson and Clarke, can be described as a

''perspective that explains criminal behavior as a function of the characteristics of
certain situations in which those who are prone to take advantage of them find
opportunities to obtain benefits through commission of an illegal act." (FELSON
AND CLARKE. 1999)

1.2. MAIN FACTORS

 Strictly, the theory proposes an explanation of the dynamics of
crime at a macrosocial level, based on the micro social foundations of
the criminal situation. The classic formulation of Cohen and Felson
(1979) postulates that the commission of a criminal act requires the
convergence in time and space of three elements: i) a possible
motivated offender; ii) a suitable “target” or objective, and iii) the
absence of capable potential guardians. Without the simultaneous
presence of all three factors, it is not possible for a crime to occur
(Cohen and Felson 1979, 589).

The first requirement for the commission of a crime is a possible

motivated offender, that is, an individual with criminal inclinations and
the necessary ability to carry them out. The second requirement is the
presence of an available target. From the offender's point of view, there
are multiple possible targets. A target can be an object, a person or a
place. However, not all of them are available. Its availability depends on
four characteristics, which have been summarized in the acronym VIVA
First, the object must have value , a characteristic that depends on the
offender's evaluation of his own desires and not on the monetary value
of the target. Second, it must be inert with respect to the illegal actions
of the offender. In the case of objects, inertia refers to the size and the
offender's ability to remove it, while, if the target is a person, it involves
the victim's physical ability to resist an attacker. Third, a target must be
visible , so that the offender can determine whether it is present or not.
Finally, it must be accessible , which means that the offender can reach
the target, but also retreat or escape if necessary. Finally, the third
requirement is the absence of capable guardians. Usually, a guardian
is a person whose mere presence is enough to deter the potential
offender from committing the crime. Rarely can it be a police officer, and
more often than not, a family member, a neighbor, a friend, or even a
person who happens to be passing by the target plays the role of the
guardian. It may also simply be a camera, indicating the possibility that
 there is a guardian monitoring the offender and/or the target (Felson,
1986: 123).

This simple and exceptionally clear outline of the criminal

situation, which seems adequate to describe any singular criminal event,
provides a micro-social foundation for the explanation of criminality as a
social phenomenon. It is precisely the concept that gives its name to the
theory that serves to connect the individual level with the societal level.

Felson would later incorporate two other factors into his theory:

1. The absence of an intimate supervisor (person close to the offender who

can minimize his criminal potential)

2. The behavior of the so-called “space manager”, people who control the
space as goalkeepers or guards.

Clarke suggests a sixth factor: the facilitator of the crime, this is the person
who provides the criminal with weapons or instruments to commit the crime.

1.3. THE 10 PRINCIPLES OF CRIME OF OPPORTUNITY

1. Opportunities play an important role in the causes of crime, not only in

property crime. For example: Studies carried out in bars and nightclubs
determine that the design of these establishments and the way they are
managed play an important role in the generation or prevention of violence
within them.

2. Crimes of opportunity are very specific. For example: The theft of vehicles to
commit kidnappings has a very different pattern than the theft of vehicles to
be sold in parts. The opportunity theory of crime helps to classify these
differences so that the decisions made are those that produce the most
appropriate responses and preventive actions.

3. Crimes of opportunity are concentrated in time and space. There are great
differences from one place to another where crimes are committed,
 including those crimes that occur in areas defined as highly dangerous.
Crimes undergo considerable changes depending on the time of day and
day of the week, reflecting the consequences that opportunities entail
(Routine Activity Theory).
4. Crimes of opportunity depend on the movements of daily activities.
Offenders and targets change according to their routine activities (e.g. work,
school, play). For example: Criminals carry out residential burglaries at the
time or on the dates when the occupants are at school, at work or on
vacation.
5. One crime creates the opportunity for another. For example: A successful
residential burglary may motivate the offender to return in the future.

6. Some products generate a greater advantage in the commission of crimes

of opportunity. For example: Electrical products that are easily transportable
such as DVD players, cell phones and laptop computers are very attractive
to criminals (hot products).

7. Social and technological changes generate new crimes of opportunity.

Products are most vulnerable in their “growth/beginning of supply-demand”
and “mass marketing” phase, due to the fact that the demand for these
products is very high. Most of these products can reach a “saturation” phase
where most people already have them and their theft or robbery is no longer
so profitable.

8. Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities. Opportunity reduction

methods for situational crime prevention can be applied to all aspects of
daily life, but must be tailored to each particular crime situation.

