Burglars and burglary: How and why they do it

Crime in America: an occasional series on myths and realities

By George J. Bryjak
Burglary is the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The entry may or may not be forced (breaking a window, for example). In 2006, there were just under 2.2 million burglary offenses known to police in the U.S. The actual or true number of burglaries is thought to be significantly higher as many victims do not report this crime to authorities. Some of the reasons for failing to notify police include:

¯lack of homeowner’s theft insurance wherein a police report is necessary to file a claim

¯the belief that police have little chance of recovering stolen property

¯the loss of a relatively small amount of money or property, typically less than an insurance policy deductible.

The average dollar loss to burglary in 2006 was $1,834, with an estimated $4 billion in total losses nationwide. Roughly two-thirds of burglaries known to police are residential crimes, with the remaining one-third involving commercial structures. Offenses for which the time of the crime was reported in 2006 reveal that 63 percent of residential burglaries occurred in daylight hours while 56.7 percent of non-residential burglaries happened at night.

As is the case with robbery, burglary is overwhelmingly a youthful male activity. In a typical year, almost nine out of 10 suspects arrested for burglary are males, and approximately two-thirds have not reached their 25th birthday. Almost 70 percent of arrestees are white.

In 2006, only one in eight burglaries known to police was “cleared” by arrest: that is, “solved for crime-reporting purposes.” Published annually by the FBI, the Uniform Crime Report states that an offense is cleared when all of the following conditions have been met for at least one individual:

¯arrested

¯charged with the commission of the crime

¯turned over to the court for prosecution.

In their study of 105 active burglars in St. Louis, Mo., Richard Wright and Scott Decker discovered that these street criminals did not break into homes because of a need for money to realize some long-range goal. Rather, their crimes were motivated by more immediate financial concerns. Money derived from this criminal activity was spent in the following manner:

1. To keep the party going — Almost three of four subjects said they used money derived from burglary for good times which typically involved purchasing drugs, most often cocaine.

2. To keep up appearances — Approximately half of the burglars motivated to steal for financial reasons stated they used the money to buy status items, especially clothing. One subject noted, “See, I go to steal money and go buy me some clothes. See, I likes to look good. I likes to dress.”

3. To keep things together — About half of the burglars interviewed said they spent a portion of the money they made from breaking into homes for daily living expenses such as food, shelter and clothing for their children. A minority of the subjects spent all their illegally derived profits for this purpose.

The most important decision a burglar has to make concerns target selection: that is, which home or business from thousands of potential targets in any medium-size city will be victimized. In a study of 30 Texas burglars, sociologist Paul Cromwell and his colleagues concluded that these offenders consider three “risk cues” in the target selection process: surveillability, occupancy and accessibility.

Surveillability cues include location of the dwelling on the street, overall visibility of the target from the street and nearby homes, and, more specifically, the visibility of points of entry, such as doors and windows.

If a burglar believes that he or she is not likely to be observed making an entry, the offender must then determine if the occupants are present. Of the 30 subjects in this study, 28 said they would never knowingly enter an occupied residence.

Principal occupancy cues include a vehicle in the driveway, visible residents, and noises or voices coming from the home. Accessibility cues are factors that indicate how difficult it will be to enter the targeted home. Will entry be relatively simple, or is the home protected (“target hardening”) by deadbolt locks, burglar bars, burglar alarms, a tall fence and/or dogs?

Criminologists often make a distinction between novice or amateur burglars and professionals. Novices are typically young, lower- or middle-class males who will engage in only a few burglaries and then abandon this criminal activity, or are at the beginning of an extended criminal career. Miethe and McCorkle note that “novices are not firmly entrenched in a burglar identity or criminal subcultures.” Comprising the “elite” of the burglary world, professionals are relatively few in number. They differ from amateurs in terms of technical skills, organizational abilities and the status accorded them by other criminals and police. These individuals also have well established contacts (professional “fences”) who buy and sell stolen property.

Amateur burglars (especially need-the-cash-now drug addicts) can expect no more than 5 to 10 percent of the value of an item from a fence. Professionals who steal high-cost, high-demand merchandise will receive between 30 and 50 percent of the wholesale price. E-fencing, the sale of stolen items via the Internet, is becoming increasingly popular among burglars who do not have an immediate need for cash.

In many instances, skills learned in a noncriminal enterprise are effectively translated to illegal activities. Consider the following statement from a professional burglar:

“The military taught me what I needed to know as a burglar. Planning, that’s what I learned in the Army. Laying out a map in your head, getting it all together and knowing who you’re going to unload the stolen goods on before doing anything is also important. I guess my training in the Special Forces taught me to be sneaky and rehearse things in my mind ahead of time because, you know, you’re scared. The military taught me to have confidence in myself.”

Research indicates that burglary victims are likely to be targets of additional unlawful entries, that is “repeat victimization.” During the course of an initial burglary, offenders might not be able to carry away all of the merchandise, so they return for items left behind. Goods may have been observed that could not be carried out the first time: that is, items requiring extra manpower or special tools. Offenders may tell others about the crime allowing these individuals to victimize the home or business yet again. Some victims may not have the ability via anti-theft devices to protect their homes and businesses from additional intrusions. A British crime survey found that one-third of households victimized over a 12-month period experienced multiple property offenses.

Nationwide, people attempting to protect their homes form burglars via alarm systems have become a serious drain on law enforcement resources. Annually, the time lost responding to false alarms is equivalent to the total work output of 35,000 officers, about 6 percent of the country’s law enforcement personnel. Burglar alarms are routinely triggered because homeowners do not understand their systems, the system was improperly installed, batteries are dead, or pets or insects move across motion detectors.



Now retired after teaching sociology at the University of San Diego for 24 years, George J. Bryjak lives in Bloomingdale. The Enterprise “Crime in America” series is adapted from “Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice: What Every American Should Know,” by George J. Bryjak and Steve E. Barkan, forthcoming 2008, Jones & Bartlett Publishers.



References:

Cromwell, P.F., J.N. Olson and D. Avary (1991) “Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary,” Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications

Miethe, T.D. and R. McCorkle (1998) “Crime Profiles — The Anatomy of Dangerous Persons, Places, and Situations,” Los Angeles: Roxbury

Osborne, D.R. (1996) “Are Repeatedly Victimized Households Different?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 12, No. 2, pages 223-245

Pease, K.J. (1992) “Preventing Burglary in a British Public Housing Estate,” pages 123-146 in “Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies,” edited by R.V. Clarke, New York: Harrow and Henston

Siegel, L.J. (2008) “Criminology,” Belmont, Calif.: West/Wadsworth Publishing Company

“Uniform Crime Report: Crime in America 2006” (2007) Federal Bureau of Investigation, www.fbi.gov

Wright, R.T. and S. Decker (1994) “Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins,” Boston: Northeastern University Press