As a result of rational choice theory of criminal offending punishment models emphasized

Routine activity theory

Routine activity theory, developed by Cohen and Felson, revolves around three things: a “potential offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian” (Bottoms and Wiles, 1997, p. 320). All three must come together in order for criminal activity to be realized. Routine activity theory relies on the same rational choice methodology as situational crime prevention techniques. As in any theory, routine activity theory has its criticisms. One of the primary criticisms is the assumption that criminals are rational in their decision-making. They may not use the same rationale as the person implementing the security measures. They may not even be aware of the situational crime prevention techniques put into effect. They may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or, for whatever reason, they may simply not care about the security measures.

Routine Activity Theory

Routine activity theory, from Cohen and Felson (1979), emphasizes that crime occurs when three elements converge: (1) a motivated offender, (2) a suitable target, and (3) the absence of a capable guardian. This theory includes the routine activities of both offender and victim. An offender may routinely walk through specific neighborhoods looking for homes that appear as easy targets for burglary or into buildings in a commercial area to seek opportunities for theft. Because in many families all adults work, homes are often unoccupied during the day, which can become suitable targets for burglary. “Neighborhood Watch” and alarm systems can prevent crime. Commercial buildings without access controls or other security methods, likewise, can become suitable targets. A capable guardian can be ordinary people who can intervene or serve as witnesses, or police or security personnel. From a corporate security perspective, for example, salespeople, truck drivers, and others who are “on the road” can become suitable targets when a capable guardian is unavailable and a motivated offender is encountered. Thus, security practitioners should establish preventive programs to protect employees through training, security and safety tips, policies, procedures, technology, and other methods.

Offender Decision Making and Crime Patterns

Around the same time that routine activities theory, lifestyle–exposure theory, offender search theory, and environmental design theory were being developed, Ronald Clarke, in collaboration with Derek Cornish, was defining a contemporary rational choice theory of offending. This theory, like the aforementioned theories, highlighted the importance of criminal opportunity.

A seminal 1985 book chapter by Clarke and Cornish, Modeling Offenders' Decisions: A Framework for Research and Policy, was particularly key in defining their perspective. In this piece, they provided a framework countering positivist theories of crime which posited that criminal behavior was caused or determined by distinct biological, psychological, or social characteristics. Rather, Clarke and Cornish suggested that offenders make active, utilitarian decisions about alternative lines of action, including crime, through a process of ‘bounded rationality’. In other words, offenders were thought to actively weigh the costs and benefits of alternative lines of action (i.e., crime versus legitimate alternatives), though it was recognized that their perceptions of costs versus benefits were likely shaped by biological, psychological, and social ‘background factors, previous experiences, immediate needs or pressures, and so on. Thus, criminal choices may not be optimal, but to Clarke and Cornish, they represented offenders' best efforts at optimizing outcomes (Clarke and Cornish, 1985: pp. 163–164; see also Shover, 1996). Regardless of the many factors shaping an offender's perceptions of cost versus benefit associated with criminal action, such action is still ultimately presumed to be based on the utilitarian pursuit of pleasure over pain according to Clarke and Cornish's perspective.

Clarke and Cornish delineate two major types of decisions made by offenders: crime involvement decisions and crime event decisions. A crime involvement decision refers to the offender's choice that crime is an acceptable line of action. Event decisions consist of the choices that are made in actually carrying out an offense. For instance, decisions about where to offend (area selection), against whom or what to offend (target selection), and how to offend (modus operandi) are event decisions. Event decision making, in particular, is presumed to involve offenders making reasoned choices – choices about the particular ecological settings within which they will offend and the particular targets they will select. Choices about settings and targets are thought to be based on environmental cues regarding risk, reward, and effort (e.g., Clarke, 1980; Clarke and Cornish, 1985). In other words, criminal opportunity weighs heavily in choices during crime events according to Clarke and Cornish's rational choice perspective.

Routine Activity Theory

In foundational research describing what has come to be known as routine activity theory (RAT), criminologists Cohen and Felson (1979) explain (p. 604): “the convergence in time and space of three elements (motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians) appears useful for understanding crime rate trends. The lack of any of these elements is sufficient to prevent the occurrence of successful direct-contact predatory crime.” In other words, RAT proposes that (Sasse, 2005; p. 547) “victimizations occur when there is a convergence in space and time of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and an absence of a capable guardian.”4

From the forensic victimologist’s perspective, a likely offender is classified as one who is sufficiently motivated to offend. This motivation may come from a variety of factors, both internal and external. Taken from Turvey (2011; pp. 293–294) those factors that can influence victim selection are all generally related to offender motivation:

Victim selection refers to the process by which an offender chooses or targets a victim. Victim selection can be classified as targeted (selected in advance) or opportunistic.

