The two most popular sociological theories that offer an explanation as to why certain types of people are more likely to be victims of crimes is the Lifestyle Theory (the belief that certain leisure-time and other activities increase the chances of becoming a crime victim) and the Routine Activities Theory (the view that an individual’s daily activities can affect his or her chances of becoming a crime victim). Although these theories differ slightly in specific application, both theories generally assert that “the habits, lifestyles, and behavioral patterns of potential crime victims enhance their contact with offenders and thereby increase the chances that crimes will occur” (Miethe and Meier 1990:244). Research is supportive of either theory as an explanation of certain people being more likely to be victim …show more content…
This is thought to be true for a couple of different reasons. First and foremost, criminals tend to spend their time in areas with high crime rates therefore inherently spend their time with other criminals. Secondly, people that commit crimes are at an increased risk at retaliation from the victim’s family friends, associates, etc. (this is especially true for gang related crimes) and since contacting the police isn't a practical option because they either run the risk of being arrested themselves and/ or not being taken seriously by police (imagine a criminal calling the police about reporting a theft on property that he or she stole). Last but not least, criminals tend to have things that other criminals want (ie narcotics, money, firearms etc.) (Barkan 76-77). Both drug and alcohol use have also been statistically linked to higher victimization rates. People who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are not only more likely to engage in “risky” behavior but are also less on guard from possible attack from criminal
Routine activity theory presents a systematic approach to comprehending the dynamics of criminal behaviour. According to this theory, three key elements must align for a crime to take place: a motivated offender, a suitable target,
The composition of the surrounding dictates the overall crime rate of the area. The theory is merged with a series of disadvantages that has led to the rise of criminal activities. The limitations are as discussed below: First, the theory does not recognize that there are individuals who are self-driven and cannot be compromised by the status of the surrounding community. When a literate person is taken through this theory, it may have some negative influence more so when they come from environments with such unethical behaviors. The aspect can easily interfere with the security concerns of a given area.
In sociology, there are three theoretical perspectives; symbolic interactionism, functional analysis and conflict theory. The major point of symbolic interactionism is to use symbols to help understand how we as a society view the world, and how we communicate with one another. In functional analysis, the major point is to look at society as a whole, constructed of various parts, or groups, that all have their own function. Lastly, conflict theory is the opposite of functional analysis. In this perspective, society is viewed as different groups, each competing for power, or dominance.
The amount of illegal activity such as assaults result from many people not respecting and not knowing their limits when it comes to drinking may be stopped by lowering the age as discussed in the previous paragraph. But the amount of theft and people in jail has skyrocketed due to the unreasonable law. There may also be more use of other more harmful drugs due to the unavailability of alcohol such as marijuana and even more harmful street drugs like heroin. This is supported by Mary Cary, a reputable persuasive writer, who states “While first-time use of illegal street drugs such as heroin by young people increased from 90,000 users in 2006 to 156,000 in 2012” (Cary par. 6).
Families that are poor or have a low income are more likely to commit crimes for the purpose of their own needs to survive. “It is a fact that neighborhoods where the poor are concentrated are more prone to high crime rates, and poor residents are the most common victims of crimes” (1). The best explanation for this is that poorer people have the same needs as a regular middle-class citizen. The poor citizens need certain things to help him or her live a healthy life, such as healthcare, food stamps, and more employment options. One may argue that healthcare is too expensive and that food stamps have been taken away from many people.
