Literatura académica sobre el tema "Burglar's decision making"

Abstract Objectives To empirically test whether offenders consider environmental features at multiple spatial scales when selecting a target and examine the simultaneous effect of neighborhood-level and residence-level attributes on residential burglars’ choice of residence to burglarize. Methods We combine data on 679 burglaries by 577 burglars committed between 2005 and 2014 with data on approximately 138,000 residences in 193 residential neighborhoods in Ghent, Belgium. Using a discrete spatial choice approach, we estimate the combined effect of neighborhood-level and residence-level attributes on burglars’ target choice in a conditional logit model. Results Burglars prefer burglarizing residences in neighborhoods with lower residential density. Burglars also favor burglarizing detached residences, residences in single-unit buildings, and renter-occupied residences. Furthermore, burglars are more likely to target residences in neighborhoods that they previously and recently targeted for burglary, and residences nearby their home. We find significant cross-level interactions between neighborhood and residence attributes in burglary target selection. Conclusions Both area-level and target-level attributes are found to affect burglars’ target choices. Our results offer support for theoretical accounts of burglary target selection that characterize it as being informed both by attributes of individual properties and attributes of the environment as well as combinations thereof. This spatial decision-making model implies that environmental information at multiple and increasingly finer scales of spatial resolution informs crime site selection.

Abstract This article describes a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted among 70 experienced residential burglars regarding the reasons for getting involved in and maintaining criminal behaviour. Themes emerging reflected an interaction between skill-development and affect, which played a key role in the initiation and continuation of burglary-related behaviour. Early participation in burglary seemed to be strongly influenced by the desire for excitement. Over time this diminished and was replaced by habitual engagement in burglary. With respect to the actual commission of offences, automatic decision-making appeared to be characteristic of the entire decision-chain, from initial thoughts to the commission of the burglary. Implications of the interaction between affect, cognition and expertise on diversification, specialization and desistance from crime are discussed.

Abstract. Notwithstanding that confessions are considered the “Queen of evidence,” how judges actually weigh suspects’ statements in reaching their decision remains relatively unknown. This study sought to examine how Belgian judges determine the evidential value of a suspect’s statement, specifically how they evaluate the statement’s: (a) admissibility and validity and (b) interaction with other pieces of evidence. To shed light on this legal decision-making process, 100 Belgian burglary case files were examined, and semi-structured interviews were undertaken with ten Belgian judges. The findings suggest that: the judge’s evaluation of a suspect’s statement differs depending on the outcome of the statement; how a statement is obtained does not appear to be an essential aspect of evidence evaluation; judges expend more effort to falsify denials than confessions; and only when they fail to falsify the denial is an acquittal granted.

