Crime, including violent crime, is a statistically rare phenomenon, when compared to other activities, such as driving, shopping, and going out to eat/drink etc. Even in high crime areas, acts of offending are low in comparison to other routine activities – they are just more likely to occur in these locales than in lower crime areas. This is not to diminish the impact of crime, especially violent crime, on those who are victimized, or to suggest that there is little or no need to take steps to avoid victimization but rather for us to understand that crime for most of us is a statistically unlikely occurrence. When studying local crime reports, arrest logs, and statistics it soon becomes apparent that the majority of crimes are committed by a few people, in a relatively small number of locations etc. One of the reasons that crime hotspots develop is not simply because of the geography, but because the same offenders return to these locations time and again due to the success they have enjoyed in them e.g., the street robber who has gotten good pickings – without getting caught - every time they have committed muggings on a particular street corner is likely to continue offending there; possibly targeting the same victim, who needs to pass that corner in order to get to the place where they work. It may not be that the mugger deliberately and specifically returns to this location to look for victims but rather that this street corner is one they frequently pass on the journey from their home to a pub/bar that they frequently drink at, and they take the opportunity to commit robberies when they find themselves there at the same time as somebody who qualifies as a “suitable” victim. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that every time such an intersection occurs that they will commit an offense, as sometimes they may not be motivated to do so.

For an offense to occur the offender has to be motivated in that moment, and there are times when they may not be. Committing street robberies involves risks, and the mugger knows that it is not possible to mitigate all of these e.g., there is always a chance that a police foot or car patrol passes them whilst they are engaged in a robbery, they may be in a hurry to meet someone, and/or be so financially flush that they can’t be bothered to expend the effort required etc. Most muggers are not perpetually on the active lookout for potential targets, just as most car thieves aren’t trying the doors of every car they pass. Both won’t look a gift horse in the mouth e.g., a mugger sees a person getting out of a taxi, displaying a lot of cash as they pay their driver, or the car thief passes an unoccupied car, with the keys in the ignition and nobody else around (the absence of a possible guardian), however there will be easy opportunities they pass up, because of a lack of motivation in the moment. Many people who engage in poor safety protocols get away with it, not because they are particularly street smart or savvy - though this is often what they tell themselves - but rather that they as the “suitable” victim have been fortunate enough never to have crossed path with an offender who was motivated at that time – until they do, their poor safety protocols won’t be punished. Motivation doesn’t have to involve any level of premeditation, such as in the case of the mugger or the car thief, who look to take advantage of or orchestrate offending opportunities. Normally non-violent individuals may be motivated to act aggressively and engage in threatening behavior if they feel/believe an injustice has been committed against them, such as having someone take a parking space they’d been patiently waiting for, or having someone bump into them and spill their drink over them etc. In such instances, people who have never been motivated to act violently might find that they are.

Just because somebody is motivated to act violently towards someone and believes that they would a) get away with it, and b) would be physically successful in doing so, they may still choose not to because there is a “handler” present. A handler is somebody who can exert social control over the motivated offender, and in doing so prevent a crime/act of violence occurring. A handler is not the same as a “capable guardian”, they are somebody that the motivated offender is socially influenced by such as a parent, in the case of youth offending e.g., a teenager may be motivated to engage in an act of vandalism but won’t do so because one of their parents is with them at the time they see a “suitable” victim, such as a blank wall that they feel compelled to graffiti over etc. Before they can commit this offense, they must first slip and evade their handler, such as pretending to be in their room at home later that day, whilst returning to spray paint the wall etc. If you have ever seen YouTube clips of neighbors shouting and arguing with each other in the street, there is often one or both partners telling them to exit the dispute because the other party, “isn’t worth it” etc. In such incident the partner telling the other to disengage is acting as a “handler”.  

Just because an offender has committed a crime before, it doesn’t mean that they will do so again when presented with the exact same opportunity. If in that moment they are not motivated, no offense will be committed e.g., a street robber flush with cash, and with a partner they want to impress may not be motivated to do so, and even if they are they may not want their “handler” to know that they engage in such behaviors. It is not that the person they are looking to victimize isn’t a suitable target to them, but rather that this moment is not the right one.