Reasons et al. , (2016) found that, “offending and victimization are a consequence of multiple risk factors,
A study concerning integrated theory where data used came from two waves of surveys that contained multiple life domain, offending, and demographic measures, examined if life domains could predict victimization with contemporaneous effects, lagged effects, interactive effects, and a measure of prior victimization (Gubb, 2015). The results from the research found a significant level of support for the fourth hypothesis, the temporal ordering of victimization and offending. The most consistent and important findings discovered related to peer domain, offending, and prior victimization variables. The research pointed to the influence of a reduced model where victimization might be predicted generally by facets of routine activity theory and involvement in risky lifestyle (Gubb,
There are many different schools of criminological theories that all attempt in explaining crime in different ways. Among these various school of thought are the environmental theories, which do not focus on the individual or even groups of individuals, but instead focus on the environment itself and whether or not it is likely to contribute to criminal activity. One particular environmental theory, Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activity Theory, states that “…in order for a crime to occur, motivated offenders must converge with suitable targets in the absence of capable guardians…” (Cohen, Agnew, & Wilcox 2014). If one of those three components is missing, then the theory argues the lack of a motivated offender, a suitable target, or if there
Since I grew up in Argentina, I was socialized under the Catholic religion. Nonetheless, I was lucky to learn from different perspectives, mainly because I traveled and made friends everywhere. I have friends from almost every religion and I have visited and learned from almost each one of them. However, I never observed the intersection of gender and religion until I took my first class in college. There, I discovering that what we learn in our family and in our social groups (like church) influence the life choices of women.
The resident that are living in these neighborhoods will shape who a person will become in the future. So the average youth from these poverty neighborhoods see a lot of criminal activity throughout their youth they are more likely to be involved in it. The results from this theory suggest that crimes is usually present in areas in a city where social, cultural and economic hardship. In my opinion I feel the relationship between neighborhood and crimes are direct. The feel the relation is direct because its is not just any type of neighborhood that induces youth violence it is a specific type of neighborhood.
The Major theoretical perspectives in Sociology show how individuals interact with society and its effect on their individual and group perspectives. Sociologists use these perspectives as an infrastructure to comprehend the behavior and characteristics of human behavior in society. Furthermore, the conflict of variances and the struggle to fit in often leads to symbolic interactive deviant behavior. In fact, Basirico, Cashion, & Eshleman’s (2014), define symbolic interaction theory as the social theory stressing interactions between people and the social processes that occur within the individual that are made possible by language and internalized meaning” (p. 44). When people in society feel threatened, rejected or alienated, they interact
Again, these factors can include age, race, sex, choice of residents, or even normal daily activities, such as traveling to work or school. This theory emphasizes that criminal victimization follows those who do not use their intelligence and rational thought in the social environments (Lifestyle, 2011). Empirical evidence has shown that risky lifestyle activities, such as drinking, using drugs, and frequenting bars or clubs, may put individuals, particularly women, at a higher risk of victimization (Henson, Wilcox, Reyns, & Cullen,
Lifestyle and routine activities play an important role in how a person becomes a victim.(Burgess, Regehr, & Roberts.2013.pg78-79).Vicitims put themeselves in dangerous situation by involoving in high risk activities. These activities can be club dancing, repeat jogging at the same park, or as simple as take the same route to work everyday. It creates vunerability and subjects to being prey by revealing predictible where abouts. It is argued that past victims are repeat victims but in reference to Hentig gender, sex, intellect, and strength makes you avaliable for victimization whether the individual was a prior victim or not. On the contrary, crime related events which is non-routine activities can be a diaster.
Eurocentric Bias in Sociological Theories University of the People Introduction to Sociology (SOC 1503) Term 3, 2018 There is much criticism that modernization theory is Eurocentric. Do you think dependency theory and globalization theory are also biased? Why or why not? Compare and contrast modernization theory, dependency theory, and globalization theory.
The focus of routine activity theory is to study crime as an event, highlighting its relation to space and time and emphasizing its ecological nature and the implications thereof (Cohen & Felson,1979). Routine activity theory explains the criminal event through three essential elements that converge in space and time in the course of daily activities, first, a potential offender with the capacity to commit a crime, second, a suitable target or victim and finally the absence of guardians capable of protecting targets and victims. According to Cohen and Felson (1979), anyone had the potential to commit an offense and has the capacity to do such act. This could be likely young man, those unemployed and those people who have nothing to do in their