Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A preliminary examination of the role of deterrence and target hardening on future recidivism risk among burglars in South Korea

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A significant amount of prior research has focused on the deterrent effects of punishment on the likelihood of recidivism. More recent research has also begun to examine the influence of target hardening strategies for deterring criminal behavior as well. Having said this, the lion’s share of this research has been conducted in Western societies and has evaluated the relevance of these factors separately. In recognition of the limitation, the current study relies on interview data from 163 incarcerated burglars in South Korea to assess the nature of the relationship between the elements of deterrence (for example, severity, certainty and celerity) and target hardening strategies (for example, window sills, secured door locks, CCTV and private security company monitoring) on burglars’ future expectations toward recidivating upon release. The results from a series of multinomial logistic regression models indicate that, while the majority of deterrence and target hardening strategies are ineffective at deterring future re-offending, the certainty of arrest and the presence of window sills and secured door locks do exhibit some deterrent effects. However, personal criminal experiences such as confidence toward criminal skills, and internal shame from criminal activity are also notably relevant. Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, D.A. (2002) The deterrence hypothesis and picking pockets at the pickpocket’s hanging. American Law and Economics Review 4(2): 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anwar, S. and Loughran, T.A. (2011) Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49(3): 667–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel, R. (2013) Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29(1): 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apospori, E. and Alpert, G. (1993) Research note: The role of differential experience with the criminal justice system in changes in perceptions of severity of legal sanctions over time. Crime & Delinquency 39(2): 184–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, R. (2002) To CCTV or Not to CCTV: A Review of Current Research into the Effectiveness of CCTV Systems in Reducing Crime. London: Nacro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, C. ([1764] 2009) On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.S. (1968) Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76(2): 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, T. and Wright, R. (1984) Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. ([1789] 1988) The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, S., Dockett, K. and Taylor, R.B. (1983) Residents’ perceptions of territorial features and perceived local threat. Environment and Behavior 15(4): 419–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. (1995) CCTV in town centers: Three case studies (No. 68). Crime Detection: Police Research Group.

  • Brown, T.A. (2014) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, T. (1999) Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99.

  • Cameron, A.C. and Miller, D.L. (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources 50(2): 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D. (2011) Social crime or spatial crime? Exploring the effects of social, economical, and spatial factors on burglary rates. Environment and Behavior 43(1): 26–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, P.J. (1980) Research in criminal deterrence: Laying the groundwork for the second decade. Crime and Justice 2(1): 211–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozens, P.M., Saville, G. and Hillier, D. (2005) Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management 23(5): 328–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, T.D. (2000) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Applications of Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, D. (2010) Sentencing guidelines in South Korea: Lessons from the American experience. Journal of Korean Law 10(1): 111–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J.P. (1968) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 48(4): 515–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfield, A., Newton, A. and Rogerson, M. (2010) Linking burglary and target hardening at the property level: New insights into victimization and burglary protection. Criminal Justice Policy Review 21(3): 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, J. and Marshall, I.H. (1992) Risk perceptions among serious offenders: The role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30(4): 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovav, A. and D’Arcy, J. (2012) Applying an extended model of deterrence across cultures: An investigation of information systems misuse in the US and South Korea. Information & Management 49(2): 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleck, G., Sever, B., Li, S. and Gertz, M. (2005) The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology 43(3): 623–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2012) Criminal law and procedure. In: Korea Legislation Research Institute (ed.) Introduction to Korean Law. New York: Springer, pp. 166–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochner, L. (2007) Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. The American Economic Review 97(1): 444–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, K.A. and Alpert, G.P. (1985) Factor analysis applied to magnitude estimates of punishment seriousness: Patterns of individual differences. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 1(3): 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnery, J.R. and Lim, B. (2005) Measuring crime prevention through environmental design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 22(4): 330–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. and Eder, S. (2010) Acquisitive and other property crime. In: Crime in England and Wales 2009/10: Findings from the British Crime Survey and Police Recorded Crime. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/10, pp. 79–107.

  • Nagin, D. S. and Paternoster, R. (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review 27(3): 467–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nee, C. and Taylor, M. (1988) Residential burglary in the Republic of Ireland: A situational perspective. The Howard Journal 27(2): 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. (2010) The basic guidelines of the first Korean sentencing guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter 22(4): 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R. (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly 4(2): 173–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R. (1989) Absolute and restrictive deterrence in a panel of youth: Explaining the onset, persistence/desistance, and frequency of delinquent offending. Social Problems 36(3): 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R. (2010) How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 100(3): 765–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L.E., Waldo, G.P. and Chiricos, T.G. (1983) Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review 17(3): 457–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C. (1999) A review of CCTV evaluations: Crime reduction effects and attitudes towards its use. Crime Prevention Studies 10(1): 123–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin, I., Gartner, R., Thornton, C. and Matsueda, R.L. (1986) Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review 51(1): 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R. and Pogarsky, G. (2002) Beyond Stafford and Warr's reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39(2): 153–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, G. (2007) The multinomial logit model. Lecture Notes on Generalized Linear Models, http://data.princeton.edu/wws509/notes/.

  • Roh, S., Kim, E. and Yun, M. (2010) Criminal victimization in South Korea: A multilevel approach. Journal of Criminal Justice 38(3): 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G.P. and Chiricos, T.G. (1982) Deterrent and experiential effects: The problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 19(2): 172–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shover, N. (1996) Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittle, C. R. (1969) Crime rates and legal sanctions. Social Problems 16(4): 409–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle, C.R. (1977) Sanction fear and the maintenance of social order. Social Forces 55(3): 579–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, N. (1993) Understanding Car Parks, Crime, and CCTV: Evaluation Lessons from Safer Cities. London: Home Office Police Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L., Tilley, N. and Farrell, G. (forthcoming) The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal. advance online publication 30 June 2014; doi:10.1057/sj.2014.30, pp. 1–19.

  • Webb, B. and Laycock, G. (1992) Reducing crime on the London underground: An evaluation of three pilot projects. Crime Prevention Unit Series 30(1): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2004) Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy 3(3): 497–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B.C., Mudge, M.E. and Farrington, D.P. (2010) Reconceptualizing public area surveillance and crime prevention: Security guards, place managers and defensible space. Security Journal 23(4): 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R., Logie, R.H. and Decker, S.H. (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

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in San Francisco, CA in November 2014. We wish to thank those in attendance at the panel as their suggestions and feedback have improved the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Police Administration, Hannam University, 70 Hannam-ro, Daedeok-gu, 306-791, Daejeon, South Korea

    MiRang Park

  2. Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral & Community Sciences, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, SOC 107, Tampa, 33620, FL, USA

    Nicholas Perez

  3. Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral & Community Sciences, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, SOC 308, Tampa, 33620, FL, USA

    Wesley G Jennings

  4. University of Colorado Denver, School of Public Affairs, P.O. Box 173364-Campus Box 142, Denver, 80217-3364, CO, USA

    Angela R Gover

Authors
  1. MiRang Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wesley G Jennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela R Gover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, M., Perez, N., Jennings, W. et al. A preliminary examination of the role of deterrence and target hardening on future recidivism risk among burglars in South Korea. Secur J 30, 903–921 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2015.15

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2015.15

Keywords

Search

Navigation