An attempt to explain behaviour of rioters in London 2011

How could contemporary classicist thinking be used to explain the behaviour of the rioters? Your answer should identify at least one key thinker/author and use evidence to support your claims. In approx 250 words, your answer should briefly describe two key points in favour of adopting the approach and two potential shortcomings.

Behaviour of the rioters that took place in London, 2011, can be explained by using contemporary classicist thinking. Two main theories should me mentioned. Routine Activities Theory developed by Cohen & Felson in 1979, is focused on the situation in which offending takes place. This theory contains 3 key ideas that can effectively explain why the crime took place (causes of crime): 1. Suitable target (rioters found shops as ‘easy money’ target, with easy access to goods); 2. Absence of guardian (there wasn’t enough police to stop them, they didn’t act effectively); 3. Criminal inclinations – motivated offender (riots as a result of a hatred towards police, after death of Matt Doughan). 

Another theory is The Rational Choice Theory developed by Cornish & Clark in 1989, which have in its centre the idea of ‘expected utility’ – individuals’ actions based on maximising profits and minimising loses. This approach can be satisfactory used in explaining the behaviour of rioters as many of them have been motivated by easiness of burglary. Big number of rioters calculated profits which outweighed the costs – they didn’t have to put much effort in burglary process (easy access to shops) and thought that they will get away with it – not enough police present – which also implicates practical use of these theories in crime prevention.

To sum up, these are key points in favour of adopting this approach. But we need to remember that contemporary classicist thinking has its shortcoming as well. This theories present only 3 factors for committing the crime, while there is way more of them. They do not consider psychological aspects of offending as well as moral (not everybody would do it, because of their own, moral constrains). They also neglect the social aspects of committing a crime such as level of education or economic status.