This thesis examines how burglars select a target and carry out a crime. The four research questions addressed by the two studies conducted for this thesis are: 1. What are the processes used by burglars to select a target, break in, steal, and distribute the proceeds? 2. What are the crucial decision making cues used to select a target? 3. What is the impact of various cues, cue alternatives, cue order and combinations selected on target attractiveness in a controlled situation? 4. Does age or experience interact with the effect of any cues? The results furnish discussion and increase the understanding and prevention of break and enter (B&E). The research for this thesis was conducted in two studies. For Study One interviews were conducted with fifty persons who attend a methadone clinic. Participants were past heroin users who financed their drug use through the commission of break and enter. Semi-structured interviews were conducted that covered their drug use and criminal involvement. From these interviews a list of seventeen cues was developed - cue 1 (dog), cue 2 (lighting), cue 3 (alarm), cue 4 (occupancy - lights/tv/radio), cue 5 (occupancy - car in driveway), cue 6 (affluence), cue 7 (doors/windows), cue 8 (locks), cue 9 (garage), cue 10 (fence), cue 11 (garden), cue 12 (location), cue 13 (people in the street), cue 14 (neighbourhood watch), cue 15 (weather), cue 16 (inside information) and cue 17 (street type). Participants used these seventeen cues to determine the vulnerability of a target. For Study Two a computer program was developed, in which these seventeen cues were arranged in various combinations, across twenty case studies. The computer program allowed subjects to access as much information about a case study as they needed to make a decision about its attractiveness as a burglary target. A new sample of ninety-six burglars were asked to view the twenty case studies and give each target a rating from '0' (not a B&E opportunity) to '100' (a definite B&E opportunity). Over the twenty case studies, the subjects only accessed one third of the available information to make a decision. The lower the final rating for a ease study the fewer cues were selected. Subjects were quickly deterred if the first one or two selections revealed deterrent alternatives. In contrast, if the initial selections revealed attractive alternatives the subjects were hard to deter even if subsequent cue selections revealed only deterrent alternatives. Four cues - cue 1 (dog), cue 3 (alann), cue 13 (people in the street) and cue 16 (inside information) - accounted for 91.77% of all first selections. Six cues - cue 1 (dog), 3 (alarm), cue 4 (occupancy - lights/tv/radio), cue 5 (occupancy - car in driveway), cue 13 (people in the street) and cue 16 (inside information) - accounted for 67.8% of all selections made. Clearly these six cues are very important to offenders and they should be closely examined in any prevention initiative. Results revealed that on 282 Occasions subjects viewed only one cue then made their decision based on this one piece of information. The most common single cue was reliable inside information that there was a large amount of cash inside the house or when a good alarm was present. Decision trees were developed which graphically trace the selections of subjects and the ratings given after each selection. The trees showed that subjects reached different conclusions from the same case study because they could select different cues. The selection of different cues from the same case study led to great variation in subsequent cue selections. The decision trees confirmed the earlier finding that subjects are much harder to deter when the first one or two selections had attractive alternatives even if subsequent selections had deterrent alternatives. Results of linear regressions revealed that every cue was significant as predictor of final rating at least twice, however three cues - cue 3 (alarm), cue 12 (location) and cue 16 (inside information) - were significant as predictors ten or more times. The 96 subjects were divided into four groups on the basis of age (young and old) and experience (experienced and inexperienced). The young and inexperienced group used an average of 188.3 cues across the twenty case studies, whereas the older and experienced group used an average of 43.8 cues. Older and experienced subjects were harder to deter, compared to younger and inexperienced subjects. As experience increased fewer cues were needed to reach a decision. The results showed that the variation in final rating for each case study was explained by a few cues. For example, in case study 16 the Adjusted R Square with all seventeen factors entered was .945. With only six cues as predictors the Adjusted R Square reduced slightly to .939. This shows that although cues are mentioned in the literature and were selected by subjects in this study they were often ineffectual and did not assist in explaining the final rating. The two most effective prevention measures were the deterrent alternatives for cue 3 (alarm) and cue 4 (occupancy -lights/tv/radio). The two most influential attractive alternatives were for cue 12 (location; house is located on a corner block) and cue 16 (inside information; from a reliable source you are told there could be a large amount of cash kept in the house). Overall, the linear models with interactions showed that the inexperienced subjects' decision making was more volatile and fluctuated to a greater extent than the experienced subjects' decision making. When continually attractive infonnation was received the inexperienced subjects' ratings climbed higher than did the experienced subjects. When deterrent information was received the negative effect on the inexperienced subjects' ratings was greater than the effect on experienced subjects. Experience increases burglars' skills and abilities but it also improves their capacity to weigh up information in a more reasoned manner. The results revealed that experienced subjects have probably developed a level of skill to the extent that the deterrent alternatives for many cues have become ineffectual. The experienced subjects have developed strategies to overcome many deterrents. The decision making of the experienced subjects was clearly more sophisticated and considered. The main theoretical finding of this thesis is that research will only produce incomplete findings if it concentrates on place and situation to the neglect of the offender and the antecedents and attributes they bring to a crime. The influence of age and experience on decision making is of such consequence that it must be considered to maximise the prevention of crime. Age and experience have individual and combined influences on cue selection and interpretation.

