Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 215–240 | Cite as

Repeat burglary victimisation: a tale of two theories

Article

Abstract

Research consistently demonstrates that crime is spatially concentrated. Considering repeat burglary, studies conducted across a variety of countries and for different periods of time demonstrate that events also cluster in time. Two theories have been proposed to explain patterns of repeat victimisation. The first suggests that repeat victimisation is the consequence of a contagion-like process. If a home has been burgled on one occasion, the risk to the home is boosted, most likely because offenders will return to exploit good opportunities further (e.g. to steal replaced items or those left behind). In contrast, the second suggests that repeat victimisation may be explained by time-stable variation in risk across homes and a chance process. Different offenders independently target attractive locations for which risk is flagged. Understanding the contribution of the two explanations is important for both criminological understanding and crime reduction. Hitherto, research concerned with repeat victimisation has adopted a top-down methodology, analysing either victimisation or offender data. In this paper, results are reported for a simple micro-simulation experiment used to examine patterns of victimisation under conditions where the contributions of both theoretical mechanisms are varied. The findings suggest that increasing the heterogeneity of target attractiveness can generate spatial concentrations of crime not dissimilar to those discussed above, but that a contagion-like process is (also) required to generate the time course of repeat victimisation. The implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

Burglary Computer simulation Power-law Repeat victimisation Theory testing 

References

  1. Ashton, J., Brown, I., Senior, B., & Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimisation: offender accounts. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention, 3(4), 269–279.Google Scholar
  2. Bernasco, W. (2008). Them again? Same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. European Journal of Criminology (in press).Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S., & Pease, K. (2005). Victimisation and re-victimisation risk, housing type and area: a study of interactions. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 7, 7–17.Google Scholar
  4. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2004). Computer simulation as a tool for environmental criminologists. Security Journal, 17(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budd, T. (1999). Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British crime survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 4(99). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  6. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Ericsson, U. (1995). Straight from the Horse’s mouth. Forensic Update, 43, 23–25.Google Scholar
  8. Everson, S., & Pease, K. (2001). Crime against the same person and place: detection opportunity and offender targeting. In G. Farrell, & K. Pease (Eds.), Crime prevention studies 12. Monsey: CRC press.Google Scholar
  9. Farrell, G. (1995). Preventing in repeat victimization. In M. Tonry, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: strategic approaches to crime prevention, crime and justice. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Farrell, G., Phillips, C., & Pease, K. (1995). Like taking candy from a baby: why does repeat victimization occur? British Journal of Criminology, 35, 384–399.Google Scholar
  11. Fienberg, S. E. (1980). Statistical modeling of repeat victimization. In S. E. Fienberg, & A. J. Reiss (Eds.), Indicators of crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. G. (2003). Simulation for the social scientist. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, M. L., Morris, S. A., & Yen, G. G. (2004). Problems with fitting to the power-law distribution. The European Physical Journal B, 41, 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groff, L. (2007). Simulation for theory testing and experimentation: an example using routine activity theory and street robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirschfield, A. F. G., & Bowers, K. J. (1998). The geography of crime and disadvantage: an English case study. Japanese Journal of Crime and Delinquency (Hanzai to Hiko), 3, 77–106.Google Scholar
  16. Hockley, W. E. (1992). Item versus associative information - further comparisons of forgetting rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 1321–1330.Google Scholar
  17. Huberman, B. A., & Glance, N. (1993). Evolutionary games and computer simulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90, 7716–7718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, S. D., Bowers, K. J., & Hirschfield, A. F. G. (1997). New insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 37(2), 224–241.Google Scholar
  19. Kleemans, E. R. (2001). Repeat burglary victimization: results of empirical research in the Netherlands. In G. Farrell, & K. Pease (Eds.), Crime prevention studies 12. Monsey: CRC press.Google Scholar
  20. Lauritsen, J. L., & Davis-Quinet, K. F. (1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu, L., Wang, X., Eck, J., & Liang, J. (2005). Simulating crime events and crime patterns in a RA/CA model. In F. Wang (Ed.), Geographic information systems and crime analysis. Reading, PA: Idea Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1991). On the relationship of past and to future participation in delinquency. Criminology, 29, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (2000). Population heterogeneity and state dependence: specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(2), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, J. (1980). Multiple victimisation in American cities: a statistical analysis of rare events. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 870–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, M. E. J. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s Law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. North, B. V., Curtis, D., & Sham, P. C. (2002). A note on the calculation of empirical P values from Monte Carlo Procedures. American Journal of Human Genetics, 71(2), 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nowak, M. A., & May, R. (1992). Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature, 359, 826–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osborn, D. R., & Tseloni, A. (1998). The distribution of property crimes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: taking stock. The Home Office: Police Research Group: Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 90.Google Scholar
  30. Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), 411–414.Google Scholar
  31. Ratcliffe, J., & McCullagh, M. (1998). Identifying repeat victimisation with GIS. British Journal of Criminology, 38(4), 651–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiss, A. J. (1980). Victimization in American cities: a statistical analysis of rare events. In S. E. Fienberg, & A. J. Reiss (Eds.), Indicators of crime and criminal justice: quantitative studies. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  33. Rengert, G., Piquero, A., & Jones, P. (1999). Distance decay reexamined. Criminology, 37(2), 601–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (2000). Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.Google Scholar
  35. Repetto, T. A. (1974). Residential crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  36. Rossmo, D. K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sagovsky, A., & Johnson, S. D. (2007). When does repeat burglary victimisation occur? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sherman, L., Gartin, P., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 13, 238–241.Google Scholar
  41. Smit, P. R., Meijer, R. F., & Groen, P. J. (2004). Detection rates, an international comparison. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Snook, B. (2004). Individual differences in distance traveled by serial burglars. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sparks, R. (1981). Multiple victimisation: evidence, theory and future research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 762–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spelman, W. (1995). Once bitten, then what? British Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 366–383.Google Scholar
  45. Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. The Psychological Review, 64(3), 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2000). Repeat burglary victimisation: spatial and temporal patterns. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
  47. Trickett, A., Osborn, D., Seymour, J., & Pease, K. (1992). What is different about high crime areas? British Journal of Criminology, 32(1), 81–89.Google Scholar
  48. Tseloni, A. (2006). Multilevel modeling of the numbers of property crimes: household and area effects. Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 169(2), 205–233.Google Scholar
  49. Tseloni, A., & Pease, K. (2003). Repeat personal victimisation: ‘Boosts’ or ‘Flags’. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 196–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tseloni, A., & Pease, K. (2004). Repeat personal victimisation: random effects, event dependence and unexplained heterogeneity. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 931–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vaupel, J. W., & Yashin, A. I. (1985). Heterogeneity’s Ruses: some surprising effects on selection on population dynamics. The American Statistician, 39(3), 176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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), 283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiesel, D. L., Clarke, R. V., & Stedman, J. R. (2002). Hot Dots in Hot Spots: Examining Repeat Victimization for Residential Burglary in Three Cities, Final Report to the U.S. Department of Justice. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nijgrants/193808.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2007.
  54. Wittebrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimization during one’s life course: the effects of previous victimization and patterns of routine activities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(1), 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations