Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- 32 Do People Know the Law? Empirical Evidence about Legal Knowledge and Its Implications for Compliance
- 33 Self-Control and Offending
- 34 Substance Abuse, Self-Control and Crime
- 35 The Opportunity Approach to Compliance
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
35 - The Opportunity Approach to Compliance
from Part V - Capacity and Opportunity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- 32 Do People Know the Law? Empirical Evidence about Legal Knowledge and Its Implications for Compliance
- 33 Self-Control and Offending
- 34 Substance Abuse, Self-Control and Crime
- 35 The Opportunity Approach to Compliance
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
Summary
Abstract: The opportunity approach to compliance focuses on understanding how rule-breaking behaviour takes place and then tries to reduce the factors that enable rule breaking. This chapter reviews two core criminological theories within the opportunity approach: routine activity theory and situational crime prevention. The chapter assesses empirical evidence as to whether policies based on these theories can reduce rule-violating behaviour. Moreover, it discusses the extent to which the opportunity approach can result in displacement and adaptation effects. And, finally, it explores potential downsides to the opportunity approach such as victim blaming and reductions in autonomy and freedom of choice.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 516 - 528Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Belknap, Joanne. 1987. ‘Routine Activity Theory and the Risk of Rape: Analyzing Ten Years of National Crime Survey Data’. Criminal Justice Policy Review 2 no. 4: 337–56.Google Scholar
Benson, Bruce, and Zimmerman, Paul R.. 2010. Handbook on the Economics of Crime. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Benson, Michael L., Madensen, Tamara D., and Eck, John E.. 2009. ‘White-Collar Crime from an Opportunity Perspective’. In The Criminology of White Collar Crime, edited by Simpson, Sally and Weisburd, David, 175–95. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakely, Edward J., and Snyder, Mary Gail. 1997. Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bossler, Adam M., and Holt, Thomas J.. 2009. ‘On-line Activities, Guardianship, and Malware Infection: An Examination of Routine Activities Theory’. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 3 no. 1: 400–20.Google Scholar
Breetzke, Gregory D., and Cohn, Ellen G.. 2013. ‘Burglary in Gated Communities: An Empirical Analysis Using Routine Activities Theory’. International Criminal Justice Review 23 no. 1: 56–74.Google Scholar
Clarke, Ronald V. 2005. ‘Seven Misconceptions of Situational Crime Prevention’. In Tilley, Nick (ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 39–70. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clarke, Ronald V., and Mayhew, Pat. 1998. ‘Preventing Crime in Parking Lots: What We Know and Need to Know’. In Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Planning. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute 34:205–10.Google Scholar
Clarke, Ronald V. G. 1980. ‘“Situational” Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice’. British Journal of Criminology 20 no. 2: 136–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Lawrence E., and Felson, Marcus. 1979. ‘Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach’. American Sociological Review 44 no. 4: 588–608.Google Scholar
Design Council. 2010. ‘Design Out Crime, Using Design to Reduce Injuries from Alcohol-Related Violence in Pubs and Clubs’. www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/design-out-crime-alcohol.pdf.Google Scholar
Ekblom, Paul. 1988. ‘Preventing Post Office Robberies in London: Effects and Side Effects’. Journal of Security Administration 11 no. 2: 36–43.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., and Welsh, B. C. (2002). ‘Improved Street Lighting and Crime Prevention’. Justice Quarterly 19(2): 313–42.Google Scholar
Feldman, Yuval. 2018. The Law of Good People: Challenging States’ Ability to Regulate Human Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Yuval, and Kaplan, Yotam. 2018. ‘Big Data & Bounded Ethicality’. Bar Ilan University Faculty of Law Research Paper (19–05).Google Scholar
Gibbs, Carole, Cassidy, Michael B., and Rivers, Louie III. 2013. ‘A Routine Activities Analysis of White‐Collar Crime in Carbon Markets’. Law & Policy 35 no. 4: 341–74.Google Scholar
Groff, Elizabeth R. 2007. ‘Simulation for Theory Testing and Experimentation: An Example Using Routine Activity Theory and Street Robbery’. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23 no. 2: 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerette, Rob T. and Bowers, Kate J.. 2009. ‘Assessing the Extent of Crime Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits: A Review of Situational Crime Prevention Evaluations’. Criminology 47 no. 4: 1331–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindelang, Michael J., Gottfredson, Michael R. and Garofalo, James. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Holt, Thomas J., and Bossler, Adam M.. 2008. ‘Examining the Applicability of Lifestyle-Routine Activities Theory for Cybercrime Victimization’. Deviant Behavior 30 no. 1: 1–25.Google Scholar
Kelly, Morgan. 2000. ‘Inequality and Crime’. Review of Economics and Statistics 82 no. 4: 530–9.Google Scholar
Levi, Michael, Bissell, Paul and Richardson, Tony. 1991. The Prevention of Cheque and Credit Card Fraud. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Mayhew, Pat, Clarke, Ronald V., and Elliott, David. 1989. ‘Motorcycle Theft, Helmet Legislation and Displacement’. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 28 no. 1: 1–8.Google Scholar
McNeeley, Susan. 2015. ‘Lifestyle-Routine Activities and Crime Events’. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31 no. 1: 30–52.Google Scholar
Mesch, Gustavo S. 2009. ‘Parental Mediation, Online Activities, and Cyberbullying’. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12 no. 4: 387–93.Google Scholar
Osgood, D. Wayne, Wilson, Janet K., O’Malley, Patrick M., Bachman, Jerald G., and Johnston, Lloyd D.. 1996. ‘Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior’. American Sociological Review: 635–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, Kate, and Farrington, David P.. 1997. ‘The Crime-Reducing Effect of Improved Street Lighting: The Dudley Project’. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies 2: 209–26.Google Scholar
Pease, Ken. 1991. ‘The Kirkholt Project: Preventing Burglary on a British Public Housing Estate’. Security Journal 2 no. 2: 73–7.Google Scholar
Pratt, Travis C., Holtfreter, Kristy and Reisig, Michael D.. 2010. ‘Routine Online Activity and Internet Fraud Targeting: Extending the Generality of Routine Activity Theory’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47 no. 3: 267–96.Google Scholar
Rocque, Michael, Saunoris, James W., and Marshall, Emily C.. 2019. ‘Revisiting the Relationship between the Economy and Crime: The Role of the Shadow Economy’. Justice Quarterly 36 no. 4: 620–55.Google Scholar
Scherdin, Mary Jane. 1986. ‘The Halo Effect: Psychological Deterrence of Electronic Security Systems’. Information Technology and Libraries 5 no. 3: 232–5.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W., Gartin, Patrick R. and Buerger, Michael E.. 1989. ‘Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place’. Criminology 27 no. 1: 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spano, Richard, and Freilich, Joshua D.. 2009. ‘An Assessment of the Empirical Validity and Conceptualization of Individual Level Multivariate Studies of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory Published from 1995 to 2005’. Journal of Criminal Justice 37 no. 3: 305–14.Google Scholar
Staats, Bradley R., Dai, Hengchen, Hofmann, David, and Milkman, Katherine L.. 2016. ‘Motivating Process Compliance through Individual Electronic Monitoring: An Empirical Examination of Hand Hygiene in Healthcare’. Management Science 63. 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2400.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E. 2006. The Great American Crime Decline. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by