This thesis examines how burglars select a target and carry out a crime. The four research questions addressed by the two studies conducted for this thesis are: 1. What are the processes used by burglars to select a target, break in, steal, and distribute the proceeds? 2. What are the crucial decision making cues used to select a target? 3. What is the impact of various cues, cue alternatives, cue order and combinations selected on target attractiveness in a controlled situation? 4. Does age or experience interact with the effect of any cues? The results furnish discussion and increase the understanding and prevention of break and enter (B&E). The research for this thesis was conducted in two studies. For Study One interviews were conducted with fifty persons who attend a methadone clinic. Participants were past heroin users who financed their drug use through the commission of break and enter. Semi-structured interviews were conducted that covered their drug use and criminal involvement. From these interviews a list of seventeen cues was developed - cue 1 (dog), cue 2 (lighting), cue 3 (alarm), cue 4 (occupancy - lights/tv/radio), cue 5 (occupancy - car in driveway), cue 6 (affluence), cue 7 (doors/windows), cue 8 (locks), cue 9 (garage), cue 10 (fence), cue 11 (garden), cue 12 (location), cue 13 (people in the street), cue 14 (neighbourhood watch), cue 15 (weather), cue 16 (inside information) and cue 17 (street type). Participants used these seventeen cues to determine the vulnerability of a target. For Study Two a computer program was developed, in which these seventeen cues were arranged in various combinations, across twenty case studies. The computer program allowed subjects to access as much information about a case study as they needed to make a decision about its attractiveness as a burglary target. A new sample of ninety-six burglars were asked to view the twenty case studies and give each target a rating from '0' (not a B&E opportunity) to '100' (a definite B&E opportunity). Over the twenty case studies, the subjects only accessed one third of the available information to make a decision. The lower the final rating for a ease study the fewer cues were selected. Subjects were quickly deterred if the first one or two selections revealed deterrent alternatives. In contrast, if the initial selections revealed attractive alternatives the subjects were hard to deter even if subsequent cue selections revealed only deterrent alternatives. Four cues - cue 1 (dog), cue 3 (alann), cue 13 (people in the street) and cue 16 (inside information) - accounted for 91.77% of all first selections. Six cues - cue 1 (dog), 3 (alarm), cue 4 (occupancy - lights/tv/radio), cue 5 (occupancy - car in driveway), cue 13 (people in the street) and cue 16 (inside information) - accounted for 67.8% of all selections made. Clearly these six cues are very important to offenders and they should be closely examined in any prevention initiative. Results revealed that on 282 Occasions subjects viewed only one cue then made their decision based on this one piece of information. The most common single cue was reliable inside information that there was a large amount of cash inside the house or when a good alarm was present. Decision trees were developed which graphically trace the selections of subjects and the ratings given after each selection. The trees showed that subjects reached different conclusions from the same case study because they could select different cues. The selection of different cues from the same case study led to great variation in subsequent cue selections. The decision trees confirmed the earlier finding that subjects are much harder to deter when the first one or two selections had attractive alternatives even if subsequent selections had deterrent alternatives. Results of linear regressions revealed that every cue was significant as predictor of final rating at least twice, however three cues - cue 3 (alarm), cue 12 (location) and cue 16 (inside information) - were significant as predictors ten or more times. The 96 subjects were divided into four groups on the basis of age (young and old) and experience (experienced and inexperienced). The young and inexperienced group used an average of 188.3 cues across the twenty case studies, whereas the older and experienced group used an average of 43.8 cues. Older and experienced subjects were harder to deter, compared to younger and inexperienced subjects. As experience increased fewer cues were needed to reach a decision. The results showed that the variation in final rating for each case study was explained by a few cues. For example, in case study 16 the Adjusted R Square with all seventeen factors entered was .945. With only six cues as predictors the Adjusted R Square reduced slightly to .939. This shows that although cues are mentioned in the literature and were selected by subjects in this study they were often ineffectual and did not assist in explaining the final rating. The two most effective prevention measures were the deterrent alternatives for cue 3 (alarm) and cue 4 (occupancy -lights/tv/radio). The two most influential attractive alternatives were for cue 12 (location; house is located on a corner block) and cue 16 (inside information; from a reliable source you are told there could be a large amount of cash kept in the house). Overall, the linear models with interactions showed that the inexperienced subjects' decision making was more volatile and fluctuated to a greater extent than the experienced subjects' decision making. When continually attractive infonnation was received the inexperienced subjects' ratings climbed higher than did the experienced subjects. When deterrent information was received the negative effect on the inexperienced subjects' ratings was greater than the effect on experienced subjects. Experience increases burglars' skills and abilities but it also improves their capacity to weigh up information in a more reasoned manner. The results revealed that experienced subjects have probably developed a level of skill to the extent that the deterrent alternatives for many cues have become ineffectual. The experienced subjects have developed strategies to overcome many deterrents. The decision making of the experienced subjects was clearly more sophisticated and considered. The main theoretical finding of this thesis is that research will only produce incomplete findings if it concentrates on place and situation to the neglect of the offender and the antecedents and attributes they bring to a crime. The influence of age and experience on decision making is of such consequence that it must be considered to maximise the prevention of crime. Age and experience have individual and combined influences on cue selection and interpretation.
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Full Text

