Critical Criminology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 57–72 | Cite as

Random Activities Theory: The Case for ‘Black Swan’ Criminology

Article

Abstract

In the United States, infamous crimes against innocent victims—especially children—have repeatedly been regarded as justice system “failures” and resulted in reactionary legislation enacted without regard to prospective negative consequences. This pattern in part results when ‘memorial crime control’ advocates implicitly but inappropriately apply the tenets of routine activities theory, wherein crime prevention is presumed to be achievable by hardening likely targets, increasing the costs associated with crime commission, and removing criminal opportunity. In response, the authors argue that academic and public policy discourse will benefit from the inclusion of a new criminological perspective called random activities theory, in which tragic crimes are framed as rare but statistically inevitable ‘Black Swans’ instead of justice system failures. Potential objections and implications for public policy are discussed at length.

References

  1. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arrigo, B. A., & Barret, L. (2008). Philosophical criminology and complex systems science: Towards a critical theory of justice. Critical Criminology, 16, 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, G. (1988). Newsmaking criminology: Reflections on the media, intellectuals, and crime. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barak, G. (2007). Doing newsmaking criminology from within the academy. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Best, J. (1991). “Road Warriors” on “Hair Trigger Highways”: Cultural resources and the media’s construction of the 1987 freeway shootings problem. Sociological Inquiry, 61, 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buffalo News (1994). Communities need to know about sex predators nearby; there should be warning about worst ex-cons. Buffalo News, August 17, p. 2.Google Scholar
  7. Caywood, T. (1998). Routine activities and urban homicides. Homicide Studies, 2(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chancer, L., & McLaughlin, E. (2007). Public criminologies: Diverse perspectives on academia and policy. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. In M. Tonry & N. Norris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4, pp. 225–256). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). New York: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., & Chamlin, M. B. (1999). Social support and social reform: A progressive crime control agenda. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Currie, E. (1998). Crime and punishment in America: Why the solutions to America’s most stubborn social crisis have not worked—and what will. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  14. Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality: Arguments for a public criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 11(11), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dziech, B. W., & Schudson, C. B. (1989). On trial: America’s courts and their treatment of sexually abused children. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Elbogen, E. B., Patry, M., & Scalora, M. J. (2003). The impact of community notification laws on sex offender treatment attitudes. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26(2), 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. Fallera, K. C., Birdsalla, W. C., Vandervortb, F., & Henry, J. C. (2006). Can the punishment fit the crime when suspects confess child sexual abuse? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(7), 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farkas, M. A., & Stichman, A. (2002). Sex offender laws: Can treatment, punishment, incapacitation, and public safety be reconciled? Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), 256–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felson, M. (1992). Routine activities and crime prevention: Armchair concepts and practical action. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 1(1), 30–34.Google Scholar
  21. Felson, R. (1997). Routine activities and involvement in violence as actor, witness, or target. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 209–221.Google Scholar
  22. Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., & Sedlak, A. (1992). The abduction of children by strangers and nonfamliy members. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(2), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14(2), 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gest, T. (2001). Crime and politics: Big government’s erratic campaign for law and order. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Griffin, T., & Wooldredge, J. (in press). Judges’ reactions to Ohio’s ‘Jessica’s Law’. Crime and Delinquency.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, C. (2005). Senate passes strong Jessica Lunsford Act. St. Petersburg Times, April 22, p. 3B.Google Scholar
  30. Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. W. (2005). The mythology of crime and criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  31. McGough, L. S. (1993). Child witnesses: Fragile voices in the American legal system. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Miethe, T. D., & McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71(3), 741–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Sloane, D. (1990). LIfestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(4), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milovanovic, D. (Ed.). (1997). Chaos, criminology, and social justice: The New (Dis)order. Westport, CO: Paeger.Google Scholar
  35. Myers, J. E. B. (1998). Legal issues in child abuse and neglect practice. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2008). FAQ: AMBER Alert. Retrieved 9/22, 2008, from http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2813.
  37. Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2005). Symbolic politics and penal populism: The Long Shadow of Willie Horton. Crime, Media and Culture, 1(1), 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Reilly, B. (2009). Jessica’s law: A state-by-state report card of child protection law. Retrieved 8/18/09, 2009, from http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels.
  39. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and indididual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 635–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richards, C. (1994). Freed sex offenders should be identified. Chicago Sun-Times, August 7, p. 39.Google Scholar
  41. Rohde, M. (2007). Sex offender residency laws are questioned; Ordinances won’t pass muster in court, some say. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 29, p. 1.Google Scholar
  42. Rudin, J. B. (1996). Megan’s law: Can it stop sexual predators—and at what cost to constitutional rights? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 11(3), 2–10.Google Scholar
  43. Sasson, T. (1995). Crime talk. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Sedlak, A. J., Finkelhor, D., Hammer, D., & Schultz, D. J. (2002). National estimates of missing children: An overview. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  45. Siegel, J. (2006a). Dad pushes for sex-crime law. The Columbus Dispatch, March 23, p. 01A.Google Scholar
  46. Siegel, J. (2006b). Flurry of bills deals with sex offenders; Lawmakers want to ensure prison time, proper punishment. The Columbus Dispatch, March 21.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, K. B. (2004). The politics of punishment: Evaluating political explanations of incarceration rates. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 925–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Surette, R. (2007). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images, realities and policies (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  49. Swaaningen, R. V. (2005). Public safety and management of fear. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  51. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. (2005). Reports: Man charged in Lunsford killing molested wife’s daughter. The Associated Press.Google Scholar
  53. The Augusta Chronicle (1994, 8/17/1994). Sex perverts protected. The Augusta Chronicle, p. 4.Google Scholar
  54. Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. US Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs. (2008). AMBER Alert: America’s missing: Broadcast emergency response. Retrieved 9/22/08, 2008, from http://www.amberalert.gov/faqs.htm#faq1.
  56. Walker, S. (2006). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  57. Walker, J. (2007). Advancing science and research in criminal justice/criminology. Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 555–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walters, G. D. (1999). Crime and chaos: Applying nonlinear dynamic principles to problems in criminology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(2), 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations