The Demand and Supply of Criminal Opportunities

Criminal opportunity theory provides a framework for examining the interaction between potential offenders and potential victims. Criminals' behavior influences the nature and amount of self-protective measures taken by potential victims, and changes in self-protection make criminal opportunities more or less attractive. Criminal opportunity theory has precursors in criminological theory, preeminently in the work of Cloward and Ohlin, but in these theories opportunities are mediated through social learning. Criminal opportunity theory employs the economic theory of markets to describe and predict how criminals and victims interact. Evidence is available that potential victims take more self-protection measures when the perceived risk of victimization is greater and that prospective criminals are likelier to attack relatively more vulnerable targets. Little research is available on whether increases in self-protection reduce the total volume of crime or merely displace crime to more vulnerable targets; the extent of displacement probably differs among offenses. The market perspective has several benefits to the investigation of interaction between potential victims and offenders: it assembles different topics encompassed by criminal opportunity theory into a coherent whole, it is expressed in a form that facilitates borrowing from economic theory, and it generates new and important insights for policy evaluation and criminological theory. One central insight is that law enforcement strategies may alter the quality of opportunities and thereby precipitate additional crime. Effective incapacitation or rehabilitation policies, for example, may reduce the number of offenders in circulation and thereby reduce the perceived risk of victimization. This may cause individuals to reduce their self-protection efforts, making them more attractive targets than before and thereby stimulating increased crime rates on the part of those criminals who remain active.

[1]  P. Mayhew,et al.  The British crime survey: First report , 1983 .

[2]  P. Ennis Criminal victimization in the United States : a report of a national survey , 1967 .

[3]  Timothy H. Hannan Bank Robberies and Bank Security Precautions , 1982, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[4]  O. Newman,et al.  Defensible Space; Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. , 1973 .

[5]  William M. Landes,et al.  An Economic Study of U. S. Aircraft Hijacking, 1961-1976 , 1978, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[6]  S. Balkin Victimization Rates, Safety and Fear of Crime , 1979 .

[7]  Thomas A. Reppetto Crime Prevention and the Displacement Phenomenon , 1976 .

[8]  Charles T. Clotfelter,et al.  Private security and the public safety , 1978 .

[9]  William J. Bowers,et al.  The Bartley-Fox Gun Law's Short-Term Impact on Crime in Boston , 1981 .

[10]  Marvin E. Wolfgang,et al.  Patterns in Criminal Homicide , 1958 .

[11]  Kenneth C. Land,et al.  Property Crime Rates in the United States: A Macrodynamic Analysis, 1947-1977; With Ex Ante Forecasts for the Mid-1980s , 1980, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  I. Ehrlich,et al.  Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection , 1972, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  P. Cook Research in Criminal Deterrence: Laying the Groundwork for the Second Decade , 1980, Crime and Justice.

[14]  W. Landes,et al.  An Economic Study of U.S. Aircraft Hijacking, 1960-1976 , 1977 .

[15]  Philip J. Cook,et al.  Punishment and Crime: A Critique of Current Findings Concerning the Preventive Effects of Punishment , 1977 .

[16]  Jan M. Chaiken,et al.  The Impact of Police Activity on Subway Crime , 1974 .

[17]  Jeffrey I. Chapman An Economic Model of Crime and Police: Some Empirical Results , 1976 .

[18]  C. Ray Jeffery Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design , 1971 .

[19]  J. Kakalik,et al.  The private police: Security and danger , 1977 .

[20]  Wesley G. Skogan,et al.  Coping With Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions , 1981 .

[21]  James R. Kluegel,et al.  Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of a Formal Theory , 1981 .

[22]  Charles T. Clotfelter,et al.  Urban Crime and Household Protective Measures , 1977 .

[23]  Lawrence E. Cohen,et al.  Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach , 1979 .

[24]  A. Neher,et al.  The Pure Theory of Muggery , 1978 .

[25]  Lifestyles and Victimization: an Update , 1986 .

[26]  David J. Bordua Delinquent Subcultures: Sociological Interpretations of Gang Delinquency , 1961 .

[27]  Isaac Ehrlich,et al.  On the Usefulness of Controlling Individuals: An Economic Analysis of Rehabilitation, Incapacitation and Deterrence , 1981 .

[28]  Ann P. Bartel An Analysis of Firm Demand for Protection against Crime , 1975, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[29]  Isaac Ehrlich,et al.  Participation in Illegitimate Activities: An Economic Analysis , 1974 .

[30]  Richard F. Sparks,et al.  Multiple Victimization: Evidence, Theory, and Future Research , 1981 .

[31]  D. Katz,et al.  American Statistical Association , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[32]  S. Kobrin : Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs , 1961 .

[33]  Michael R. Gottfredson On the Etiology of Criminal Victimization , 1981 .

[34]  Citizen Demand for Exposure to Street Crime , 1983 .

[35]  Jacqueline Cohen,et al.  Incapacitation as a Strategy for Crime Control: Possibilities and Pitfalls , 1983, Crime and Justice.

[36]  J. E. Conklin,et al.  Robbery and the criminal justice system , 1972 .

[37]  Philip J. Cook,et al.  State Programs for Screening Handgun Buyers , 1981 .

[38]  Michael R. Gottfredson,et al.  Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization , 1977 .

[39]  R. Clarke Situational Crime Prevention: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Scope , 1983 .