9. The reduction of opportunities will not guarantee that crime will completely
disappear in all opportunities. Large-scale crime displacement is not
common.
 10. The joint focus of authorities and the community on reducing opportunities
can cause crime to decline significantly in a different jurisdiction. Preventive
measures in one area can lead to crime reduction in another, “diffusion of
benefits.”

CHAPTER 2.- THEORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY

It is responsible for studying the criminal events that occurred in a

certain space and when they took place. It allows us to find the reasons why
a certain place is more prone to crimes being committed.

This theory has a lot to do with the criminal elements that exist in a
certain space where a criminal or delinquent is raised or if the place where
he or she has committed a crime is related to the act committed.
 It has a lot to do with physical space and crime where it is said that
depending on the place where people live, “NEIGHBORHOODS OR
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS” could make it less likely that they will be victims
of criminal activity.

There are 3 concepts of this theory that are essential to explain it:

 TERRITORIALITY. – that the environment where people live

together can create socially deviant – criminal behavior.
 SURVEILLANCE. – measures the degree of formation of the
urban environment which allows residents to supervise it and thus exercise
a type of CONTROL and thus monitor their neighborhood much better and
act as protective factors for the “OBSERVABILITY” typologies.
 IMAGE AND ENVIRONMENT. – the capacity of an urban
environment to convey to foreigners who enter the neighborhood a
subcultural sensation, that is, isolation or marginality of a certain group of
people in a social structure.

BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY

It is one of the most popular in Environmental Criminology and has an

easy explanation: the feeling of social well-being and the correct ordering
and application of cleanliness to a specific neighborhood will lower the
number of criminal infractions in this place and with it, the reduction of the
crime rate.

 Protective factors (reduce crime): feeling of security in the area,

urban cleanliness, social well-being in the neighborhood, correct urban
 planning and dissociation of violence as part of that small culture
(social and cultural anthropology).

The aim is to explain the increase in the rate of crimes committed in a

city or metropolis according to the space there is and the diversity of
activities that take place. An example could be that, in a large city, due to
the high number of economic activities that occur in this, a person has a
very high crime commission scenario.

CHAPTER 3 – THEORY OF OPPORTUNITY

2.1. DEFINITION.

Also called the Theory of Routine Activities, which directly relates the
rationality of the option to commit a crime with the opportunity factor.

“Routine activity” means any recurrent and prevalent practice that

meets the basic needs of the population and individuals, including formal
work, leisure, the different ways in which people obtain food and shelter,
 social interaction, teaching, sexual expression, etc. (Cohen and Felson
1979, 593).

At first glance, this broad definition seems to exclusively imply

activities that could be considered legal. However, Cohen and Felson's
proposal is to consider criminal activity as a particular type of routine activity,
which is nourished by legal activities.

Assuming that the spatial and temporal structure of routine legal

actions influences the set of available criminal opportunities (to the point of
determining the geographic distribution and the levels of prevalence and
incidence of the different types of crimes that occur in a community), the
theory maintains as the main empirical hypothesis that the changes that
have occurred since the Second World War in daily routines related to work,
education and leisure have concentrated more people in particular places
and times, increasing their accessibility as targets of crime and keeping
them away from their homes as guardians of their own possessions (Cohen
and Felson, 1979).

2.2. INCREASE IN CRIMINALITY

Of the set of criminological perspectives that incorporate the notion of

rationality, ANT is probably the most successful and widespread case at the
political and social level. From the 1980s to the present it continues to be
the main theoretical foundation of crime prevention policies implemented in
several countries.

It is not difficult to guess the secret of its success: based on a

relatively simple scheme, the theory allows us to understand how some of
the main social transformations experienced in recent decades are
 connected to an increase in crime through an increase in criminal
opportunities. . Among the main social changes are:

