One of the ideas/concepts that influenced policies regarding crime in the 1980’s and 1990’s was that of the “Super Predator”. There was a belief that certain urban environments were creating juvenile criminals who would go on to become committed offenders who wouldn’t age out of crime; one of the few phenomena that criminologists agree upon i.e., that most criminals cease or reduce their activities in their twenties and beyond, as they get older. Crime and violence are typically a young person’s game that is largely motivated by youthful impulsivity – something that decreases with age - and peer pressure etc. Like most “moral panics”, this idea of the super predator never materialized, and offenders continued, as they always have, to age out of crime. However, this idea of super motivated offenders who will stop at nothing to commit acts of crime and violence has been extremely pervasive and has led many people to believe that there is nothing you can do to stop criminals. Often the media will reinforce this with headlines such as, “Police have lost the war against crime”, suggesting that a) if the police can’t stop crime, what chance does the ordinary individual have? And b) that it is the police’s responsibility to prevent crime rather than everybody’s; yes, patrols by officers can act as a deterrent, but the police can’t be everywhere all the time. In this article I want to dispel the myth that criminals will stop at nothing to commit offenses, and that it often takes extraordinarily little to avoid being the victim of crime.

In 1989 Mayhew et al., published a paper concerning motorcycle theft. Comparing the 12-month period prior to June 1st, 1973, with the 12-month period after, they found that motorcycle thefts dropped in the UK by 24%. They also discovered that Holland experienced a similar decline in motorcycle thefts in 1975. As I wrote about in last week’s article, statistics regarding property theft are quite robust, as most insurance claims require a police incident report to have been made, and so “lies, damn lies and statistics”, doesn’t have to be a position we take on these numbers. Their research also showed that West Germany experienced a similar decline in the early 1980’s. The drop-off in motorcycle thefts across all of these countries was down to one common variable: the introduction of fines/penalties, especially on the spot fines, for not wearing a motorcycle helmet. It would be natural to assume that those who had been engaged in such thefts would turn their attention to cars and other vehicles, however this didn’t happen in any of these countries i.e., auto-theft as a whole was reduced due to this legislation, and no displacement occurred. It could be that those who engaged in motorcycle thefts couldn’t be bothered to walk around carrying a helmet, or that they felt doing so would made them look conspicuous etc., however whatever the reason, the commitment to carry out these offenses was no longer there. Time and again, research into offender decision making has shown that the most influential factor in the choices that criminals make is not about risk and consequence but about the ease of opportunity; an increase in effort correlates with the reduction in target selection. By reducing opportunities/increasing the cost and effort of crime we can significantly reduce the likelihood of being targeted e.g., if every homeowner in a neighborhood made sure to close and lock all their windows during the summer, whilst they are at work, that neighborhood – ceteris paribus (all other things being equal) would likely see a reduction in burglary. In all probability, this would lead to a reduction in other crimes, as the conversations in criminal social networks, would start to see a particular locale get mentioned less by those who engaged in burglary, and certainly such neighborhoods would become less attractive to those offenders who not only engage in burglaries, but other crimes such as auto theft as well.

We often assume that those who commit planned/premeditated acts of violence are more committed to their acts than those who engage in spontaneous acts of aggression, motivated by external factors, such as having a drink accidentally spilt over them, or having somebody cut in front of them in a line etc., however this is usually not the case. For somebody who engages in street robbery there is usually nothing personal about their crimes i.e., a suitable victim is a suitable victim etc. There may be occasions when what a person “represents” becomes important, such as a mugger looking to bring down and demonstrate to a businessperson in an expensive suit that they aren’t as important and significant as they may think they are, but this is less about them as a person a more about a societal statement etc. When somebody cuts you off in traffic, or accidentally bumps into you or steps on your foot, we may see this as a personal afront that takes something away from us etc. Research has consistently shown that people will be more committed to righting a wrong and getting “something” back – even if that is something intangible like self-respect – than they will about getting something new or advancing themselves in some way. It is individuals who engage in spontaneous acts of violence, where somebody’s action(s) and/or behavior(s) have caused them to become aggressive, who are more committed and motivated than those who engage in premeditated acts of aggression, such as those who engage in street robberies etc. When violence is personal, it tends to involve individuals who are more committed, and who are prepared to engage in more extreme acts and forms of aggression. There are of course exceptions to this, with psychopaths and sadists etc., who plan and orchestrate their crimes however these individuals are only responsible for a fraction of violent crimes.

It takes very little to deter the criminal who plans to offend, and often a security measure that addresses one form of crime will have a universal effect. However, we should recognize that when we are dealing with a person who becomes spontaneously aggressive/violent because of something they have perceived/believed that we have done, then we are dealing with someone who is extremely committed to their cause, and we need to treat their grievance, however trivial it may seem to us, extremely seriously. This is one of the reasons that effective de-escalation should feature prominently in our training.