Why NOT Crime?

Crime researchers typically ask, “Why do some people commit crime?” Modern crime theory creators have expanded their questions when designing theories; leading to new and novel approaches. This expansion has led to new lines of questioning such as: “What drives people to start doing crimes, continue to engage in criminal acts, and (hopefully someday) stop their illegal activities?” Or, “Why is it that only a small fraction of the population commits the vast majority of criminal acts? What makes this group different from the masses?”

This development and shift in perspective seeking began with researcher Travis Hirschi flipping the question from “Why do people commit crimes?” to “Why don’t people engage in criminal behavior in the first place?” While not the first to ask this question, with about a dozen other theorists posing similar ideas, Hirschi’s theory caught on, becoming highly influential even to this day.

Hirschi’s (1969) argument centered on the idea that people are similar to animals with basic instincts, therefore we sometimes fight and steal due to our core nature’s impulses. We are all animals in a sense. This stance posed that the criminal behavior itself does not need to be explained, but rather, not committing the criminal behavior.

Yet, what separates us from animals and makes us human? What stops individuals from engaging in crime? Hirschi suggests that the ability to suppress those instincts of aggression and impulsivity is the defining separation of human beings from animals. We chose not to act on our raw compulsions. This ability can be seen among societies through cooperation with one another despite delay or lack of gratification. Hirschi told crime researchers that aggression and impulsivity do not require explanation, as these traits are a core part of our human nature. This is a fact of life. The real question requiring explanation is: why do people not choose crime, as it is the easiest way to satisfy our desires.

Social Bonds & Control Theory

The answer proposed by his social control theory of delinquency is that this behavior is controlled and regulated by our social bonds. (Note: it is also called social bond or bonding theory for this reason; Dr. Hirschi did not appreciate this renaming/rebranding one bit). This theory centers on how society influences the individual, but with focus on push from crime rather than researcher’s long focus on what pushes to crime. Hirschi argues that humans unchecked are naturally capable of antisocial behavior. In this perspective crime is easy and often provides the individual with instant reward, therefore, bonds in society these individuals have make crime more difficult.

These bonds are connections with people, things, or places that give us a sense of attachment and cause us to feel invested in them, making criminal behavior less appealing. Lack of these bonds mean a lower sense of obligation to society. For example, juvenile delinquency often occurs “when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken” (Hirschi, 1969, p.16). As Hirschi understood these bonds would not be the same for all, he argued youth behavior is controlled by four types of bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.

Understanding Hirschi’s Four Bonds

Attachment refers to the emotional ties (or, in other words, emotional “closeness”) kids have with adults, particularly the ties children have with their parents. This bond is related to how much quality interaction children have with their parents, how closely children identify parents, and whether children perceive that their parents care for their wellbeing. This bond can work through authority figures, such as parents, installing social norms and values, leading to the child to be less prone to delinquency. (Note: These social norms are not universal and those youths will be shaped by the culture they are in, however, this form of bond still plays a role in antisocial behavior.) These attachments can range from close familial relationships, ties to other important figures such as teachers or coaches, and strong ties with peers.

For example, in the southern parts of the United States, attachments are strengthened through traditions such as Sunday seafood boils, church gatherings, and/or neighborhood festivals. These traditions allow youths to feel closer to their family and/or community. This closeness (attachment) causes the youth to be less likely to be delinquent, as they could disappoint or shame those they’ve become connected to and lose trust in those relationships.

Commitment is defined as one’s stake in conformity. In other words, it is a measure of how much youths have conformed to societal rules in order to be involved in prosocial activities like school or church/religion groups (like youth ministry). Youths with high levels of investment and care about these activities would have more to lose if they act in reckless or antisocial ways. Acting out may jeopardize the ability to continue these activities or ties with these groups. So, in part, it is the risk of messing up these investments that keeps kids in line. For example, a youth who hopes to go to college one day will be more invested in their education and be less likely to risk their education by acting out. On the other hand, if said youth did not care about going to college, they won’t have the high level of investment in their education and will be more likely to act out. This is due to the youth not having high stakes in conformity; they have much less to lose by breaking rules.

To measure an individual’s commitment, youths are asked questions about the importance of certain activities. For example, researchers Krohn and Massey (1980) used seven questions asking adolescents how important the following activities were to them: school work, athletics, musical groups, pep groups, other school activities, church activities, and community clubs. Youths were given options ranging from “very important” to “not important at all”. Finding that those who reported “not important” or “not important at all,” were more likely to engage in deviant behavior.