a. The significant relative growth of single-person households requires a

greater supply of durable consumer goods and other merchandise that can
be considered attractive criminal targets;
b. The effective decrease in family and/or domestic activities, which implied
a reduction in the level of personal surveillance over others. Households
where there is usually a spouse, a child or some other member provide
higher levels of protection than single-person households. At the same time,
in homes with family arrangements, many of the activities tend to take place
in public, which reduces the likelihood of victimization;
c. Non-family homes are usually characterized by routine activities that are
located more in the public sphere than in the private sphere, increasing
exposure to risky situations. Therefore, changes in the type of households
and in the domestic activities carried out affect the probability of being
victimized since the supply of available criminal targets increases and the
level of informal surveillance decreases, which results in an increase in
criminal opportunities. (Miethe & Meier 1993, 472);
d. The current trend in the production of technological goods for domestic
use is the decrease in the size of high-priced durable goods (for example,
televisions, computers, etc.). This change implies an increase in criminal
opportunities since the theft of said objects involves lower costs in relation to
the theft of less portable items, more difficult to hide and of lower resale
value14; and
e. Finally, the increase in security habits that have occurred in recent years
among citizens reduces access to potential criminal targets, producing a
decrease in the crime rate (Miethe & Meier 1993, 472).
2.3. CHANGES IN ROUTINE ACTIVITIES INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CRIME

In modern societies, important changes are taking place in the routine

activities of daily life, including permanent travel from one place to another
and the increase in time spent away from home compared to other times.
Routine activities that have to do with the movement of property have also
changed, which has increased considerably.

Such is the case of money, which is the subject of continuous

transactions, payments, income and bank withdrawals. Visible and material
properties also move: vehicles, consumer items, etc. Society is a
magnificent showcase. There are increasingly more objects and more
opportunities to commit crimes, which increases the tendency for predatory,
aggressive or criminal activities to occur in the community, especially those
that occur in direct contact between criminals and victims. The possibilities
of direct contact between people increase, since there are many people in
public places. There is, in short, an interdependence between routine non-
criminal activities, banking movements, property movements, people's
movements and night outings, and the activities and routines of the criminals
themselves.

The essence of Cohen and Felson's theory of routine activities

attempts to answer an implicit question: how does the spatiotemporal
organization of social activities in modern life encourage criminally inclined
people to take action?

The authors affirm that the structural changes inherent to modern life
in relation to people's routine activities increase crime rates.

This transformation has been observed in modern countries that favor

economic development and employment, work outside the home and
general well-being. These changes and improvements have led to a parallel
increase in the possibilities of committing crimes.
2.4. THE CONFLUENCE OF CRIMINALS, VICTIMS AND LACK OF
CONTROLS

Cohen and Felson explain this increase in crime through the

convergence in space and time of three interdependent elements.

In the theory of routine activities / opportunity, there are three

completely delimited spaces. In the first are the changes in the routine
activities of daily life: such as banking transactions, the movement of
property, continuous travel, increase in time spent away from home,
confluence of many people in public places.

In the second space is the increase in opportunities and trends for

crime, as a result of the convergence in space and time of three
elements:

i. Motivated criminals.
ii. Appropriate victim objects.
iii. Lack of effective protectors.

And in the third space is the increase in crime rates.

2.5. APPLIED DERIVATIONS

From an applied perspective, this theory translates into two theoretical

predictions about criminal behavior:

a. The absence of just one of the aforementioned elements is sufficient to

prevent the commission of a crime: if there is no motivated criminal, a
propitious object or victim, or appropriate control is present, the possibility
of the crime is eliminated.
b. On the contrary, the convergence of these three elements produces an
increase in crime rates.
c. If the theory of routine activities were truly valid, a series of effects of the
routine activities that people carry out on crime rates should be observed.
The first would be that routine activities that take place in or near the
 family, or within primary groups, should pose a lower risk of victimization
due to the absence of criminally motivated offenders and the presence of
effective protectors. The second, that if the properties or people were
located in visible or accessible places, the risk of victimization would
increase.
d. Cohen and Felson put special emphasis on the last theoretical element,
that of preventive control. It is evident that it will be very difficult to change
the second theoretical element, that is, avoiding the existence of favorable
victims and objects of value in society.

CHAPTER 4 – THEORY AND THE ECOLOGY OF ROUTINE ACTIVITIES.

This theory directly relates the rationality of the option to commit a

crime with the opportunity factor. The criminal is guided by utilitarian
aspects, costs and benefits of the conduct to be carried out from the point
of view of his own expectations. This theory is intertwined with the so-
called “opportunity” theory, which refers to the context and confluence of
specific factors in the same space-time that would facilitate the commission
of the crime. Opportunity in modern life occurs more often, which would
push the criminal to make the rational decision to commit the crime more
frequently.

The authors conducted a study between the years 1960 and 1980,
when there was great economic growth, and observed that the crime rate
increased at the same time. The notable improvement in living standards
and conditions ruled out poverty as a factor in increasing the crime rate.

