Crime prevention in terms of criminal intent criteria in white-collar crime: A propositional analysis

Abstract

Purpose

In the field of crime prevention there are several theoretical approaches explaining why crime occurs and how to prevent it. Three of them – routine activity theory, crime pattern theory and the theory of crime-as-choice – are logically tested in this work. The point of departure is to test if the theories are logical consistent and logical valid, irrespective of whether the criterion for criminal intent is changed from direct intention to negligence.

Design/methodology/approach

The issues will be explored in a logical structure by a first-order logic propositional analysis.

Findings

The analysis shows that all three theories are logical consistent, but only routine activity theory is logical valid. The conclusion is that crime prevention should in general assume that routine activity theory is the legitimate theory and that social prevention as a prevention strategy is logically unnecessary to adopt because it does not matter whether the offender is motivated (direct intention) or not (negligence).

Practical implications

It does not really matter if the authors theoretically treat white-collar offenders as motivated, because if they have committed an actus reus, they are an offender according to the objective requisites. This means that the best strategies to prevent a potential white-collar criminal are situational prevention, i.e. complicate their access to money, where it becomes irrelevant if the potential offender has a mens rea or not. What counts is the prevention of actus reus by a potential offender.

Originality/value

As far as I know, no one has previously investigated the logical consistency and/or logical validity of routine activity theory, crime pattern theory and the theory of crime-as-choice as theories of crime prevention.

Citation

Alalehto, T. (2018), "Crime prevention in terms of criminal intent criteria in white-collar crime: A propositional analysis", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 838-844. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2017-0051