Theories of Criminal Opportunity

Theories of Criminal Opportunity

In the mid-1970s American sociologists Marcus Felson, Lawrence Cohen, and others changed the focus of criminological theory from explaining criminal motivation to explaining the occurrence of criminal events. They argued that criminal motivation alone was not sufficient to cause crime. In addition to motivation, the offender requires the opportunity to pursue his or her inclinations. According to these opportunity theorists, the physical and social environment of the offender and the victim (or target) encourage or limit criminal opportunity. They sought to identify environmental factors that provided the opportunity to commit crime.

According to opportunity theory, the dangerousness of a particular environment relates to four factors: (1) the accessibility of the victim or target, (2) the perceived attractiveness of the target, (3) the proximity to numerous potential offenders, and (4) the absence of capable guardians. The chance of a crime occurring is greatest in environments where accessibility, attractiveness, and proximity are high and where guardianship is low. The major purpose of most of the work in opportunity theory has been the elaboration of this basic framework and the classification of specific environments according to accessibility, guardianship, proximity, and attractiveness.

Empirical tests of opportunity theory have employed large-scale surveys of victims as well as experiments and in-depth studies of criminals. The victim surveys indicate the risk of victimization varies substantially across social and physical environments (social environment refers to the people in the area; physical environment to the actual place). This variation is generally consistent with opportunity theory. For example, people who report going out at night are more frequently victims than those who report staying home after dark. Also, residences in heavily trafficked locations are more often burglarized than those in less accessible places.

Experiments that vary attributes of the physical and social environments and monitor the effect on crime provide some support for opportunity theory. For example, when Germany enacted a law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets, the theft rate for motorcycles decreased without a corresponding increase in thefts of other types of motor vehicles. Thieves were less likely to steal motorcycles unless they came equipped with a helmet because driving without a helmet increased the risk of being caught.

Opportunity theory is more easily and directly translated into crime prevention policy than theories of criminal motivation. Typical public policies designed to deter criminal activities usually require significant government efforts and resources. In contrast, reducing the opportunity for criminals to commit crime is left in large measure up to the individual citizen who has an interest in self-protection.

The major criticism of using opportunity theory to guide policy is that varying the factors that increase criminal opportunity will displace the crime, not prevent it. Reducing accessibility or increasing guardianship in one place will cause the motivated offender to look for another target. Critics argue for example, that reducing the availability of one crime tool, such as firearms, will simply encourage the use of alternative tools. However, evidence indicates reducing opportunity leads to reductions in illegal activities and not simply to displacement.

While opportunity theory has become very popular and enjoys some empirical support, it cannot be used to systematically distinguish dangerous social and physical environments from safe ones. Opportunity theorists have not been able to define the concepts of accessibility, guardianship, proximity, and attractiveness with sufficient specificity. See also Crime Detection; Penology.

Source: “Criminology,”Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000

See Also


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *