Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Fencing/Receiving Stolen Goods

Reference work entry
First Online:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_10
How to cite

Overview

The Industrial Revolution, beginning in Britain and gathering momentum in the eighteenth Century, enabled widespread ownership of desirable, mass produced, identical goods. This changed the characteristics of general theft whereby it switched from being motivated predominantly by a desire to take often unique property for personal consumption to stealing to sell standardized goods once more destined for the personal enjoyment of others.

While weight and portability of items is considered by thieves (Felson and Clarke 1998), this most usually happens, at least where prolific thieves are concerned, only if they believe the goods will be saleable once removed (Sutton 1995); at which time, considerations regarding weight and portability, and even danger of removal, will be balanced against prices. Therefore, the issue of demand and supply by theft is important because the most valid predictor of items that most thieves will choose to steal is whether or not they believe they can...

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

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Clarke RV (1984) Opportunity-based crime rates: the difficulties for further refinement. Br J Criminol 24(1):74–83Google Scholar
  2. Clarke RV (1999) Hot Products: understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. Police Research Series Paper 112. Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Colquhoun P (1796) A treatise on the police of the metropolis; containing a detail of the various crimes and misdemeanours by which public and private security are, at present, injured and endangered: and suggesting remedies for their prevention, 3rd edn. C. Dilly, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Felson M, Boba R (2010) Crime and everyday life. Sage, Thousand OakesGoogle Scholar
  5. Felson M, Clarke RV (1998) Opportunity makes the thief. Paper No. 98. Police Research Series. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham J, Bowling B (1995) Young people and crime. Home Office Research Study No. 145. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hale C, Harris C, Uglow S, Gilling L, Netten A (2004) Targeting the markets for stolen goods: two targeted policing initiative projects. Home Office Development and Practice Report 17. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall J (1952) Theft, law and society, 2nd edn. Bobbs-Merrill, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris C, Hale C, Uglow S (2003) Theory into practice: implementing a market reduction approach to property crime. In: Bullock K, Tilley N (eds) Crime reduction and problem-oriented policing. Willan Press, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  10. Knutsson J (1984) Operation identification: a way to prevent burglaries? Report No. 14. National Council for Crime Prevention Sweden, Research Division, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  11. Langworthy R, Lebeau I (1992) The spatial evolution of sting clientele. J Crim Just 20(2):135–145Google Scholar
  12. Lewis L (2006) Organized retail crime: retail’s no. 1 security issue. California Grocer, pp 2–11Google Scholar
  13. Mann D, Sutton M (1998) >>NetCrime: more change in the organisation of thieving. Br J Criminol 38(2):201–219Google Scholar
  14. Mayhew P, Clarke RV’, Sturman A’, Hough JM (1976) Crime as opportunity. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. McCormack M (1995) The growing business of chip theft. Comput Fraud Secur Bull 1995(10):19–20Google Scholar
  16. Merton R (1949) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Quennell R (1958) London’s underworld. Spring Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Reuter P (1985) The organization of illegal markets: an economic analysis. National Institute of Justice. US Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Shermer MB (1991) Science defended, science defined: the Louisianan creationism case. Sci Technol Hum Val 16(4):517–539, http://www.jstor.org/stable/689806Google Scholar
  20. Steffensmeier DJ (1986) The fence: in the shadow of two worlds. Rowman and Littlefield, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J (2005) Confessions of a dying thief: understanding criminal careers and illegal enterprise. Transactions Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  22. Sutton M (1995) Supply by theft: does the market for second-hand goods play a role in keeping crime figures high? Br J Criminol 38(3):400–416Google Scholar
  23. Sutton M (1998) Handling stolen goods and theft: a market reduction approach. Home Office Research Study 178. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Sutton M (2010) Stolen goods markets. Problem oriented policing guide No. 57. Department of Justice COPS Program, USA. http://www.popcenter.org/problems/stolen_goods/
  25. Sutton M (2012) Opportunity does not make the thief: busting the myth that opportunity is a cause of crime. Best thinking. http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/social_sciences/sociology/opportunity-does-not-make-the-thief-busting-the-myth-that-opportunity-is-a-cause-of-crime
  26. Sutton M, Schneider JL, Hetherington (2001) Tackling theft with the market reduction approach. Home Office Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 8.http://www.popcenter.org/problems/bicycle_theft/PDFs/Sutton_etal_2001.pdf
  27. Sutton M, Hodgkinson S, Levi M (2008) Handling stolen goods: findings from the 2003 offending crime and justice survey. Internet J Criminol. Primary research paper. http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Stolen_Goods.pdf
  28. Tilley N, Laycock G (2002) Working out what to do: Evidence based crime reduction. Crime Reduction Series Paper 11. London Home Office. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/193161.pdf
  29. UK National Accounts (1997) Unpublished Office of National Statistics document. Cited in Sutton 1998. Handling stolen goods and theft: a market reduction approach. Home Office Research Study 178. Home Office, London, p 1Google Scholar
  30. Walsh M (1976) Strategies for combating the criminal receiver of stolen goods. Organised crime anti-fencing manual. Office of Regional Operations, Law. Enforcement Assistance Administration. US Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams E (1963) No 150. The Negro dancer in Hispaniola: a warning. Alvaro de Castro, Archdeacon of Hispaniola, to Council of the Indies. March 26, 1542. In: Documents of West Indian History 1492–1655: From the Spanish Discovery to the British Conquest of Jamaica. PNM Publishing, Port of Spain, p 156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK