Routine Activities Theory contends that crime is opportunistic and dynamic in nature. (Cohen et al, 1979). It suggests that crime is more likely to occur, though not inevitable, when the three conditions are satisfied: (1) the presence of a motivated offender, (2) the presence of a suitable target, and (3) the absence of capable guardians (Felson, & Boba,2010). Once an offender is sufficiently motivated, they must find/encounter a suitable target. Suitable targets typically exhibit four qualities that structure an offender’s choice in selecting it: (1) value, (2) inertia, (3) visibility, and (4) access (Felson et al, 2010).
Different types of offenders see value (or desirability) from different perspectives, which can be elucidated upon by using an archetypical crime example contrasted in each case with its conservation crime equivalent. Joy riders and carjackers, for instance, target cars that have a high symbolic value like Lamborghinis, whereas professional thieves go after vehicles that are easily converted to cash. By the same token in wildlife crime, bush meat poachers will target species that provide suitable sustenance while the more professional or organized crime syndicate poachers will target animals with a high value parts and a ready market like the Charismatic 5 Value is, therefore, dependent upon the person assessing the object and does not depend on the actual economic worth of that object Inertia refers to the target’s weight or size and how easily product can be carried away or disposed of. Animals poached for bush meat are easily and quickly dissected and disposed of while but horns and tusks are not so easily moved or disposed of as they require to be exported from the source market to illegal international wildlife trade market located in another nation. Visibility is the degree to which the target can be seen and clearly identified and/or whether or not the offender knows that the target is there. Quite obviously, a car is easily spotted while parked at the curb or at a parking facility, or while slowly cruising through an area. Wildlife can also be easily located because of habitats that have been designated for them such as game parks. Accessibility relates to an offender having access to the target, and if they can retreat or escape. Because the overwhelming majority of vehicles are stolen from an outdoor location, they can be easily accessed. Wildlife are also found in outside locations that can also be accessed in their designated natural habitat, which provides good cover for poaching and escape
100
The last segment of Routine Activities Theory is the absence of capable guardians. A capable guardian is anyone who can serve as a reminder that someone is watching who may be able to identify the offender, like a game warden or compliance seeking officials in the case of wildlife crime and the natural and man-made barriers in the conservation areas.
The Routine Activities Theory, it is submitted, may well provide a suitable and unique theoretical framework for examining poaching on conservation areas. Kenya’s game parks are located in close proximity to human populations, often with high unemployment and crime rates providing a pool of motivated offenders.
Deterrence Theory:
In considering lack of harsher laws in this framework, it is important to understand this must be studied under three aspects, namely certainty of arrest, sentencing and severity of punishment. According to Wright (2010) deterrence theory provides, people are most likely to be dissuaded from committing a crime if the punishment is certain, severe and swift.
According Eassey and Boman; (2015), Deterrence theory's central hypotheses are that crime can be prevented when punishment is certain, severe, and quick. Whether explicitly or implicitly, deterrence-centric philosophy serves as the foundation for many criminal justice systems. (Eassey et al; 2015) Within the criminal justice system, incapacitation is the response used when a person has committed a crime. By incapacitating the convicted offender, we prevent the individual from committing future crimes because he is removed from society and locked up or restrained somehow. (Eassey et al; 2015). Sentencing systems and incarceration traditionally have a variety of goals, which include incapacitation, punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. In recent decades, sentencing policy initiatives have often been enacted with the goal of enhancing the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system. (Wright; 2010).
Deterrence theory does have its limitation like the means of understanding deterrence is more limited than often assumed as can be seen when considering the dynamics of the criminal justice system. (Wright; 2010). A weak, corrupt or poorly managed CJS will ineffective. Therefore just enacting harsher laws for wildlife crime may not serve any purpose if would be offenders do not believe that there is any likely hood of their being arrested and prosecuted and even if that happens they can corrupt their way out and not receive a harsh sentence but a light slap on the wrist punishment in form of a small fine.
