#227: Normalisation of Deviance, Gambler’s Fallacy of Crime & Routine Activity Approach
3 Ideas in 2 Minutes on Crime & Probability
I. Normalisation of Deviance
Normalisation of Deviance happens when behaviours once seen as risky or deviant gradually become accepted as normal. I recently learned about this in the context of aviation disasters. Picture a private pilot who slowly becomes comfortable bending safety rules.
At first, the pilot strictly avoids alcohol before flying. One day after lunch, he has half a beer several hours before takeoff and notices no apparent effect. The flight goes fine. But over time, this becomes a habit. One beer. Maybe two. Always justified by, “I’ve done it before and nothing happened.” Eventually, this behaviour feels “normal” and harmless, even though it violates regulations and erodes safety margins.
Repeated success while breaking a rule made the unsafe behaviour feel acceptable. Until one day, the underlying risk suddenly manifests in the form of fast-approaching terrain.
II. Gambler’s Fallacy of Crime
I’ve flipped a coin two times in a row and it was all heads. There must be a high chance that tails comes next.
This thinking illustrates the Gambler’s Fallacy, the mistaken belief that past outcomes influence future independent events. In reality, each coin toss is a separate event. The probability of heads or tails remains the same every time, regardless of what happened before. This supposed “balance” of random sequences only exists in our heads.
It also applies to criminals in the shape of the Gambler’s Fallacy of Crime:
I got caught the last two times. So unless I’m extremely unlucky I should get away with being a drunken pilot without a licence this time around.
Nah, mate, each event is independent. Just because you got caught before doesn’t make it any less likely this time. Luck doesn’t even out. Past outcomes do not change future probabilities.
III. Routine Activity Approach
The Routine Activity Approach is a theory in criminology developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979.
It explains criminal events not by offenders’ personal traits or social background. But by the circumstances that make crime possible: Crime occurs when three elements come together: a motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian. Without any one of these elements, a crime is unlikely to take place.
Imagine a busy public park where visitors regularly park their cars along poorly lit streets or in unattended lots. A motivated offender passing through the area as part of their own daily routine — perhaps walking home or hanging around nearby — may notice an unlocked or unattended vehicle. If there is no capable guardian present, this everyday convergence of activities can result in car theft.
So crime isn’t just about “bad people”. It’s also about everyday situations we all create. That also means that small changes in our routines or awareness can reduce our chances of becoming a victim. 🐘
Have a great week,
Chris
themindcollection.com