It was formulated by Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen in a

work published in 1979: SOCIAL CHANGE AND CRIME RATE TRENDS:
A ROUTINE ACTIVITY APPROACH. The theory of routine activities links
criminal activity to the situational context of perpetrator and victim, giving
weight to the routine patterns of both, both legal and illegal. Such patterns
are the main factors in the successful commission of the crime. There is
 interdependence between the lifestyle of society and the routine activities
of the criminals themselves.

The theory gave rise to rational choice theories formulated in the

following years. They arise as a result of a new criminological approach to
crime, which stops focusing on the criminal and begins to pay attention to
the criminal event itself and the factors that influence it. This classic
approach is based on a pessimistic view of the human condition, leaving
behind positivist positions and considering crime the result of a lack of
adequate control.

In summary, Cohen and Felson establish that the probability of crime

is equal to a multiplicative function of the existence of motivated criminals,
the presence of appropriate victims, and the absence of effective
protectors. Criminal activity has, in this way, an ecological nature, of
interaction of elements in space and time, an interdependence between
criminals and victims. Illegal activities such as the robbery of a pharmacy,
a gas station or a bank are fueled by other legal activities: the existence of
pharmacies on duty at night, or the existence of banks or gas stations. The
spatial and temporal structure of routine legal activities also plays a
decisive role in crime. For example, the way in which pharmacies dispense
medications, or the mechanisms used by gas stations to charge
customers, influences the lower or higher probability of specific criminal
actions taking place at night. Ultimately, the structure of routine legal
activities determines how crime is organized in society and which are the
places where it occurs most frequently.

There are two main ways of influence of routine activities on crime.

a) Routine activities provide criminals with more effective means to commit

crimes. The current social organization, marked by modern technology,
computers, automobiles, etc. It influences the sophisticated means
available to criminals to commit crimes. It is true that technology can also
be used to prevent crime, for example, through alarms and cameras, but it
 seems that criminals generally have the upper hand when it comes to
technological innovation.

b) Routine activities offer new objectives and new victims. It is evident that if
instead of staying at home, as previous generations did, they go out at
night more frequently, there is a greater chance of being robbed or
attacked. Felson and Cohen understand appropriate targets or victims as
those that have high material value, such as jewelry, a bank, a vehicle, or
symbolic value, for example, rape for reasons other than mere sexual
gratification, or the murder of a famous person. Visible and accessible
objectives are also appropriate: unprotected or very striking shop windows,
which present the luxury of the wealthiest, in contrast to the inability of
some people to access their consumption. Appropriate or attractive victims
are those who, due to their professional occupation, the night security
guard at a car park, or a taxi driver, or due to their personal carelessness,
are more exposed to crime. Another factor that affects the existence of
suitable victims is mobility. Every day people spend many hours outside
their family homes, in the company of strangers. Of course not all of them
are criminals, but there is a possibility that some of them are. Furthermore,
people daily separate themselves from their most valuable properties, such
as their homes and vehicles, which in this way become possible targets of
crime, or potential victims.

c) Felson and Cohen maintain that the level of crime is not systematically and
solely linked to the economic conditions of society. In this way, the paradox
produced by the improvement of living conditions and the parallel increase
in crime is only apparent. Social and economic improvements in a society
can effectively reduce crime, although only subsistence crime, which
constitutes a minimal part of contact crime. It is possible that these
improvements in living conditions alter the objectives of other crime, but
they do not have the capacity per se to reduce it.
4. 1. THE TRIANGLE OF CRIME AND CONTROL

An integrative model is proposed that is based on Cohen and

Felson's theory of routine criminal activities, adding the control elements
that would correspond to each of the factors.

1. Before the potential criminals we would have the caregivers.

These caregivers can be parents, teachers or, in general, any person
dedicated to the care, supervision or control of children, minors, etc.
2. In front of the possible favorable victim or objective that is in a
certain place, we would have the guardians or watchmen. They are
observing these objectives in order to prevent them from taking certain
property or from being assaulted. Normally, the guards are citizens, but
they can also be police officers or private security guards.
3. Regarding the care of places to prevent crimes from being
carried out, we would have the administrators of businesses, factories,
offices, bars, etc. These can be administration personnel, managers, or
even the residents of the area themselves.
 The Problem Analysis Triangle or more commonly known as the

Crime Triangle, provides a way to evaluate and analyze recurring problems

of crime and public disorder. This idea is based on the fact that crime or
disruption of public order is a consequence produced by: (1) The action or
actions of criminals (2) is conducted on appropriate, convenient or lucrative
objectives (3) is executed in a timely manner and in a given location, in the
absence of a competent protector/guardian of the target. A simple version
of a problem analysis triangle looks like this: shape:

Criminals can sometimes be controlled by other people; These

people are called manipulators in this model. Targets and victims may also
sometimes be protected by other people; These people are defined as
protectors/guardians. Places can usually be controlled by someone; These
people are defined as administrators/managers.