Targeted Victim

A targeted victim is the primary object of the offense, resulting directly from the offender’s motive for committing the crime. A targeted victim is selected in advance specifically because of who they are, what they are, what they know, or what they possess. A targeted victim may be in a relationship with the offender (spouse, parents, family member, co-worker, friend, roommate, therapist, teacher, etc.) or may have been in a past relationship with the offender. The offender may also intentionally target a victim because the victim has information, items, or valuables sought by the offender. Examples of targeted victim selection include: administrative homicides that eliminate a witness to a crime; abduction and physical torture of a victim for the purposes of eliciting information; stalking, abducting, and raping a victim as revenge or punishment for a real or perceived wrong; and killing an intimate partner.

Opportunistic Victim

An opportunistic victim is ancillary to the offense. In such cases, the offender is motivated by a desire to commit the offense and the victim is irrelevant. The victim is selected because of:

▪

Availability: This refers to a particular victim’s accessibility to the offender. It is related to the concept of offender exposure.

▪

Vulnerability: This refers to the offender’s perception of how susceptible a particular victim is to the method of approach and attack. It is also related to the concept of offender exposure.

▪

Location: This refers to the victim’s particular locality in relation to the offender’s. It is often a function of both offender and victim activities and schedules and is also related to the concept of offender exposure.

Opportunistic victims may also be chosen because they fit specific criteria preferred by the offender. These criteria may include:

▪

Fantasy criteria: Fantasy criteria mean that victims are selected by virtue of having traits that a particular offender views as desirable or necessary for the satisfaction of a particular fantasy. The nature of these desirable or necessary traits is revealed in the victimology and the offender signature behavior.

▪

Symbolic criteria: Symbolic criteria mean that victims are selected by virtue of sharing the characteristics of others in a relationship with the offender (spouse, parent, family member, co-worker, friend, roommate, therapist, teacher, etc.).

From this list of influences and motivations, it is evident that as a given victim increasingly satisfies a particular offender’s criteria, the more likely it becomes that the offender will choose to commit an offense against the victim.

From the offenders’ perspective, suitable targets are victims or objects that they perceive to be vulnerable (Cohen and Felson, 1979). Vulnerability, as suggested earlier, is the offenders’ perception of how susceptible a particular victim is to their modus operandi.5 An offender’s perception that his M.O. is sufficient to successfully complete a particular criminal act results in an increased exposure toward the victim. Suitable targets may be a function of either incident or lifestyle exposure factors. For example, an offender may generally perceive that intoxicated victims are more easily overpowered—and therefore troll related outlets such as bars and nightclubs for targets. However, these victims must actually be intoxicated at the outset of an attack for this perception to be accurate, and the victims must also be a particular kind of drunk. In other words, not the violent kind. So it is possible under such circumstances for an offender to perceive that a particular type of victim is suitable based on general circumstances, while a particular victim in those circumstances is anything but.

Capable guardians are those individuals whose presence or proximity discourages offenders from committing crime. They can take the form of persons, including police officers, private security, family members, or ordinary citizens. They may also take institutional forms, such as proximity of a location to a building that houses capable guardians, including police stations, secured facilities, government offices, or courthouses. Whatever the case, these individuals or institutions must possess the actual ability to respond if criminal behavior is observed.6 Simply by having capable guardians present, crime may be reduced by discouragement, as there exists a greater chance for outside intervention and ultimate apprehension.

The underlying argument within routine activity theory is that crime generally occurs where there is both the opportunity and ability to commit it. This is dictated by the motivation of the offender, the vulnerability of the victim, and the lack or capable guardians. As these three elements converge, victimization is more likely to occur.

Relevant Criminological Theory: Routine Activities Theory, Differential Association Theory, and Role Strain

The choice to commit an act of fraud does not occur in a vacuum: by definition, the perpetrator willfully follows a path that leads them to intentionally deceive others. The question becomes the degree to which they were constrained or encouraged by their environment along the way. In other words, in order to understand the causes of forensic fraud, as with any other potentially criminal act, one needs to first establish and understand the relationship between the motivated perpetrator and the environment that allows fraud to occur. Specifically, once the level of “individual examiner impurity” has been established, the influence of localized institutional failure, as well as any structural crises within a scientific community at large, must also be assessed. This requires the employment of criminological theories appropriate to the task.

In the present research, Routine Activities Theory, Differential Association Theory, and Role Strain proved valuable to the development of our thesis statements. These criminological theories embrace and support the premise that crime is a function of individual choice shaped heavily by environmental factors. A brief discussion of each is necessary.

