outine activity theory
柯恩 &
費爾遜所提出來的日常活動理論，是將生活方式暴露理論更具體化及正式化，其核心觀念是認為在其他條件相等之下，犯罪的機會愈大，犯罪和被害的可能性就愈
高，而社會上日常生活型態的改變，使得人們有更多或更少犯罪和被害的機會，因此也改變了犯罪率或被害率，當有能力及動機的犯罪者接近沒有受到合理保護之犯
罪標的物時，犯罪就可能會發生。
日常生活理論認為犯罪乃下列三項因素聚合的結果：
１、有能力及動機的犯罪者。
２、合適的犯罪標的物。
３、抑制犯罪發生者(監控者)不在場。
Routine activity theory is a sub-field of rational choice criminology, developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen.
Routine activity theory says that
crime
is normal and depends on the opportunities available. If a target is
not protected enough, and if the reward is worth it, crime will happen.
Crime does not need hardened offenders, super-predators, convicted felons or wicked people. Crime just needs an opportunity.
The basic premise of routine activity theory is that most crimes are petty theft and unreported to the police.
Crime is neither spectacular nor dramatic. It is mundane and happens all the time.
Another premise is that
crime is relatively unaffected by social causes such as poverty, inequality, unemployment.
For instance, after World War II, the economy of Western countries was
booming and the Welfare states were expanding. During that time, crime
rose significantly. According to Felson and Cohen, this is because
the prosperity of contemporary society offers so much opportunities of crime: there is much more to steal.
Routine
activity theory is controversial among sociologists who believe in the
social causes of crime. But several types of crime are very well
explained by routine activity theory including copyright infringement,
related to peer-to-peer file sharing, employee theft, and corporate
crime.
References
Marcus Felson,
Crime and Everyday Life. Insight and Implications for Society, Thousands Oaks : Pine Forge Press, 1994
Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, « Social Change and Crime Rate Trends : A Routine Activity Approach »,
American Sociological Review, 44 (4), 1979, pp. 588-608
Ronald V. Clarke and Marcus Felson M., 1993, « Introduction : Criminology, Routine Activity, and Rational Choice »,
Advances in Theoretical Criminology : Routine Activity and Rational Choice, vol. 5, pp. 1-14
