Investigating the Distance to Crime for Offenders With Mental Illness: How Routine Is Routine?

• Author: Kelly Frailing,Thomas Zawisza
• Published date: 01 May 2019
• Date: 01 May 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219834818
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219834818

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2019, Vol. 35(2) 205 –220

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986219834818

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Investigating the Distance

to Crime for Offenders

With Mental Illness:

How Routine Is Routine?

Thomas Zawisza1 and Kelly Frailing2

Abstract

Research consistently demonstrates that offenders do not travel far to crime.

Although this finding has been observed across different types of offending and

offenders, one group rarely examined within this paradigm is offenders with mental

illness (OWMI). We calculated the distance to crime for a group of offenders with a

documented mental illness and compared that distance to those in other publications

for other samples. We found that our sample of OWMI traveled about the same

and in some cases shorter distances to crime than other offenders. Although this

study has limitations, we believe it nevertheless lends support to the environmental

criminology paradigm and provides important policy implications, as well as questions

for further research.

Keywords

distance to crime, mental illness, environmental criminology

Introduction

A reoccurring theme within criminological literature is that offenders do not travel far

to commit an offense. The distance to crime (DtC) literature (see Rossmo, 1999;

Townsley & Sidebottom, 2010) reveals the following: (a) offenses are often within one

to four miles of an offender’s home (Gabor & Gottheil, 1984; Phillips, 1980; Reppetto,

1Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX, USA

2Loyola University New Orleans, LA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kelly Frailing, Department of Criminology and Justice, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA

70118, USA.

Email: klfraili@loyno.edu

834818CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219834818Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeZawisza and Frailing

research-article2019

206 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35(2)

1974; Snook, 2004); (b) offenses regularly occur along paths that are traveled during

daily activities (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993b; Rengert & Wasilchick, 1985);

(c) distance traveled varies across a number of dimensions such as gender (Rengert,

1975), age (Drawve, Walker, & Felson, 2014), race (Nichols, 1980), and types of

crime (Cromwell, Olson, & D’Aunn, 1991; Fritzon, 2001; Warren et al., 1998); (d)

distance traveled varies within dimensions (i.e., arson for revenge versus arson for

enjoyment [Fritzon, 2001]); and (e) as the distance between offender residence and

crime location increases, the frequency of crime decreases (Koppen & Keijser, 1997;

Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999); this is known as distance decay.

To understand why crime trips are short, we turn to the environmental criminology

paradigm (see below). Environmental criminology “is a family of theories that share a

common interest in criminal events and the immediate circumstances in which they

occur” (Wortley & Mazerolle, 2011, p. 1). There are three core theories within this

paradigm, the first of which is rational choice (Cornish & Clarke, 2014). Rational

choice holds that offenders use cues from the social and physical environments and

commit an offense when they determine the benefits of that particular offense out-

weigh the costs. The second is routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), which

maintains that motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guard-

ianship must be present together in time and space for an offense to occur. The third is

crime pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993a), which holds that offend-

ing is more likely to occur in the activity and awareness spaces, the places people

travel to daily and the paths they use to get to and from those places, because offenders

are familiar with these spaces.

Taken together, the environmental criminology paradigm predicts the short trips to

crime observed in the literature. Rational choice theory asserts that the decision to

offend is calculated based on perceived costs and benefits; both familiarity with the

offending location and a short traveling distance may be perceived as benefits that

work to outweigh the costs of an offense. Routine activities theory asserts that people,

including offenders, predictably engage in the same activities in the same areas and

that offending occurs when the three elements converge in the same time and place.

Crime pattern theory asserts that offending is more likely to occur in activity and

awareness spaces that are well developed, and these are likely to be closer to, rather

than farther from, an offender’s residence, simply because of the time, effort, and

money involved in traveling a greater distance (Andresen, 2014).

Research consistently demonstrates that offenders do not travel far to crime.

Although this finding has been observed across different types of offending and

offenders, one group rarely examined within this paradigm is offenders with mental

illness (OWMI). We calculated the DtC for a group of offenders with a documented

mental illness and compared that distance to those in other publications for other

samples. We found that our sample of OWMI traveled about the same and in some

cases shorter distances to crime than other offenders. In our discussion, we argue

that our findings are consistent with the environmental criminology perspective, and

that despite specific limitations, our research has important implications for policy

and practice.