So, the effective development of problem solving (in our case criminal
problems) involves understanding how criminals and their victims/targets
converge in one place; also understand how this convergence of criminals,
victims/targets, in some places is not effectively controlled. Understanding
the vulnerabilities observed in the problem analysis triangle in the context
of a particular problem will show us the way forward to develop new forms
of intervention.

Crime problems can be understood and described in various ways. It

is important to note that no form is definitive. The problems should be
described in such a way that it facilitates their understanding and that in
turn this understanding gives rise to effective forms of intervention for the
problem.

Generally, incidents that police handle can be grouped in these four

ways:

1. CONDUCT : Some behaviors are common to the incidents, for

example: Stealing from ordinary people or merchants, driving under the
influence of drugs, crashing vehicles, selling illicit drugs, stealing vehicles.
There are various forms of behavior that can constitute a problem.

2. LOCATION : Some locations may be common to the incidents.

Incidents involving one or more behavioral problems may occur, for
example, on a street corner, in a house, in a shop or business, in a park, in
a neighborhood or at a school. Some incidents may occur in abstract
places such as cyberspace, on the telephone, or through other information
networks.

3. PEOPLE : Certain people or groups of people may be common to

the incidents. These people can be both victims and criminals. Incidents
involving one or more behaviors that occur in one or more places can be
attributed to, for example: A youth gang, a loner, a group of prostitutes, a
group of alcoholics, or a homeowner. Or also, incidents where harm is
caused, for example, to: Residents of a neighborhood, elderly people,
children, or lonely individuals.

4. TIME : Some times may be common to incidents. Incidents

involving one or more behaviors, in one or more places, caused by or
affecting one or more people, may occur, for example, at: Peak hour of
motor traffic, at the time of closing bars or nightclubs, at the beginning of
the evening. dates of the December holidays/Carnivals/Holy Week or
during a day at the end of the year.

While it is true that there is growing evidence that indicates, in fact,

that crime and public order disturbances are grouped into the four areas
described previously, there is no evidence that there is an equal
distribution between time, place or people. between incidents; What police
and investigators have increasingly recognized is that the characteristics of
the incidents can be grouped as follows:

• Repeatedly the same criminals attack different targets in different

locations.

• Repeatedly the same victims are attacked by different criminals in

different places.

• Repeatedly in the same places (red zones) different criminals

interact in the same place against different objectives.
 The Problem Analysis Triangle was developed as a routine activity to
focus on and explain how and when crime occurs. The present theory
argues that when a crime occurs, three things converge at the same time
and in the same place:

1. There is a convenient/appropriate/lucrative target available.

2. There is no guardian/protector who effectively prevents the

occurrence of the crime.

3. There is an offender who is motivated and present.

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

5. 1. CONCLUSIONS.

 The probability of crime is a multiplicative function of the convergence

in space, time of three elements: l criminals motivated to commit crime.
2 victims and appropriate targets, and 3 absences of effective
protectors.
 The increase in the number of objects and people that can be victims
of crime, due to their material or psychological value, or their special
exposure, produces an increase in crime rates.
 The reduction of control that people exercise over themselves or their
property increases the probability of suffering criminal action.
 Principle of interdependence between routine and illicit activities: The
structure of licit routine activities in a society determines the
organization, location and frequency of the illicit behaviors that occur in
it.
 The social and economic improvements that take place in society do
not per se have the ability to reduce crime rates.

5 .2 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

a. García-Pablos, Antonio: Treatise on criminology. 2008. p443

b. García-Pablos, Antonio: Criminology, an introduction to its theoretical foundations,
2013.
c. Graceful. V & Round. S. (2013) “Principles of Criminology”. Tirant Lo Blanch (4th
edition) Chapter 10, part of Environmental Criminology. (Valencia).
d. Carla Pozuelo Fúnez: Environmental Criminology. Crime prevention through the study
of design.
e. Translation of Jesús Camacho: The Problem Analysis Triangle (Crime Triangle)