Involvement is the degree to which a person is active in conventional activities. The vast majority of researchers who have measured this concept have used “time” spent doing prosocial things such as schoolwork, sports, or other positive hobbies. This idea is simple, when a young person is busy with these activities they have much less time to plan and commit delinquent acts. For example, Huebner and Betts (2002) observed the time spent in school and non-school-based activities to measure involvement bonds among 7th to 12th graders. With this, it’s not surprising that Huebner and Betts’s study showed that students who reported more time spent doing prosocial activities also reported less delinquency (they also reported having better grades, too!).

These positive experiences strengthen the youths’ bond with society, which in turn can lead to higher invested interest in other areas that would keep them from antisocial behavior. Therefore, a youth involved in their school’s football team not only would have decreased time to act out but will have a positive experience such as a big game or team bonding to look forward to. This means they will invest more time in things that will allow them to continue participation, such as keeping up their grades and avoiding delinquent behavior.

Finally, belief refers to the acceptance of a common value system shared by people in a given society. This is not the same as religious beliefs, though religion may play a role. Rather, it is about believing in the validity of the law and norms of their society. Hirschi was specific in that he did not consider someone’s core convictions as the source of his belief concept, but instead whether an individual believes the rules of society are worth following. (aka whether youths bought into the norms of society.) This is to say it’s more sociological than, say, psychological.

In practice, researchers have found that measuring these levels of belief can be tricky as there is a difference between kids that just go along with society’s norms compared to those who truly buy-in. This makes nailing down a way of measurement for levels of belief difficult, leading to different methods to be used. One method by Krohn and Massey used a survey that asked youths three questions about parental norms, legal norms, and the value of an education, with responses that ranged from high agreement to high disagreement. Similarly, researchers at McNeese State University (Durkin, Wolfe, & Clarke, 1999) used questions about respect for authority, such as “I have a lot of respect for the local police,” and “I have a lot of respect for the college’s public safety officers,” to gauge belief in a sample of college students (responses ranged from disagree strongly to agree strongly). They followed this by asking whether they agree or disagree with the statement, “to get ahead, you have to do some things which aren’t right.” Durkin, Wolfe, and Clarke find that McNeese students who had higher levels of buy in to a common value system (e.g., belief) tended to binge-drink less often than those who had lower levels of buy in.

Social control theory has been one of the most tested theories in criminology, though overall the results have been mixed. The evidence suggests that weak social bonds are related to an increase in offending, but the strength of this relationship varies from low to moderate, suggesting that other variables need to be taken into account (Lilly et al., 2019) For example, other studies question what happens when children are attached to parents who are involved in illegal behavior themselves, as researchers Jensen and Brownfield (1983) found that close attachment to parents who are drug users does not prevent children from engaging in drug use themselves.

Another question posed to this theory is whether commitment and involvement are always positive (O’Grady, 2014). For instance, Lance Armstrong’s commitment to winning and heavy involvement in cycling led to his use of performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France. Could youths commitment and involvement lead to negative behaviors from external factors like Armstongs?

While more exploration of this social theory is important, its use remains an important way of understanding the development of criminal behavior in youth, and Hirschi ideas continue to be influential in the study of crime.

The Next Generation of Control Theory

Self-Control Theory

Environmental Criminology

In 1979, C. Ray Jeffery coined the term environmental criminology is now used as an umbrella term used to encompass a variety of theoretical approaches, including rational choice theory (Felson, 2017; Gibbs & Boratoo, 2017). This new school of thought incorporated elements of the classical school of criminology, such as the deterrence of crime before it occurs; however, it also focused on the environment within which crime occurs. (Andresen et al., 2010, p. 6). This meaning at a basic level, those who study environmental criminology are primarily focused on the criminal event and not the individual criminal (Sidebottom & Wortley, 2016).

This is to say, researchers are interested in where and how crime happens.“They want to know whether there are differences in the distribution of crime, victimization, or perpetrators across cities, neighborhoods, or smaller units of analysis” (Bruinsma et al., 2018, p. 3). From this interest, they investigate where crime is most likely to occur in a city and the characteristics of someone who is at risk of being victimized to form a deeper understanding of crime patterns. These environments being studied consist broadly of (1) the physical design of places (architecture), (2) the built environment (types of buildings, roadways, land use etc.), and (3) legal and social institutions. Jeffery (1979) further posited that we must also consider ourselves part of that environment, because we respond, adapt, and change as a result of the environment we inhabit. In essence, these researchers want to understand why criminal behavior is only one form of adaptation to certain environments. Again, by exploring the physical and social characteristics of these spaces, criminologists can better understand the distribution of crime (Snaphaan & Hardyns, 2019), along with understanding the social composition of a neighborhood and even the physical layout of a street (Bruinsma et al., 2018).

Think of policymaking for communities, researchers must first understand the areas in which crimes are more likely to occur. This would be done by looking at the area, its environment, and what’s available for the community in it. For example, does this area experiencing high levels of crime have parks with lighting for night and fences around its playgrounds? Are the area’s roads safe and are there heavy levels of traffic in and out? Does this area have a well resourced environment with homes and/or businesses? How many vacant lots and homes does this area have? Are there support operations in these areas such as police stations and/or community centers?

