Exploring the practices of steal-to-order burglars: a different brand of offender?

Abstract

This research helps shed light on the largely overlooked practices amongst steal-to-order offenders, with a view to identifying ways in which steal-to-order offences may be disrupted through targeted intervention. Interviews were conducted with a sample of incarcerated burglars who have previously engaged in steal-to-order offences. In addition to highlighting a number of parallels between steal-to-order and non-steal-to-order offences, this paper illustrates the nature of professionalism exhibited by offenders during steal-to-order offences. Moreover, this paper reveals a behavioural continuum amongst offenders engaging in steal-to-order offences: those who steal-to-offer, those who steal-to-order more general items, and those who steal-to-order more specialist goods. The paper also highlights the potential lack of flexibility experienced by steal-to-order offenders, and the implications of this in challenging criminological theory of offender decision making. The paper concludes by discussing how steps at both a residential and organisational level may be taken to effectively disrupt the practices of offenders during steal-to-order offences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Based on 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales (Shaw et al. 2015).

  2. 2.

    The ‘Market Reduction Approach’ is a multi-disciplinary approach which seeks to reduce levels of acquisitive offending through the disruption of stolen goods markets (Sutton et al. 2001).

  3. 3.

    Offenders in the broader sample had an average age of 34 years, compared with an average age of 36 years in the current sub-sample, and held an average of 17 convictions for an estimated average of 73 burglary offences, compared with an average of 18 convictions, for an estimated average of 111 burglary offences.

  4. 4.

    At the time of an individual’s arrest, they may be asked by the police to confess to any other similar offences, on the understanding that it will not be possible to prosecute the individual separately for these offences, but that they shall instead be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing for the original offence. Though it may be the case that a court will increase a sentence as a result of these TICs, this will usually be less severe than if they had been prosecuted separately for these offences (Sentencing Council 2011).

  5. 5.

    Network sales relates to friends or contacts of an offender who they would draw on to either buy the stolen goods for their own use (or to sell on themselves), or who would pass knowledge of the item’s availability to their own contacts, until a buyer was found (Sutton 2008).

  6. 6.

    Such offences are termed ‘Hanoi’ burglaries after ‘Operation Hanoi’, a West Yorkshire Police operation which was the first UK police operation targeting this particular type of offence (The Yorkshire Post 2009).

  7. 7.

    Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology is used by law enforcement agencies across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland to help detect, disrupt, and deter criminal behaviour across national, regional, and local levels (www.police.uk 2018).

References

  1. Altheide, D.L., and C.J. Schneider. 2013. Qualitative Media Analysis, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Armitage, R. 2006. Predicting and Preventing: Developing a Risk Assessment Mechanism for Residential Housing. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 8 (3): 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AskMID.com. 2018. Welcome to the askMID website. Motor Insurance Database, http://www.askmid.com/. Accessed July 2018.

  4. Bennett, T., and R. Wright. 1984. Burglars on Burglary. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bernasco, W. 2008. Them Again? Same-Offender Involvement in Repeat and Near Repeat Burglaries. European Journal of Criminology 5 (4): 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1993. Nodes, Paths and Edges: Considerations on the Complexity of Crime and the Physical Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1): 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clare, J. 2011. Examination of Systematic Variations in Burglars’ Domain-Specific Perceptual and Procedural Skills. Psychology Crime & Law 17 (3): 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, R.V. 1999. Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods. Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Police Research Series Paper 112. London: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office.

  9. Clarke, R.V., and D.B. Cornish. 1985. Modeling Offenders’ Decisions: A Framework for Research and Policy. Crime and Justice 6: 147–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, L.E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cromwell, P.F., and J.N. Olson. 2005. The Reasoning Burglar: Motives and Decision-Making Strategies. In In Their Own Words: Criminals on Crime (An Anthology), 4th ed, ed. P. Cromwell, 42–56. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cromwell, P.F., J.N. Olson, and D.W. Avary. 1991a. Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary. Studies in Crime, Law and Justice Volume 8. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications.

  13. Cromwell, P.F., J.N. Olson, D.W. Avary, and A. Marks. 1991b. How Drugs Affect Decisions by Burglars. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 35 (4): 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Haan, W., and J. Vos. 2003. A Crying Shame: The Over-Rationalized Conception of Man in the Rational Choice Perspective. Theoretical Criminology 7 (1): 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Elffers, H. 2010. Misinformation, Misunderstanding and Misleading as Validity Threats to Offenders’ Accounts of Offending. In Offenders on Offending: Learning about crime from criminals, ed. W. Bernasco, 13–22. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ekblom, P., and N. Tilley. 2000. Going Equipped: Criminology, Situational Crime Prevention and the Resourceful Offender. British Journal of Criminology 40 (3): 376–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fox, B.H., and D.P. Farrington. 2012. Creating Burglary Profiles Using Latent Class Analysis: A New Approach to Offender Profiling. Criminal Justice and Behavior 39 (12): 1582–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Levesley, T., G. Braun, M. Wilkinson, and C. Powell. 2004. Emerging Methods of Car TheftTheft of Keys. Home Office Findings 239. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. London: Home Office.