In their foundational research describing what has come to be known as Routine Activities Theory (RAT), criminologists Cohen and Felson (1979) explain (p. 604): “the convergence in time and space of three elements (motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians) appears useful for understanding crime rate trends. The lack of any of these elements is sufficient to prevent the occurrence of successful direct-contact predatory crime.” In other words, RAT proposes that (Sasse, 2005; p. 547) “victimizations occur when there is a convergence in space and time of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and an absence of a capable guardian.”1,2

This theory of crime is well suited to assist with the present study of causality and prevention related to forensic fraud: in accordance with Judson (2004), it focuses on the location or place (e.g., workplace) where a crime occurs, and corresponding institutional responsibility, as opposed to theories that emphasize primarily the personality traits of the individual (Reid, 2003).

Differential Association Theory (DAT; aka Differential Association-Reinforcement) was first published in 1947 by Edwin Sutherland, a sociological criminologist, as a means to (Vold and Bernard, 1988; p. 210) “organize the many diverse facts known about criminal behavior into some logical arrangement,” or as Cressey (1952) explains, to provide (p. 43) “a general theory of crime causation.” DAT, in association with Social Learning Theory discussed in Chapter 4, “Fraud in Law Enforcement Culture,” proposes that criminal behaviors, crime-specific techniques, criminal motives, and corresponding rationalizations for violating the law are not genetic; that they are learned through direct social interaction with others; and that criminal values vary, depending on an individual’s perception of related social, cultural, and peer attitudes (Jeffery, 1965; Matsueda, 2006; Reid, 2003; Sutherland, 1947; and Vold and Bernard, 1986). As explained in Cressey (1952; p. 43): “persons acquire patterns of criminal behavior in the same way they acquire patterns of lawful behavior—through learning in interaction with other persons.” As an adjunct to this theory, the propensity for criminal behavior is maintained by material and social consequences, or their absence (Jeffery, 1965). This theory of crime is also well suited to assist with the present study of causality and prevention related to forensic fraud: it provides that the development criminal patterns by an individual are a reflection of their contact with those who accept, rationalize, and engage in criminal activity—including supervisors and workmates (Matsueda, 2006; Ruiz-Palomino and Martinez-Canas, 2011).

Related to DAT, General Strain Theory suggests that criminogenic propensity arises “from the failure of institutions, families and other structures to provide for the functional and affective needs of individuals” (Donegan and Danon, 2008; p. 4). This can result in personal feelings of alienation, which in turn can manifest as anti-social or even criminal behavior. In this paradigm, criminal behavior is viewed as an individual response to external sources of stress or strain (Akers, 2000; Colvin, Cullen, and Vander Ven, 2002).

Role Strain, as a part of General Strain Theory, posits that individuals experience difficulty when required to fulfill competing or contradictory role demands (Goode, 1960; Hecht, 2001; and Kennedy and Kennedy, 1972). Specifically, it provides that individual strain increases when “demands associated with one role interfere directly with one’s ability to satisfy the demands of another role” (Hecht, 2001; p. 112). In an employment context, employee role obligations are prescribed by institutional policy and supervisory instruction; however, these can be contradicted or even contravened by directives from multiple supervisors, work overload, and pressure from workmates to conform with adverse cultural norms (Pettigrew, 1968). Individuals experiencing role strain continually bargain with themselves regarding which of their competing role demands to satisfy, and tend to seek out options that reduce or alleviate the anxiety caused by strain (Goode, 1960).

The theory of Role Strain can be used “to illuminate the problem of structurally determined tension and conflict in organizations” (Pettigrew, 1968; p. 206). This includes role strain within a law enforcement context where cultural loyalty is highly valued, direct supervision is often inadequate or absent, and role demands continuously shift from one ambiguous situation to the next (Kennedy and Kennedy, 1972; Maahs and Pratt, 2001).

The same argument applies to a scientific community, where an examiner’s desire to maintain scientific integrity may be in conflict with professional and institutional pressures (Dorey, 2010; Martinson, Anderson and de Vries, 2005). For example, in a clinical or university setting, there may be pressure on scientists to continuously publish research in order to sustain employment, achieve advancement, or secure and maintain funding. Stressing quantity over quality can thin the actual science in some publications to unacceptable levels, or even encourage ghost/gift authorship. In forensic laboratories, the same kind of quantity over quality pressure can be applied to maintain increasing caseloads or reduce backlogs despite staff or budgetary shortfalls—which may cause some to cut corners, ignore protocols, and then to conceal what hasn’t been done. Additionally, in a forensic science context, there are numerous examples of law enforcement employers pressuring scientists to report findings that are in accordance with suspect theories, or of law enforcement-aligned scientists perceiving pressure to avoid the appearance of helping the defense.3