For rational choice theory, the picking of a vulnerable target is heavily influenced by earlier environmental criminology developments. Essentially, it comes down to the concept of opportunity. This is to say that environmental criminologists argue that an easy-to-access target is the prime ingredient that explains the vast majority of rational crime. For example a college student is walking home late at night and a bike is left unattended and unlocked in an alleyway. This student is not a criminal but due to the opportunity being right there, they steal the bike. This directly flies in the face of the heart of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s observations of self-control. Further both sides make compelling arguments but lead to different ideas for crime fighting policies. Think about it: if we are trying to lower crime, which theories focus would we follow? Building self-control or changing the environment?

To conclude, it is important to discuss how rational choice theory fits into environment criminology. Environmental criminology is closely connected with situational crime prevention, which focuses on reducing opportunities for specific crimes by permanently manipulating the immediate environment. For example, a store utilizing electronic access control devices to prevent theft, a practical strategy that focuses primarily on preventing criminal events before they happen. The ability to predict actions, prevent further crime, and reduce crime hot spot activity is from theories in environmental criminology assumption that offenders behave in a rational manner. In short, rational choice relates to environmental criminology in terms of the interplay between individual reasoning and environmental cues and situational crime prevention manipulates the environment to specifically act on the rational calculations of potential offenders.

Routine Activity Theory

One of the most popular theories associated with environmental criminology is routine activity theory. Routine activity theory predicts how changes in social and economic conditions influence crime and victimization, and it has become one of the most cited theories in criminology. Posited by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, they defined routine activity theory as “any recurrent and prevalent activities which provide for basic population and individual needs, whatever their biological or cultural origins” (1979, p. 593). Simply put, the activities we regularly engage in, such as going to work, attending school, or running errands, make up our routine activities. These patterns are commonplace and involve multiple people moving through space and time (Andresen, 2010; Felson, 2013; Felson, 2017). Cohen and Felson argue that changes associated with routine activities can assist in explaining changes in crime trends.

Routine activity is not considered a general theory of crime, but has been expanded to explain a wide variety of crimes (Felson, 2013; Felson, 2017). A key point of this theory is its focus on the actions of individuals, rather than their environments. Moreover, routine activity theory is closely associated with human ecology (Andresen, 2010, p. 14), which, human ecologists state“ecology is generally defined as understanding how a population (humans, for example) survives in an ever-changing environment” (Andresen, 2010, p. 15). This is significant because it takes into consideration and highlights the importance of time. In other words, where we work, where we live, and where we mingle are how we move through space and show where our time is spent. As such, routine activity theory acknowledges the important interplay between space and time in everyday activities, including criminal activity.

Routine activity theory focuses on crimes that involve (1) at minimum, one motivated offender, (2) one suitable personal or property target, and (3) the absence of a guardian capable of preventing such a violation (Cohen & Felson 1979; Felson, 2013). For a more detailed explanation of these three elements refer to Table 16.1 below. These three essential elements help explain why crime is likely to occur as they converge in space and time (Felson, 2017). As Andresen (2010) states, “it is the convergence in time and space of these three elements that is necessary for a crime to occur; moreover, it is the changes in the nature of this convergence that changes crime” (p. 17). For a visual illustration:

The most common real world example of routine activity on crime is COVID-19 lockdowns effect on crime patterns. These lockdowns forced many to stay home and now engage in their routine activities such as going to work. This made finding suitable targets difficult for offenders as individuals confined to their homes meant little to no opportunities for crimes such as street robberies or home burglaries, which in turn lowered offender motivation. However, this lockdown gave way to other criminal opportunities such as domestic violence or cyber crimes, as isolated individuals created suitable targets that motivated offenders could act on. These factors along with law enforcement’s lack of contact with the public meant less prevention for these crimes. This shows how changes to people’s everyday activities can affect crime patterns.

To conclude, routine activity theory has traditionally been used to explain residential break and enter, burglary, domestic violence, and physical assault. This theory provides significant insight into the causes of crime problems as it pertains to a particular place (e.g., drug dealing locations) and amongst victims (e.g., domestic violence), while bettering our understanding of the uneven spatial and temporal distribution of such crimes. More specifically, spatial and temporal patterns in family, work, and leisure activities influence what kinds of situations emerge, and changes in a society’s routine activities can cause changes in the kind of situations people confront. For instance, shifts in one routine can influence the timing and placing of criminal activities and as such changes to societal routines (e.g a country wide lockdown) can affect criminal opportunities. As such, routine activity theory highlights the relationship of these concepts to understand these patterns in crime and prevent them.