Assessing Risk of Victimization through Epidemiological Concepts: An Alternative Analytic Strategy Applied to Routine Activities Theory*

Abstract

Cet article fait appel aux concepts et aux techniques de l'épidémiologie pour examiner la capacité de la théorie des activités routinières à expliquer le risque de victimisation criminelle. En allant au‐delà de l'identification des facteurs de risque de victimisation, les auteurs se demandent comment les changements des facteurs de causalité pourraient influer sur ce risque dans la population générale. lis trouvent que les prédicteurs établis avec des méthodes plus traditionnelles expliquent la plus grande partie du risque, mais que certains sont moins importants pour la compréhension du risque de la population dans l'ensemble en raison du petit nombre de personnes qui leur est associé, tandis que d'autres sont plus utiles parce qu'ils s'appliquent à un plus grand nombre de personnes. This paper draws upon concepts and techniques from epidemiology to examine the ability of routine activities theory to account for the risk of criminal victimization. Moving beyond the identification of risk factors for victimization, we ask how changes to causal factors might affect the risk of victimization in the general population. We find that predictors identified with more traditional methods account for the bulk of the risk, but that some are less important for understanding overall population risk because of the small numbers of people associated with them, while others are more helpful because they apply to larger numbers.

Event and Victimization

“…Routine activity theory is one of the main criminological approaches that emphasizes the centrality of criminal events (see Cohen and Felson 1979;Kennedy and Forde 1990;Sacco and Kennedy 2001;Arnold et al 2005). Exponents of routine activity theory rightly argue that inquiries into crime must not be limited to the offender.…”

“…Quantitative data of this sort depends on selective abstracting, symbolizing and recording of people and activities (Biderman 1981). Various predictors are put forth as an explanation for particular crimes happening at particular times and places to particular people (Sherman et al 1989;Arnold et al 2005). Predictors include socioeconomic characteristics such as age, sex, and education and activity predictors, like drinking or latenight leisure activities.…”

Transforming Potential Offenders into Motivated Ones: Are Sex Offenders Tempted by Alcohol and Pornography?

“…As summarized by Miller and colleagues (2008:100), ''routine activities theory does not attempt to explain why some people commit more crime than others, since it is assumed that any 'normal' person would do it when the advantages are great enough and costs low enough.'' A large body of literature has developed showing the efficacy of routine activities theory for explaining victimization risks (Arnold et al 2005;Cohen and Felson 1979;Miethe et al 1987;Mustaine and Tewksbury 1998aRodgers and Roberts 1995;Spano and Nagy 2005;Tewksbury and Mustaine 2003) and the importance of the presence of potential offenders for criminal events (Mustaine and Tewksbury 2000;Schwartz et al 2001;Walker et al 2001).…”

Lifestyles and routine activities of South African teenagers at risk of being trafficked for involuntary prostitution

“…Age is a relative risk factor which makes this association more profound and which cannot be altered (Peltzer 2003). Arnold, Keane and Baron (2005) argue that evening leisure activities are a significant contributor towards victimization: if people reduce their evening activities, the chances of victimisation are reduced. In addition, this link may explain a greater likelihood of victimisation if young drinkers who pursue night-time leisure activities have a limited income (Arnold et al 2005).…”

“…Arnold, Keane and Baron (2005) argue that evening leisure activities are a significant contributor towards victimization: if people reduce their evening activities, the chances of victimisation are reduced. In addition, this link may explain a greater likelihood of victimisation if young drinkers who pursue night-time leisure activities have a limited income (Arnold et al 2005). It is possible that without part-time jobs, teenagers from low socio-economic groups may not have adequate finances to support a lifestyle of nights spent drinking (Groff 2008).…”