Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 181–200

Offender as Forager? A Direct Test of the Boost Account of Victimization

Original Paper

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that burglary clusters in space and time, resulting in temporal changes in crime hotspot patterns. Offender foraging behavior would yield the observed pattern. The offender as forager hypothesis is tested by analyzing patterns in two types of acquisitive crime, burglary and theft from motor vehicle (TFMV). Using a technique developed to detect disease contagion confirms that both crime types cluster in space and time as predicted, but that the space–time clustering of burglary is generally independent of that for TFMV. Police detections indicate that crimes of the same type occurring closest to each other in space and time are those most likely to be cleared to the same offender(s), as predicted. The implications of the findings for crime forecasting and crime linkage are discussed.

Keywords

Acquisitive crime Crime hotspots Space–time clustering Foraging Detection 

References

  1. Ashton J, Brown I, Senior B, Pease K (1998) Repeat victimization: offender accounts. Int J Risk Sec Crime Prev 3(4):269–279Google Scholar
  2. Barr R, Pease K (1990) Crime placement, displacement and deflection. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 277–318Google Scholar
  3. Bernasco W (2008) Them again?: same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. Eur J Criminol 5:411–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besag J, Diggle P (1977) Simple Monte Carlo tests for spatial pattern. Appl Stat 26:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blau PM (1977) Inequality and heterogeneity, a primitive theory of social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Block CR, Dabdoub M, Fregly S (1995) Crime analysis through computer mapping. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD (2005) Domestic burglary repeats and space–time clusters: the dimensions of risk. Eur J Criminol 2:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Pease K (2004) Prospective hot-spotting: The future of crime mapping? Br J Criminol 44:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga A (2001) The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 578:104–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1993) Environment, routine, and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime. In: Clarke RV, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp 259–294Google Scholar
  11. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1995) Criminality of place: crime generators and crime attractors. Eur J Criminal Policy Res 3(3):5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Budd T (1999) Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office statistical bulletin, 4/99. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen L, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornish D, Clarke R (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Cromwell P, Olson JN (2006) The reasoning burglar: motives and decision-making strategies. In: Cromwell P (ed) In their own words. Roxbury, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  16. Cromwell P, Olson J, Avary D (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Ericsson U (1995) Straight from the horse’s mouth. Forensic Update 43:23–25Google Scholar
  18. Everson S, Pease K (2001) Crime against the same person and place: detection opportunity and offender targeting. In: Farrell G, Pease K (eds) Crime prevention studies 12. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 199–220Google Scholar
  19. Farrell G (2005) Progress and prospects in the prevention of repeat victimization. In: Tilley N (ed) Handbook of crime prevention and community safety. Willan, Cullompton, pp 145–172Google Scholar
  20. Goodwill AM, Alison LJ (2006) The development of a filter model for prioritising suspects in burglary offenses. Psychol Crime Law 12:395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grubesic TH, Mack EA (2008) Spatio-temporal interaction of urban crime. J Quant Criminol 24:285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawley AH (1950) Human ecology: a theory of community structure. Ronald, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodgkinson S, Tilley N (2007) Travel-to-crime: homing in on the victim. Int Rev Victimol 14(3):281–298Google Scholar
  24. Johnson SD (2008) Repeat burglary victimization: a tale of two theories. J Exp Criminol 184:215–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2004a) The burglary as clue to the future: the beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. Eur J Criminol 1:237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2004b) The stability of space–time clusters of burglary. Br J Criminol 44:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson SD, Bowers K, Hirschfield A (1997) New insights in the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimization. Br J Criminol 37:224–241Google Scholar
  28. Johnson SD, Bernasco W, Bowers KJ, Elffers H, Ratcliffe J, Rengert G, Townsley MT (2007) Near repeats: a cross national assessment of residential burglary. J Quant Criminol 23(3):201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ, Birks D, Pease K (2008) Predictive mapping of crime by ProMap: accuracy, units of analysis and the environmental backcloth. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in geographic criminology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kleemans ER (2001) Repeat burglary victimization: results of empirical research in the Netherlands. In: Farrell G, Pease K (eds) Crime prevention studies 12. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 53–68Google Scholar
  31. Knox G (1964) Epidemiology of childhood leukaemia in Northumberland and Durham. Br J Prev Soc Med 18:17–24Google Scholar
  32. Liu L, Eck J (2007) Artificial crime analysis systems: using computer simulations and geographic information systems. IGI Global, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  33. North BV, Curtis D, Sham PC (2002) A note on the calculation of empirical p values from Monte Carlo procedures. Am J Hum Genet 71:439–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pease K (1998) Repeat victimization: taking stock. Home Office Police Research Group, crime detection and prevention series, paper 90. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Piquero A (2000) Frequency, specialization and violence in offending careers. J Res Crime Del 37:392–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polvi N, Looman T, Humphries C, Pease K (1991) The time course of repeat burglary victimization. Br J Criminol 31:411–414Google Scholar
  37. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ratcliffe JH (2002) Aoristic signatures and the temporal analysis of high volume crime patterns. J Quant Criminol 18:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ratcliffe JH (2003) Suburb boundaries and residential burglars. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice 246. Australian Institute of Criminology, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  40. Ratcliffe JH (2004) The hotspot matrix: a framework for the spatio-temporal targeting of crime reduction. Pol Prac Res 5:5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ratcliffe JH (2006) A temporal constraint theory to explain opportunity-based spatial offending patterns. J Res Crime Del 43(3):261–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rengert G, Wasilchick J (2000) Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs. Charles Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  43. Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  44. Shaw C, McKay H (1969) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaw M, Pease K (2000) Research on repeat victimization in Scotland: final report. The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Edinburgh Google Scholar
  46. Sherman L, Weisburd D (1995) General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “Hot Spots”: a randomized, controlled trial. Justice Q 12:625–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sherman L, Gartin P, Buerger M (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Townsley M, Homel R, Chaseling J (2003) Infectious burglaries: a test of the near repeat hypothesis. Br J Criminol 43:615–633Google Scholar
  49. Tseloni A, Pease K (2003) Repeat personal victimization: boosts or flags. Br J Criminol 43:196–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vaupel JW, Yashin AI (1985) Heterogeneity’s ruses: some surprising effects on selection on population dynamics. Am Stat 39(3):176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the City of Seattle. Criminology 42(2):283–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiles P, Costello A (2000) The road to nowhere: the evidence for travelling criminals. Home Office Research Study 207. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Wright RT, Decker S (1994) Burglars on the Job: streetlife and residential break-ins. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations