Jan 7, 2005 - Therefore, it is proposed here that shop thieves be policed as though ... infrequent burglars, frequent shop thieves; and ... burglar/shop thief.
British Journal of Criminology Advance Access published January 7, 2005
doi:10.1093/bjc/azh101
BRIT. J. CRIMINOL.
(2005), 1 of 7
RESEARCH NOTE THE LINK BETWEEN SHOPLIFTING AND BURGLARY The Booster Burglar1 J A C Q U E L I N E L. S C H N E ID E R * This research note forms part of a larger set of findings from a study that examined disposal patterns of stolen goods. Literature linking shop theft and burglary, as part of an overall criminal career, has been lacking. Results regarding the role that shop theft plays in the criminal careers of prolific, persistent burglars are presented. This article shows that shop theft plays an instrumental role in offending patterns of prolific burglars, thus challenging the notion that shoplifting is a less serious crime than burglary. Given the findings presented here, an argument is made that by detecting more shop thefts, crime-reduction initiatives might also increase their detections for burglary. As part of a larger study on stolen-goods markets, interviews with 50 male offenders were conducted with the primary aim of understanding what happens to goods posttheft. The sample was constructed with very simple selection criteria. To be included in the study, offenders had to be prolific burglars, who were at least 18 years old, had a history of drug addiction (optional) and had been convicted by local courts in/around Shrewsbury, England. The key criterion was the history of burglary convictions. A secondary aim of the project was to discover what role shoplifting played in the lives of prolific burglars. Historically, the coincidence of these offences within a criminal career has not been remarked upon. Shoplifting is seen to be a far less serious crime than burglary, thus reflected in its apparent lower status among criminals and the lack of official attention by the police forces in the United Kingdom, as well as by the Home Office. Traditionally, shoplifting is seen as a crime committed by:
• • • •
juveniles; opportunistic criminals; drug addicts; or the mentally ill, stereotypically menopausal women.
Absent from this list are prolific burglars. Burglars have not been clearly identified as also being shoplifters. However, if a link can be made between the two offence types, significant changes in the way in which police direct their crime-reduction activities can be made in order to include operations against shoplifters as a way of reducing burglary. While the link between acquisitive crime and drug taking has been established (see Jarvis and Parker 1989; Bennett 1998; 2000; Gossop et al. 2000), the link between shop theft and burglary is less evident. Different forms of acquisitive crime have been explored * Department of Criminology, 154 Upper New Walk, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7QA, England. 1 The author thanks Professor Ken Pease for his invaluable contributions to this paper, without which this research note would not be possible.
1 of 7 British Journal of Criminology © the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD) 2005; all rights reserved
SCHNEIDER
in much the same way as they have been handled by authorities—as separate entities. Included in the research are aspects of shoplifting (Ekblom 1986; Beck and Willis 1998; British Retail Consortium 2002; Gill et al. 2002; Schneider 2003), burglary (Bennett and Wright 1984; Wright and Decker 1994; Palmer et al. 2002) and stolen-goods markets (Sutton 1995; Frieberg 1997; Stevenson et al. 2001; Sutton et al. 2001). However, continuing with these distinctions might very well be naive. Historically, the type of offence under investigation dictates the type of police response. The robbery squad investigates robbery, whereas the burglary squad investigates burglary. Or specific officers have become specialists in terms of which crimes they investigate. By segregating the way in which we look at crime, we run the risk of seeing only the partial picture. In doing so, we also run the risk of working harder than is perhaps necessary. If policing took a holistic approach by looking at the relationships across all crime types, we might well do better at reducing crime. Two examples come to mind. The first that illustrates the utility of a holistic approach is the Yorkshire Ripper case. An enormous manhunt was under way in which police were attempting to locate Peter Sutcliffe through efforts geared toward case-specific information. However, a routine check of an automobile’s registration plates revealed that the car and the plates did not match. Subsequently, a search of the car uncovered the weapon used in the murders, which, in turn, lead to Sutcliffe’s arrest. The second, albeit less dramatic, example where order-maintenance-type policing can lead to reducing more serious types of crime involves the routine checking of cars parked illegally in disabled bays in Huddersfield (see Chenery et al. 1999). The aim of the research was to see whether the illegally parked cars were reported stolen or whether outstanding warrants were in place on the person to whom the car was registered. The results supported the notion that, indeed, serious criminals do in fact commit non-serious infractions, thus providing far greater probability of a serious offender’s being apprehended. Both examples support the hypothesis that those people who engage in serious forms of crime also commit minor infractions. Therefore, it is proposed here that shop thieves be policed as though they were burglars on their day off rather than as shop thieves pure and simple.
Patterns of Shoplifting versus Burglary Of the 50 interviewees, 44 (88 per cent) admitted to committing shop theft. Of these, 26 did so daily and a further eight shoplifted ‘several times a week’. Ten of the burglars who shoplifted did so less frequently. Six claimed never to engage in the crime. When asked why they stole from shops, market considerations provided the underlying reason for the theft (n = 33, 66 per cent), whereas only 48 per cent (n = 24) said that these same considerations were the reason for the burglaries. Drugs played an important part in the pattern of thieving. Committing crime to pay for drugs was an element in 42 of the 49 relevant cases. However, differences were noted with regard to the specific crimes of shoplifting and burglary. While just over half burgled in order to pay for drugs, almost two-thirds shoplifted to finance drugs. The role of drugs in the crime was different for over half of the offenders. For example, 16 interviewees shoplifted to pay for drugs but did not engage in burglary to do the same. In a further ten cases, burglary funded drug purchases but shop theft did not. 2 of 7
THE LINK BETWEEN SHOPLIFTING AND BURGLARY
Of those who had admitted shoplifting, 33 said that they knew what they were going to steal prior to entering the shop versus the 11 (25 per cent) who shoplifted but did not know what they wanted to take prior to going in. The majority of the sample (n = 29) knew what they were going to steal prior to committing their burglary. Crosstabulation showed that of those who burgled and shoplifted, 18 knew what they were going to steal prior to entering the premises. An additional three respondents who committed both offences said that they ‘sometimes’ knew what goods they were to target. Seven thieves who knew what goods they were going to target in shops did not know what they were going to steal in burglaries. The primary method by which stolen goods were sold was the same for shoplifted goods as for burgled goods. Of the 38 respondents for whom it was possible to make the comparison, the same route was chosen by 23, compared with the 12.6 that would be expected if the two choices were independent. Of the 23, in 14 cases, the preferred route was to a handler. The Earnings
Proportion of those responding
Questions were asked about the average weekly earnings made from both shop theft and from burglary, from which an interesting comparison can be made (see Figure 1). Most often, a range was provided. In such cases, the lower sum was used. The reason for this was that the upper-range figure might well be the result of a particularly lucrative week or boasting. Of the 30 interviewees where a comparison was possible, 19 earned more money each week from burglary, whereas 11 earned more from shoplifting. When asked if shop theft was the main income source, 20 responded positively and a further five stated that it was ‘sometimes’.
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
