Advertisement

Learning About Crime Prevention from Aborted Crimes: Intrapersonal Comparisons of Committed and Aborted Robbery

Chapter

Abstract

Crime prevention can benefit from knowledge about why prospective offenders sometimes do not perpetrate crimes they anticipated to perpetrate. What makes them call off the planned offense? This chapter describes what distinguishes aborted robberies from those that are committed; what mechanisms are responsible for calling off planned offenses; and which reasons offenders themselves provide for aborting robberies. Detailed data were collected amongst 74 incarcerated and 28 active offenders. All were asked to describe in detail a robbery they committed and one they aborted, including prospective places, targets, victims, bystanders, and co-offenders. In case of aborted robberies they were also asked why the robbery was canceled. Findings indicate that home robberies are aborted less often than street and commercial robberies, and that robberies planned more than an hour ahead are more likely to get aborted than robberies that were planned less than an hour ahead. Extensive anticipation appears to make offenders less flexible in adapting to unexpected events, and more likely to abort an anticipated robbery. Subjective reasons for aborting anticipated robberies are manifold, but include expected police and bystander interventions.

Keywords

Robbery Offender interview Aborted crime The Netherlands 

References

  1. Bernasco, W., Ruiter, S., Bruinsma, G. J. N., Pauwels, L. F., & Weerman, F. M. (2013). Situational causes of offending: A fixed-effects analysis of space-time budget data. Criminology, 51(4), 895–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blokland, A. A. J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology, 43(4), 1203–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ganpat, S. M., van der Leun, J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2013). The influences of event characteristics and actors behaviour on the outcome of violent events. British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Graham, K., Tremblay, P. F., Wells, S., Pernanen, K., Purcell, J., & Jelley, J. (2006). Harm, intent, and the nature of aggressive behavior measuring naturally occurring aggression in barroom settings. Assessment, 13(3), 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hewitt, A., & Beauregard, E. (2013). Offending patterns of serial sex offenders: Escalation, de-escalation, and consistency of sexually intrusive and violent behaviours. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(1), 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacques, S. (2010). The necessary conditions for retaliation: Toward a theory of non‐violent and violent forms in drug markets. Justice Quarterly, 27(2), 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Leclerc, B., Lussier, P., & Deslauriers-Varin, N. (2014). Offending patterns over time: An examination of specialization, escalation and de-escalation in the commission of sexual offenses. In A. Blokland & P. Lussier (Eds.), Sex offenders: A criminal career approach. Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Levine, M., Taylor, P. J., & Best, R. (2011). Third parties, violence, and conflict resolution: The role of group size and collective action in the microregulation of violence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lindegaard, M. R., Bernasco, W., & Jacques, S. (2014). Consequences of expected and observed victim resistance for offender violence during robbery events. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lussier, P., Leclerc, B., Healey, J., & Proulx, J. (2008). Generality of deviance and predation: Crime switching and specialization patterns in persistent sexual offenders. In M. Delisi & P. Conis (Eds.), Violent offenders: Theory, public policy and practice (pp. 97–140). Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, J. (2014). Epistemology and rigor in criminological research: An explanatory journey. In S. Ruiter, W. Bernasco, & W. Huisman (Eds.), Eenvoud en Verscheidenheid: Liber amicorum voor Henk Elffers (pp. 491–502). Amsterdam: NSCR and VU University.Google Scholar
  13. Phillips, S. (2003). The social structure of vengeance: A test of black’s model. Criminology, 41(3), 673–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tonry, M. (Ed.). (2014). Why crime rates fall and why they don’t (Crime and justice, Vol. 43). Chicago, MI: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Vargas, R. (2014). Criminal group embeddedness and the adverse effects of arresting a gang’s leader: A comparative case study. Criminology, 52(2), 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)AmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.Department of Spatial EconomicsNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations