CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.7. Routine Activities Approach
3.7.3. Capable Guardian
With regards to the third element, absence of a capable guardian, the form of a ‘guardian’ depends on the context. A capable guardian can be any spatial-temporal form of oversight that offers deterrence against criminal violations (Brown et al., 2010; Saponaro, 2013). Absence of a capable guardian thus refers to the absence of a person or other agent that can protect the target against an offender, or deter a criminal event. A capable guardian can be a person, animal or object, security measures or safeguards, technological aids, and even programmes or policies implemented to prevent and deter violence (Brown et al, 2010; Newburn, 2013; Saponaro, 2013; Tibbetts, 2012).
Furthermore, the situations and locations in which targets place themselves have an impact on the risk of victimisation (Burke, 2009).
Routine activities can occur both within and outside the home environment (e.g. vocational or leisure activities). The theory itself was tested in its application to the household activity ratio and variations in predatory crime rates. Results indicated that activities occurring outside the household (non-household, non-family activities) are at higher risk of criminal victimisation (Cohen and Felson, 1979). Additionally, Cohen and Felson (1979) applied the theory to changing crime patterns in the United States, finding that the increase in crime rates could be attributed to an
67
absence of guardianship at home, as women have increasingly entered the labour market since 1960. Results thus pointed out that crime rates were influenced by changes in the social structure of society (Saponaro, 2013).
The contribution made by the routine activities theory was its explanation of the manner in which situational and environmental factors in combination with routine activities could influence proneness to victimisation and, in turn, explain variations in crime rates. Further contributions of the theory include providing a framework against which crime patterns can be examined, an emphasis on the roles all actors play in the execution of a criminal event, and its crime prevention potential in situational alterations and precautions (Saponaro, 2013). The approach has additionally been utilised in studies on victimisation vulnerability of certain groups in the United States, victimisation risk factors in child abduction and child homicide, and victimisation risk of clergy members (Burke, 2009). The approach has also had modern applications, such as its use in geographic profiling (Tibbets, 2012). Recent studies have further applied the approach in examining deviance and how it relates to poor oversight of young adults’ socialisation, as well as further exploring the part extra-curricular activities, substances and sororities play in deviance (Gilbertson, 2006; Jackson et al., 2006).
Crime statistics did not suddenly arise in post-apartheid South Africa as crime statistics where never accurately recorded. The new South Africa appears to indicate an increase in the crime rate which has occurred with the change in the type of crime recorded in official statistics. Crime movement in terms of patterns, locations and targets changed as crime was democratised and their where many more suitable targets. Against this back drop the recorded incidence evidences that the nature and extent of ATM is evolving and ATM crime could become or already be a catalyst to more serious offences. (South African Banking Risk Information Centre, 2015)
ATM users are directed to in terms of location is critical in ensuring the user does not become a suitable target. The positioning of an ATM has to be considered from the users safety perspective and not just convenience. Some of the variables In understanding what make a location a risk to the user is routine behaviour and absence of guardianship. The convergence of a likely offender and suitable target in the absence of guardianship contributes to the opportunity for crime.
68
A higher rate of incidents accessed in South Africa leans towards trickery. Trickery by way of confusion, chaos whilst the ATM user is at the ATM or sleight of hand. Once the pin is divulged the user has become a victim. Why would you trust an unbeknown person to assist at the ATM as should a user be knowledgeable on the use of the device no assistance would be sought or accepted.
The lack of education resulting in a lack of confidence, could be a motivating factor why users create the opportunity to be assisted at the ATM by unknown third party criminals.
An economy poised for a recession will always be a contributor to economic crime which makes the ATM user susceptible to becoming a victim for financial gain. The effects of a recession speaks to unemployment together with a high inflation and taxed economy. A likely offender is less likely to commit an offence if they could legitimately attain goal.
Certain limitations have been pointed out. The theory assumes a certain level of offender motivation and fails to further explore factors that motivate offenders to commit criminal acts (Burke, 2009; Saponaro, 2013). It also fails to explain white-collar crime and places misconstrued expectations on victims to alter their lifestyle, shifting blame from the offender onto the victim and his/her lifestyle (Saponaro, 2013). Further limitations include the passivity and simplicity of the theory, the broad scope of ‘routine activity’, single measures of key concepts, and inconsistency between the nature of violent crimes and ‘rational behaviour’, as stipulated in the abovementioned theory (Fattah, 1991).
As already discussed the lifestyle exposure theory and routine activity theory emphasize how patterns of routine activities or lifestyles in conventional society provide an opportunity structure for crime. Each theory also downplays the importance of offender motivation and other aspects of criminality in understanding individuals' risks of victimization and the social ecology of crime.
These theories are also representative of a wider “criminal opportunity” perspective because they stress how the availability of criminal opportunities is determined, in large part, by the routine activity patterns of everyday life (Cohen 1981; Cohen and Land 1987). The fundamental differences between these theories are in terminology and in the fact that routine activity theory was originally developed to account for changes in crime rates over time whereas lifestyle- exposure theory was proposed to account for differences in victimization risks across social groups. Over the past decade, however, each theory has been applied across units of analysis and
69
in both cross-sectional and longitude. Both of the above-mentioned theories (lifestyle/exposure model and routine activities theory) focus on the affiliation between lifestyle and routine activities, their rate of victimisation, and the most likely avenues through which such victimisation could take place.
70
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY