SozTheo

Sociology & Criminology for a Changing World

Home » crime theory

crime theory

Routine Activity Theory (RAT)

Routine Activity Theory explains crime as a situational event that emerges when three elements converge in time and space: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian.

Key Points

Routine Activity Approach (RAT)

Main Proponents: Lawrence E. Cohen, Marcus Felson, Ronald V. Clarke

First Published: 1979 (Cohen & Felson)

Country of Origin: United States

Core Idea: Crime results not from offender traits alone but from routine activities that structure opportunities for crime.

Foundation For: Situational Crime Prevention, Environmental Criminology

Theory

Routine Activity Theory (RAT) was developed by Cohen and Felson (1979) to explain changes in crime rates through shifts in everyday activities. It argues that crime is not solely the result of offender motivation or social pathology but emerges from routine patterns of legitimate activities that shape criminal opportunities.

The theory identifies three essential elements for a crime event:

  • Motivated Offender: Someone with the inclination or readiness to offend. The theory does not specify causes of motivation, treating it as given in the population.
  • Suitable Target: A person or object that is attractive and vulnerable. Suitability depends on factors like value, visibility, accessibility, and inertia (ease of movement).
  • Absence of Capable Guardians: Lack of effective formal or informal supervision. Guardians can be people (police, neighbours) or objects (alarms, CCTV).

According to RAT, these elements must converge in time and space for a crime to occur. Changes in societal routines—such as increased female workforce participation, suburbanization, or travel—can increase opportunities for such convergence and thus raise crime rates.

Diagram of the Routine Activity Approach

This situational approach emphasizes that crime can be reduced by altering routines and managing environments to prevent the convergence of offenders, targets, and opportunities. It moves focus from offender traits to situational factors.

Social and Technological Change: Implications for Crime and TheoryRoutine Activity Theory highlights that crime patterns are closely tied to shifts in everyday life. Societal changes such as increased participation of women in the workforce, evolving family structures, and greater individual mobility have reduced informal social control at home and in neighborhoods. With more people away from home during the day, opportunities for burglary and other property crimes have increased.

Technological change has also reshaped crime opportunities. The widespread availability of high-value, portable consumer electronics (e.g. televisions, computers, smartphones) has created a larger pool of “suitable targets” that are easily transported and resold. Likewise, advances in travel and communication enable both offenders and victims to move more freely, creating new contexts in which motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians can converge.

These changes underscore that crime is not static but evolves alongside society. Theories like Routine Activity Theory emerged in response to rising crime rates in the late 20th century that could not be explained solely by offender pathology or poverty, but required attention to the changing structure of everyday life and opportunity.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Routine Activity Theory laid the conceptual groundwork for Situational Crime Prevention, which seeks to reduce opportunities for crime through environmental design and management.

Policy implications include:

  • Improving formal surveillance (police patrols, CCTV)
  • Strengthening informal social control (neighbourhood watch)
  • Designing environments to reduce target suitability (lighting, access control)

RAT suggests that crime prevention should focus less on changing offenders and more on modifying situations to make crime less attractive or feasible.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Routine Activity Theory is often praised as the first genuinely situational explanation of crime, shifting focus from offender motivation to opportunity structures. Its strength lies in its policy applicability, notably in informing situational crime prevention strategies. Empirical evaluations have confirmed reductions in crime linked to environmental design, target hardening, and guardianship improvements.

Nevertheless, Routine Activity Theory faces several enduring criticisms. Critics argue that its focus on situational factors neglects deeper social, cultural, and structural causes of crime. By emphasizing opportunity reduction, it may leave the root causes of offending—such as poverty, inequality, and social exclusion—unaddressed. Moreover, the assumption of a rational and deterrable offender overlooks crimes committed under emotional distress, intoxication, or impulse.

It is also argued that situational crime prevention may produce displacement rather than genuine reduction in crime—shifting offenses across time, space, methods, or targets rather than preventing them altogether. Additionally, there is concern that this approach can support a more exclusionary, surveillance-heavy social order that disproportionately targets marginalized groups.

This tension is well illustrated by a notable academic exchange between Keith Hayward and Graham Farrell. Hayward (2007) criticized situational crime prevention—and by extension Routine Activity Theory—for its “banality of opportunity,” arguing that it ignores cultural and emotional drivers of crime and fails to engage with the „Culture of Now.“ Farrell (2010) countered by defending the empirical rigor and policy relevance of opportunity-based approaches, highlighting the practical value of harm reduction. Hayward (2011) replied, further elaborating on cultural criminology’s concern with meaning, emotion, and consumerism in understanding crime.

