NCJ Number
196200
Journal
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Volume: 39 Issue: 3 Dated: August 2002 Pages: 304-336
Date Published
August 2002
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This research explains automotive theft in a theoretically integrated approach to the two theories based on interaction effects.
Abstract
Auto theft offending has long been believed to be concentrated among the socially advantaged and seems to negate the hypothesis of social disorganization theory. It is generally committed by white, middle-class youths largely for "kicks." Most auto theft occurs for recreational and short-term use rather than for profit. Routine activity theory has three basic elements: accessibility, guardianship, and target suitability. This theory also proposes that crime will occur where daily activities create the most numerous opportunities for the most profitable crime and the least chances of detection or arrest. Social disorganization theory and routine activity theory are used in conjunction with this model, which assumes that both theories contribute to a general context that mediates their relationship to criminal events. Motivation and opportunity may have their own direct contributions to the location of a crime, but the majority of their contributions are mediated by their interaction in a contextual environment. Data consisted of 1993 police department crime incident data for a southeastern United States (U.S.) city with a population of 250,000, county tax assessor data, and 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data. As a whole, the results confirmed the utility of an integrated theoretical model in describing spatial patterns of auto theft. The individual application of routine activity theory and social disorganization theory indicates that they each have their own distinct contribution to the understanding of the spatial distribution of auto theft. The rate of auto theft for a particular face block appeared to be determined by opportunity, the flow of traffic of motivated offenders, the level of guardianship, and social disorganization factors. The study confirms that these apparent relationships exist simultaneously and that controlling for the concepts in one theory does not preclude the concepts of the other theory from explaining variance. The effects of the concepts of each of the theories are conditional on the concepts of the other. 3 tables, 18 notes, 115 references