Research has demonstrated that informal guardians affect offender decision making in a variety of crime contexts. This chapter highlights what can be learned from empirical research about the way offenders perceive informal guardianship and how it affects criminal choices. Focusing specifically on studies that elucidate the offenders’ perspective on guardians, this chapter reviews what is known from studies on burglars, armed robbers, and sex offenders about how guardianship factors into their criminal decision making. Based on these offender accounts, the chapter reveals the patterns that emerge around (a) the stages of the crime event process in which guardianship is most likely to influence various types of offenders and (b) what form of guardianship is most effective in discouraging different offenders at different stages of the crime event.

How offenders make decisions that lead to criminal conduct is a core element of virtually every discussion about crime and law enforcement. What type of information can deter a potential offender? For whom is the prospect of a sanction effective? How can emotions facilitate or impede crime? How does the availability of guns affect behavior in violent conflicts? Do offenders learn to commit crime from the experiences of others? Is crime perpetrated by juveniles always the result of impulsive decisions? How do offenders choose crime targets and locations? The Oxford Handbook of Offender Decision Making covers and integrates contemporary theoretical, methodological, and empirical knowledge about the role of human decision making as it relates to criminal behavior. It provides state-of-the art reviews of the main paradigms in offender decision making, such as rational choice theory and deterrence, but also includes recent approaches such as dual-process models of decision making. It contains up-to-date reviews of empirical research on a wide range of decision types, from criminal initiation and desistance to choice of location, time, target, victim, and modus operandi. It also contains reviews of decision making regarding specific types of crime, including homicide, sexual crime, burglary, and white-collar and organized crime. In addition, it includes comprehensive in-depth treatments of the principal research methods used to study offender decision making, such as experimental designs, observation studies, surveys, offender interviews, and simulations.

Although not well supported by empirical evidence, there exists a long tradition of beliefs suggesting that sex offenders suffer from mental disorders and are mainly driven by an uncontrollable impulse to sexually offend. Despite accumulating evidence showing the versatility of sex offenders, researchers have yet to examine their decision making similar to what has been done with other types of criminals (e.g., robbers, burglars, shoplifters, and car thieves). This chapter presents a review of the literature on the decision making involved in sexual crimes, specifically focusing on the decision making involved at the different crime stages—that is, before, during, and following the crime. Therefore, the goal is to take the reader through the different decision points an offender has to go through when committing a sexual crime. By doing so, this chapter aims to show that sex offenders are “reasoning” offenders similar to other types of criminals.