  19. Maguire, E.M.W., and T. Bennett. 1982. Burglary in a Dwelling: The Offence, the Offender and the Victim. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Markson, L., J. Woodhams, and J.W. Bond. 2010. Linking Serial Residential Burglary: Comparing the Utility of Modus Operandi Behaviours, Geographical Proximity, and Temporal Proximity. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 7 (2): 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nee, C. 2015. Understanding Expertise in Burglars: From Pre-conscious Scanning to Action and Beyond. Aggression and Violent Behavior 20: 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nee, C., and A. Meenaghan. 2006. Expert Decision Making in Burglars. British Journal of Criminology 46 (5): 935–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nee, C., and M. Taylor. 1988. Residential Burglary in the Republic of Ireland: A Situational Perspective. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 27 (2): 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Police.uk. 2018. Automatic Number Plate Recognition. Police.uk website, https://www.police.uk/information-and-advice/automatic-number-plate-recognition/. Accessed July 2018.

  25. Sanders, A.N., J.B. Kuhns, and K.R. Blevins. 2017. Exploring and Understanding Differences between Deliberate and Impulsive Male and Female Burglars. Crime & Delinquency 63 (12): 1547–1571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schneider, J. 2005. Stolen Goods Markets: Methods of Disposal. British Journal of Criminology 45 (2): 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sentencing Council. 2011. A short guide - Sentencing for offences taken into consideration (TICs), https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/public_guide_tics_for_web.pdf, Accessed August 2018.

  28. Shaw, O., N. Morgan, I. Mineva, J. Hoare, and R. Stevenson. 2015. Crime and the Value of Stolen Goods. Research Report 81. London: Home Office.

  29. Shaw, S.E., L.L. Smith, and J.W. Bond. 2010. Examining the Factors that Differentiate a Car Key Burglary from a Regular Domestic Burglary. International Journal of Police Science and Management 12 (3): 450–459.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shover, N. 1973. The Social Organization of Burglary. Social Problems 20 (4): 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stevenson, R., and L. Forsythe. 1998. The Stolen Goods Market in New South Wales: An Interview Study with Imprisoned Burglars. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sutton, M. 1998. Handling Stolen Goods and Theft: A Market Reduction Approach. Home Office Research Study 178. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. London: Home Office.

  33. Sutton, M. 2003. How Burglars and Shoplifters Sell Stolen Goods in Derby: Describing and Understanding the Local Illicit Markets. Derby: Derby Community Safety Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sutton, M. 2008. How Prolific Thieves Sell Stolen Goods: Describing, Understanding, and Tackling the Local Markets in Mansfield and Nottingham: A Market Reduction Approach Study. Internet Journal of Criminology, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b93dd4_8d5e20eeba8249d6831917733362afcc.pdf. Accessed July 2018.

  35. Sutton, M. 2010. Stolen Goods Markets. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Problem-Specific Guides Series Guide No. 57. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

  36. Sutton, M., J. Schneider, and S. Hetherington. 2001. Tackling Theft with the Market Reduction Approach. Home Office Crime Reduction Research Series Paper No. 8. London: Home Office.

  37. Taylor, E. 2014. Honour Among Thieves? How Morality and Rationality Influence the Decision-Making Processes of Convicted Domestic Burglars. Criminology & Criminal Justice 14 (4): 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. The Yorkshire Post. 2009. Gang jailed for £600,000 car raids on homes. 28 March 2009, https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/gang-jailed-for-163-600-000-car-raids-on-homes-1-2340404, Accessed January 2019.

  39. Theft Act. 1968. Elizabeth II. Chapter 60, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60. Accessed July 2018.  

  40. Townsley, M., D. Birks, W. Bernasco, S. Ruiter, S.D. Johnson, G. White, and S. Baum. 2015. Burglar Target Selection: A Cross-national Comparison. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52 (1): 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vandeviver, C., T. Neutens, S. van Daele, D. Geurts, and T. Vander Beken. 2015. A Discrete Spatial Choice Model of Burglary Target Selection at the House-Level. Applied Geography 64: 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vaughn, M.G., M. Delisi, K.M. Beaver, and M.O. Howard. 2008. Toward a Quantitative Typology of Burglars: A Latent Profile Analysis of Career Offenders. Journal of Forensic Science 53 (6): 1387–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wright, R., and S. Decker. 1994. Burglars on the Job. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wright, R., R.H. Logie, and S.H. Decker. 1995. Criminal Expertise and Offender Decision Making: An Experimental Study of the Target Selection Process in Residential Burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32 (1): 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported through an ‘Innovations in Quantitative Methods’ Scholarship from the University of Leeds. The authors are grateful to Professor David Best, Dr James Banks, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks are also extended to HM Prison Service for enabling access to the offenders in this study, and, in particular, to the staff and prisoners who gave their valuable time in order to support this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Addis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Addis, N., Evans, A. & Malleson, N. Exploring the practices of steal-to-order burglars: a different brand of offender?. Secur J 32, 457–475 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00174-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Burglary
  • Steal-to-order
  • Stolen goods
  • Crime prevention
  • Modus operandi