101
Secondly in order for this theory to be effective on sanctions to deter wildlife crime, potential offenders must be aware of the sanctions or the law, risks or high likely hood of being arrested and consequences before they commit an offense or severity of punishment that they will endure for committing wildlife crime. (Wright; 2010)
Economists often come to different conclusions than criminologists on the value of harsher sentences in reducing crime. (Wright; 2010) While criminologists tend to regard various legal threats as the result of a complex and unpredictable process, economists approach the issue along the lines of a rational choice perspective that considers the risk and benefits of engaging in crime; sanctions merely represent the expected price of engaging in criminal behavior.(Wright; 2010).
Conclusion for Theoretical Framework:
The theoretical modelling framework presented in this research is a mixed approach theoretical framework where several theories are combined for examination on how they relate this study. This study theoretical framework was initially based on the view that crime against wildlife is a type of economic activity that can be modelled using standard economic tools. The model, however, does not focus primarily on the relationship between crime on wildlife and punishment, but instead on the links between wildlife crime and the determinants of such crimes. The Routine Activities Theory on the other hand explains the process and environment an offender of wildlife crime will proceed on but it does not explain the lack of law enforcement by capable guardian and punishment as a deterrent. The deterrence theory is the one which looks at compliance and enforcement or lack of it by providing that crime can be prevented where the punishment is certain severe and quick. This can be better explained in form of a diagram referred to as the theoretical framework structure
Mixed Theoretical Framework
1) The Economic Approach shows economic gain against assessed risk or the who and why 2) The Routine Activities Theory explains the process of criminality or the who, how and where 3) The Deterrence theory explains the compliance and enforcement as a deterrence or the who
and the what if.
4) The mixed approach of this research study combines all the theories presented in this theoretical framework and their models and examines them jointly with a view of considering and analyzing the who, why, how, where and what if of this approach .
102
Fig 2.2: Mixed Theoretical Framework structure
The theoretical modelling framework presented in this study also seeks to establish the links between the escalation of wildlife crime and the determinants of such crimes which are the challenges this research study seeks to empirically determine. Therefore when considering the research problem represented within the theoretical frame work of this research study, it is possible that enhancing the severity of punishment within the penal section of the WCMA (2013) had little impact and could not deter motivated offenders as the assessed risk was still much below the economic or monetary gain hence the up surge in wildlife crime. The offenders may not believe they will not be apprehended nor punished for committing the offences under the Act.
There are several theoretical approaches that have been considered in this study and therefore a mixed approach may be the best to explain whether it is the severity of the law that deters offenders, or it is the likelihood of getting caught and punished that would deter the offender after due calculation of the risk, based on the theories considered in this research study’s theoretical framework Therefore which theoretical approach should this study adopt as the presumed severity of the law may not deter criminals.Can Becker’s (1968) deterrence framework be used to calculate the deterrent effects of enforcement by viewing penalties as prices for violations? After all it is the enforcement process which puts the flesh on the bones of any regulatory system (Abbot 2009). This research will assess the extent of lack of enforcement against the severity of the penal section of the WMCA (2013) to determine whether it is the severity of the law that deters offenders or the likely hood of getting caught and punished through determining the effectiveness of the WCMA (2013) and its penal sections in the research tool or questionnaire. This way, through empirical scientific research, this study will be able to determine which theory best explains the phenomenon this research is out to resolve. This research study’s theoretical framework model will be drawn at the conclusion of this research.
Mixed Approach To detemine prioblem Econmic Approach to Crime Theory / The who and why Routine Activities Theory// The who how and where Deterrence theory/ who and what if
103 Summary
The relationship between the independent and dependent variables has been discussed in depth in this chapter. An analysis of how the dependent variable (combating wildlife crime in Kenya) is affected by the independent variables was sought. It is evident that combating wildlife crime in Kenya is affected by the nature of actors; nature of wildlife legislation; illegal wildlife trade chain; poaching patterns; corruption; and illegal global consumer markets. From the foregoing literature review including the assessment of the theories under this topic in form of a theoretical frame work, it is evident that a gap in knowledge exists on the subject under research in this research study. There is need to urgently evaluate how the Kenyan government is combating wildlife crime and whether corruption is an impediment in this process within the CJS. No study per se has been undertaken on the challenges of combating wildlife crime in Kenya. This study will be the first to seek to investigate the challenges of combating wildlife crime in Kenya.
104