Applying these criminological theories as a lens to the present research, we will juxtapose scientific values and law enforcement culture to “illuminate” institutional responsibility (RAT), workmate pressure (DAT), and subsequent examiner role strain as they contribute to the problem of forensic fraud in the subsequent sections of this chapter.4

5.3 Beyond the Sociology of Crime?

One innovative theory that was developed during the late 1970s was the ‘routine activities’ theory (Cohen and Felson 1979). ‘Routine activities’ refer to the set patterns of behavior within the spatial environment of three kinds of social actors: (a) motivated offenders; (b) capable guardians of persons or property; and (c) suitable targets of criminal victimization (targets may be persons or places). The interconnection of these patterns may account for criminal activities. For instance, the growth of the service industry since the end of World War II has multiplied evening work shifts that keeps people away from home as guardians of their property, while increasing their accessibility as targets when they come back home at night. Routine activities theory include ‘guardians’ as a variable explaining the occurrence of crimes. Guardians, who may be public police or private security agents, are however as much a factor in explaining crime as they are in accounting for crime prevention. This is why routine activities theory may act as a bridge between the sociology of crime and the sociology of crime control and of the production of security. This bridge is problematic as it may serve to integrate both disciplines into a consistent whole or to dissolve any claim to consistency that either of them has made.

Crime Pattern Theory

Crime pattern theory is a rather complex amalgamation of rational choice theory and routine activity theory and a further introduction of sociocultural, economic, legal, and physical environmental cues. The premise is that crime does not occur randomly in time, place, or social group cohesiveness or a host of other aspects. Acknowledging the complexity of the theory, a response to prevent crime can come from no other area. Instead, a multidisciplinary approach must be taken in which responses must be tailored for the situation. One must consider the criminal opportunity, the individual offender, and his or her readiness and willingness to commit crime and the combination of the previous three aspects as they impact the sociocultural, economic, legal, and environmental cues. Granted, this is not an easy theory to deal with from a theoretical or a practical perspective. Some of the issues discussed here are certainly out of the reach of security practitioners, but knowing that a detailed examination of the environment is required, practitioners may be able to see things in a new light. Also knowing that decisions to conduct criminal activity may often be carried out for entirely different reasons than previously suspected gives the security professional a new possibility to consider.

Routine Activities Theory

Another theory that incorporates the principle that the commission of a crime is a rational choice is routine activities theory, originally formulated by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979. Routine activities theory postulates that crime is the product of a convergence of three types of variables: motivated offenders, suitable targets (i.e., potential crime victims), and capable guardians (i.e., individuals, including the police, witnesses, and even potential crime victims, who can act to prevent or foil a crime against person or property). In short, the risk of crime increases when you have in the same place at the same time a person or persons motivated to commit a crime along with a person or persons who are viable targets, but an absence of “guardians.” Cohen and Felson maintain that since World War II, people's routine activities (i.e., their daily work, school, or leisure activities) have increasingly taken them away from home and into the public sphere, thus increasing their chances of victimization.

Routine activities theory focuses primarily on victims rather than offenders, assuming simply that motivated offenders always exist. While such an assumption is likely true, it is nonetheless important to understand criminal motivation in order to explain criminal behavior. Routine activities theory also implies that the more a person stays at home, the lower that person's chances of becoming a crime victim. While this assumption has some common-sense appeal, it may be true only for males. Females are more likely to be victimized by people they know in their own homes than by strangers in public places.

Routine Activities Theory

Another theory that incorporates the principle that the commission of a crime is a rational choice is routine activities theory, originally formulated by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979. Routine activities theory postulates that crime is the product of a convergence of three types of variables: motivated offenders, suitable targets (i.e., potential crime victims), and capable guardians (i.e., individuals, including the police, witnessess, and even potential crime victims, who can act to prevent or foil a crime against person or property). In short, the risk of crime increases when you have in the same place at the same time a person or persons motivated to commit a crime along with a person or persons who are viable targets, but an absence of ‘guardians’. Cohen and Felson maintain that since World War II, people’s routine activities (i.e., their daily work, school, or leisure activities) have increasingly taken them away from home and into the public sphere, thus increasing their chances of victimization.

Routine activities theory focuses primarily on victims rather than offenders, assuming simply that motivated offenders always exist. While such an assumption is likely true, it is nonetheless important to understand criminal motivation in order to explain criminal behavior. Routine activities theory also implies that the more a person stays at home, the lower that person’s chances of becoming a crime victim. While this assumption has some common-sense appeal, it may be true only for males. Females are more likely to be victimized by people they know in their own homes than by strangers in public places.

