NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING LIKE THIS
Routine activities theory is based on the main idea that “the rate of criminal victimization is increased when there are one or more persons likely to commit a crime, a vulnerable target or victim is present, and formal or informal guardians to prevent the motivated offender are absent” (ASJ 43). It was developed from a collaboration with Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen who looked at common time, place, objects, and persons to develop a “routine activities” for a potential victim (ASJ 43). Significant lifestyle changes have occurred over the past few decades with the increase of out-of-home travel, college attendance, labor force participation of women, and single-person households (Miethe et al., 1987). Differences in the risk of criminal victimization arise due to variation in lifestyles and routine activities which allow some individuals or their personal property to come into contact with motivated offenders (Miethe et al., 1987).
Miethe, Stafford, and Long (1987) utilize a sample of 107,678 residents across thirteen cities in the United States in order to measure the nature and quantity of activities outside the home. They collected data from the 1975 National Crime Survey for thirteen major U.S. cities, in which nearly ten thousand households were interviewed about prior victimization experiences (Miethe et al., 1987). The variable of focus was whether or not the interviewee had ever been a victim of a violent crime or property crime. This was done by looking at major daytime activity and the frequency of nighttime activity (Miethe et al., 1987). The goal was to determine if there was a correlation between these variables and rate of victimization. The researchers found that there was a relatively strong effect on the individuals’ risk of property victimization but not for violent victimization. Two main questions that were aimed to be answered by the present study were “Is variation in the risk of victimization due to differences in routine activities/lifestyles? And are routine activity/lifestyle theories equally applicable to violent and property victimization?” (Miethe et al., 1987).
Consistent with previous studies, it was found that the odds of victimization are significantly higher among males, the unmarried, the young, and low-income individuals (Miethe et al., 1987). A significant direct effect of race on odds of violent victimization was not supported by the data. People who spend relatively more time engaged in nighttime activity were found to have higher odds of violent victimization than less active individuals; however, there was no significant difference based on the individual’s type of major daily activity (Miethe et al., 1987). In regards to property crime, findings were also consistent with previous studies in which higher odds of property crime occurred in households with high income, young, unmarried, male, and black (Miethe et al., 1987). Those individuals with higher nighttime activity and whose major activity was performed outside the home were at greater risk of property victimization; people with relatively low nighttime activity and whose major activity occurred within the home had the lowest risk of violent victimization (Miethe et al., 1987). Their findings do support those proposed by the routine activities’ theory.
When looking at the theory itself and the results of this study, it would be expected that there would be an increase in crime when individuals are away from their home as compared to when they are within their home. Throughout the pandemic, many major daily activities including work and school were moved to within the home. Many jobs became “work from home” jobs and school systems sent all students home to do virtual learning. As a result of this increased presence at the home, it would be expected that criminal activity, both violent and property in nature, would decrease. The findings of this study could be used to support this hypothesis because it was found that people had the lowest risk of victimization when their major activities occurred within the home.
References
Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G. (2021). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, J. S. (1987). Social Differentiation in Criminal Victimization: A Test of Routine Activities/Lifestyle Theories. American Sociological Review, 52(2), 184–194.
https://doi.org/https
://doi.org/10.2307/2095447
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
1
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
2
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
3
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
4
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
5
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
6
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
7
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
8
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
9
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
1
0
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
11
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
4
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
1
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
2
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
3
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
4
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
5
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
6
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
7
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
8
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
9
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
1
0
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
F
irefo
x
ab
o
u
t:b
lan
k
11
o
f 11
1
/2
0
/2
0
2
1
, 8
:0
6
A
M