Further Reading on This Debate

Literature

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
  • Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. University of Chicago Press.
  • Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers: In 60 small steps. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing.
  • Felson, M. (2002). Crime and Everyday Life (3rd ed.). Sage.

Concept of Anomie (Durkheim)

Émile Durkheim’s concept of anomie describes a condition of social disintegration that emerges during periods of profound structural change, such as industrialization and the rise of the division of labour. In such times, traditional norms and shared moral frameworks weaken, leading to a breakdown of collective consciousness. This erosion of social cohesion results in a state of normlessness—anomie—in which social rules lose their binding force and crime and suicide rates increase.

Key Points

Anomie (Émile Durkheim)

Main Proponent: Émile Durkheim

First Formulations: Late 19th–early 20th century

Country of Origin: France

Core Idea: Anomie is a state of normlessness caused by rapid social change and weakening collective consciousness. It reflects the inability of existing norms and values to regulate individual desires, leading to social instability, crime, and suicide.

Foundation for: Merton’s Anomie Theory, General Strain Theory, modern sociological criminology

Theory

Durkheim developed the concept of anomie to explain the social pathologies associated with early industrialization, particularly rising suicide rates. He argued that as societies modernize, they undergo increasing differentiation—urban vs. rural, rich vs. poor, secular vs. religious. The old principles of cohesion weaken, and the collective moral framework that once regulated individual desires erodes.

In Durkheim’s view, the division of labour was not simply an economic principle but a social one, enabling new forms of solidarity. Yet this solidarity was fragile. When rapid social change disrupted traditional norms and failed to replace them with new forms of moral regulation, a state of anomie arose. In such conditions, unchecked individualism and egoistic desires spread, destabilizing society.

Durkheim also emphasized that crime is an inevitable and normal feature of social life. He argued that there is no society without crime or deviance, as these phenomena help clarify and reinforce social norms. By reacting to rule-breaking, society reaffirms the validity of its collective values. Crime thus has a functional role—up to a point. An „excess“ of crime, however, signals that norms have lost their regulatory power and collective consciousness has weakened, heralding a state of anomie.

Implication for Criminal Policy

According to Durkheim’s thesis, the political goal must be to prevent anomie by reinforcing social norms and maintaining moral cohesion. This requires the state to communicate clear, consistent values shared by all members of society. Such norms should be accepted not merely from fear of punishment but because they are perceived as legitimate and fair.

Durkheim also highlighted that social stability and a relatively equitable distribution of resources are essential for such moral integration. Economic crises, rapid social change, and glaring inequalities can weaken collective consciousness and challenge the moral principles underpinning social order. Therefore, preventing anomie is not only about enforcing laws but also about fostering social solidarity and reducing structural inequalities.

At the same time, Durkheim recognized that a certain level of deviance is normal and necessary for social health. It promotes moral clarity and social change by challenging outdated norms. Thus, the aim of criminal policy should not be to eradicate crime completely—a futile and counterproductive goal—but to prevent its excessive and destabilizing forms.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Durkheim’s concept of anomie remains a cornerstone of sociological criminology. It offered one of the first systematic social explanations for deviance, moving beyond individual pathology or moral failing to emphasize the role of social structure and collective consciousness. His insights laid the groundwork for later theories such as Merton’s Anomie Theory and contemporary strain theories.

Nonetheless, Durkheim’s framework reflects the context of early industrial society and its assumptions about moral consensus. His idea that norms can unify all social groups may seem optimistic in today’s pluralistic and unequal societies. Critics also note that anomie, in his formulation, primarily explains spikes in crime and suicide during crises, rather than the routine, everyday forms of crime.

However, the concept remains relevant for understanding how macro-level social changes—such as globalization, technological shifts, or neoliberal economic restructuring—can weaken traditional social bonds and create conditions of normlessness that facilitate crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

Secondary Literature

  • Brown, S., Esbensen, F.-A., Geis, G. (2010). Criminology. Explaining Crime and Its Context. pp. 239–240.
  • Vito, G., Maahs, J., Holmes, R. (2007). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. pp. 145–146.

Video

Watch a video introduction to Durkheim’s concept of anomie on YouTube