Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

A Theory of Crime Problems: Tribal Oriented Policing Strategies

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Tribal Oriented Policing Strategies Resources

A Theory of Crime Problems


The crime triangle (also known as the problem analysis triangle) comes straight out of one of the
main theories of environmental criminology - routine activity theory.

“Routine Activity Theory” provides a simple and powerful insight into the causes of crime
problems. At its heart is the idea that in the absence of effective controls, offenders will prey
upon attractive targets. To have a crime, a motivated offender must come to the same place as an
attractive target. For property crimes the target is a thing or an object. For personal crimes the
target is a person. If an attractive target is never in the same place as a motivate offender, the
target will not be taken, damaged, or assaulted. Also, there are controllers whose presence can
prevent crime. If the controllers are absent, or present but powerlessness, crime is possible.

First, consider people who are influential in the lives of potential offenders. In the case of
juveniles these might be parents, close relatives, siblings, peers, teachers, coaches, and other
similarly placed individuals. In the case of adults these people may include intimate partners,
close friends, relatives, and sometimes their children. These people are called “handlers” in
routine activity theory. Crimes will take place where handlers are absent, weak, or corrupt.

Next consider targets, or victims. Guardians try to protect targets from theft and damage and
potential victims from attack and assault. Formal guardians include the police, security guards,
and others whose job is to protect people and property from crime. Informal guardians include
neighbors, friends, and others who happen to be in the same place as the attractive target.
Parents, teachers, peers and others close to potential victims are also potential guardians. A target
with an effective guardian is less likely to be attacked by a potential offender than a target
without a guardian. If the guardian is absent, weak, or corrupt little protection is provided the
target.

Finally, consider places. Someone owns every location and ownership confers certain rights to
regulate access to the site and behaviors of people using the site. The owner and the agents of the
owner (e.g., employees) look after the place and the people using the place. Owners and their
agents are called place managers. Place managers control the behavior of offenders and potential
victims. Examples of place manager include merchants, lifeguards, parking lot attendants,
recreation and park workers, janitors, and motel clerks. In the presence of an effective place
manager, crime is less likely than when the manager is absent, weak or corrupt.

All of the people in this theory use tools to help accomplish their criminal or crime control
objectives. Tools that gang members use may include spray paint cans, guns, and cars.
Offenders without access to tools are less likely to be able escape handlers, enter unauthorized
places, and overcome victims, guardians, and managers. Guardians may use light to increase
surveillance, engraving devices to mark property, and other devices to help reduce the chances of
victimization. Place managers can use gates, fences, signs and other tools to regulate conduct.
With effective tools handlers, victims, guardians, and managers will have a greater chance of
keeping crimes from occurring. The tools used are often highly specific to the crime in question.
The tools an offender needs for a burglary (e.g., a screw driver) are likely to be different from
those needed for a robbery (e.g., a gun), for example.

The relationship of the actors, places and tools is depicted in the problem triangle, shown in
Figure 1. Problems occur when offenders are at the same places as targets, without any effective
controller. If one or more of the controllers is present, however, the chances of crime are greatly
reduced. The effectiveness of the people involved will depend, in part on the tools they have
available. Adding or subtracting various elements in this model will alter the chances of crime.

The presence of attractive targets, weak handlers, ineffective guardianship, and indifferent
management is not randomly distributed across places. Offenders do not wander aimlessly across
the landscape. Like everyone else, offenders have routine behaviors that take them away from
handlers and lead them to discover places with attractive targets. Potential victims also follow
routines that separate them from effective guardians in places with weak management. The
spatial ordering of crime opportunities and the routines of offenders and victims creates many of
the crime problems we see.

This theory of crime also suggests ways of preventing these problems. The questions in the guide
and the responses list are organized around each of the eleven elements shown in Figure 1. The
guide asks problem solvers a series of questions about offenders, handlers, targets, guardians,
places, managers, and the tools used by each. The answers to these questions, which will vary by
problem, suggest possible responses. Thus, responses are problem specific (for example, a
residential burglary problem in a neighborhood of single family residences may require different
responses than one in a large apartment complex, and a residential burglary problem in an
apartment complex near a heavily traveled highway may require different responses than one in
an apartment in a more isolated location).

Though responses are problem specific, there are often several possible responses to any specific
problem. Few problems will have unique responses. Instead, the special insight of problem
solvers is to choose among possible responses that can be implemented. Further, if one approach
does not work, other backup responses are usually possible.
Though it is possible to use the guide and responses list without understanding the basics of
routine activity theory, knowing this theory helps use the guide and list with greater flexibility.
For example, if someone proposes a potential solution to a problem, it is possible to determine if
the solution is appropriate. To do this the problem solver identifies which of the 58 possible
responses the proposed solution resembles most closely. The problem solver then works
backwards from the solution list to the questions. The questions describe the types of answers
needed for the solution to fit the problem. If the answers to the questions are consistent with the
solution, the proposed solution may be appropriate. In short, the more familiar one is with
routine activity theory, the more adaptable the guide and solution list will be. Additional
information on routine activity theory can be found in the references cited below, particularly
Clarke (1997) and Felson (1994).

References
Brantingham, Patricia L. and Paul J. Brantingham (1981). “Notes on the Geometry of Crime.” In
Environmental Criminology, edited by Paul J. Brantingham and Patricia L. Brantingham.
Beverly Hills: Sage.

Clarke, Ronald V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Second
edition. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson (1979). “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A
Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review. 44:588-605.

Eck, John E. (1994). Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial
Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park.

Felson, Marcus (1994). Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
This theory is based on Cohen and Felson (1979), Felson (1994), and Eck (1994).

Note that people can fill multiple roles. A father example, can be a handler of a teenager when he prevents his son
from accompanying his friends on a drinking spree. He can be a guardian when he accompanies his son in risky
circumstances. And he can be a manager when he prohibits his son from having a keg party in his home.

You might also like