Apartment Security and Crime Foreseeability

Evaluating the foreseeability of a criminal attack is extremely important in any premises liability case because the level of foreseeability dictates the standard of care applicable to the security measures which should be in place at a given property (Pastor, 2007, pp. 3–32). A landlord’s duty to protect tenants has evolved over time and can arise in several ways. First, local ordinances or regulations can impose specific legal obligations on landlords or define the duties of landlords to their tenants. In some jurisdictions, city ordinance requires landlords to provide certain security measures such as guards.

Second, the property owner can assume a duty to protect the victim of an assault based upon a special relationship arising out of law. Here, courts may apply general negligence standards to establish a duty deemed either inherent to the landlord-tenant relationship or resulting from factors weighted to special circumstances. As Glesner (1992, p. 689) puts it, the “landlord's control of the common premises or the landlord's voluntary assumption of a duty to provide security serves as the basis for the landlord’s duty.” “[W]hen the owner has control over the property in question,” according to Zinober (2015, p. 290), she or he “assumes a duty of reasonable care to the victim of the assault, commensurate with the legal status of the visitor.”

Forensic criminologists should familiarize themselves with the controlling case law in a jurisdiction so that they can plan and organize their research procedures for gathering evidence of crime foreseeability. For example, does the jurisdiction adhere to the prior similar acts test for the issue of foreseeability or does the jurisdiction follow the totality of circumstances test? If the jurisdiction follows the prior similar acts test, is it sufficient that there were prior crimes committed in the neighborhood or does the jurisdiction require evidence of prior crimes committed in the specific apartment building? For the prior similar acts test, a forensic criminologist may consider multiple crime-related sources—incident reports, calls for service, and police narrative reports—for the premises and nearby properties. A forensic criminologist can provide relevant, comparative data from the local, state, and national level, if needed and applicable to the case. If the case is in a jurisdiction that follows the totality of circumstances test, a forensic criminologist should consider prior similar acts and examine the location and land use of a property to assess the degree of foreseeability of crime at the given property. Overall, the forensic criminologist can organize her or his investigation to address three initial questions: (1) Is there evidence of prior crimes within the building or the surrounding neighborhood? (2) Is there evidence that the apartment is in a high crime neighborhood? and (3) Is there evidence that the condition of the premises attracts criminal activity?

Engagement with criminological theories can guide the collection and analysis of crime data. One key insight of routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979) is that a criminal event requires a convergence in space and time of a likely offender (someone motivated to commit crime), a suitable target (someone or something that the likely offender is attracted to offend against), and the absence of capable guardians (persons who are able and empowered to protect the target and deter offenders). Moreover, this convergence is not haphazard but is explicable in terms of the everyday activities that people engage in as they travel through the city. Residential burglary clusters in residences near major roads or shopping areas where few people are home during the day (Cromwell et al., 1991; Wiles and Costello, 2000). Assaults at residential land uses concentrate in the residential areas close to the commercial land uses. Environmental criminologists have long reported that offenders, as a general rule, do not venture very far from their home or relatively familiar areas in order to commit crimes. According to the principle of least effort (Zipf, 1949), offenders will prefer shorter trips over longer trips. Therefore, a particular area is more likely to experience crime if it is located nearby an offender’s home (Bernasco and Block, 2011, p. 36). So-called journey-to-crime research confirms this prediction (Snook, 2004). An offender’s familiarity with the territory and socio-spatial context facilitates both crime site targeting and avoidance of apprehension. As Kinney and colleagues (2008, pp. 63–64) elaborate:

For occasional offenders, crimes occur when tempting opportunities are discovered in the course of routine, legitimate daily activity. For persistent offenders, the search for criminal opportunities and the commission of crime can become a routine activity. In either case, the offender’s target search starts from some known location such as home, a friend’s home, a local pub or a shopping area … In both cases, the pattern of offending is located close to major activity nodes: home and a few major destination points.

These criminological insights have four important implications for the assessment of crime foreseeability. First, criminological research intimates that crime will concentrate where the routine movements of targets and offenders overlap. Second, criminologists suggest that the source of these movements can be legitimate activities unrelated to crime. Third, spatial and temporal variations in crime rates can be explained by examining fluctuations in the supply and movement of offenders, victims, and guardians as a function of their everyday routine activities (Sidebottom and Wortley, 2016, p. 162). Fourth, the degree of security or capable guardianship at various places and times at which targets and offenders intersect will explain, in part, the distribution or variation of crime.