PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Copes, Heith]On: 18 February 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 933707117]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Crime and JusticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t931314914

Criminal experience and perceptions of risk: what auto thieves fearwhenstealing carsHeith Copesa; Richard Tewksburyb

a Department of Justice Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA b

Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Online publication date: 18 February 2011

To cite this Article Copes, Heith and Tewksbury, Richard(2011) 'Criminal experience and perceptions of risk: what autothieves fear whenstealing cars', Journal of Crime and Justice, 34: 1, 62 — 79To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2011.554747URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.554747

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Criminal experience and perceptions of risk: what auto thieves fear

when stealing cars

Heith Copesa* and Richard Tewksburyb

aDepartment of Justice Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1201 University Blvd.,Suite 210, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA; bDepartment of Justice Administration, University of

Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA

(Received 31 December 2009; final version received 29 March 2010)

In the past two decades criminologists have devoted considerable attention tomodeling the decision-making process of offenders. This literature suggests thatwhile there is a general pattern to these decisions, experience with crime likelyeffects the way offenders assess the costs and benefits of crime. Using interviewswith 42 auto thieves we examine how experience shapes auto thieves’ perceptionsof the risks of stealing cars. We find that experience influences the ways offendersperceive the fears associated with auto theft. Specifically, experienced offenderswere most concerned with being confronted (and possibly injured) by owners,while novice offenders were most concerned with being sanctioned by familymembers.

Keywords: motor vehicle theft; risks of crime; criminal experience

Research on criminal decision-making has highlighted the dynamic process of howstreet offenders assess the risks and rewards of wrongdoing (Wright and Decker1994, 1997, Shover 1996). Offenders are thought to be active decision-makers whoapply knowledge, biases, and strategies in discrete situations when choosing crime(Cornish and Clarke 1986). This literature highlights that while offenders may notdwell on the long-term consequences of their actions, they do consider and accountfor the costs of crime. Indeed, they engage in strategic behaviors to decrease thelikelihood that they will suffer consequences for their illicit action (Johnson andNatarajan 1995, Jacobs 1996a, 1996b, Cherbonneau and Copes 2006). This body ofresearch also suggests that not all offenders assess the costs and benefits of crime insimilar ways or to similar outcomes. For some time, students of criminal choice haverecognized that the process of criminal decision-making varies by criminal offenseand by offender type (Cornish and Clarke 1986). It is likely that experience playsa large part in how offenders perceive and manage the consequences of criminal acts(Carroll and Weaver 1986, Feeney 1986). Like all activities, practice providesinsights into recognizing where people will have the greatest chance of success. Foroffenders, continued commission of crime opens their eyes to the places, times, andtargets where they are most likely to succeed and those where they face the greatest

*Corresponding author. Email: jhcopes@uab.edu

Journal of Crime and Justice

Vol. 34, No. 1, March 2011, 62–79

ISSN 0735-648X print/ISSN 2158-9119 online

� 2011 Midwestern Criminal Justice Association

DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2011.554747

http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

risk (Brantingham and Brantingham 1978, Logie et al. 1992). The expertise thatdevelops from experience has informed persistent offenders on the best ways to scantheir environments, see emerging opportunities quickly, and manage any potentialrisks, something novices offenders are ill equipped to do (Nee and Meenaghan 2006).

While recognition is widespread that criminal experience probably leads todifferent perceptions of crime, the bulk of qualitative research and autobiographicalaccounts of street offenders are about those who have engaged in numerous crimes(Wright and Decker 1994, 1997, Shover 1996, Hochstetler 2001, Brookman et al.2007). What is known of offenders’ thinking often comes from those who havereconciled themselves with crime, its limited prospects, and the nearly inevitablecatastrophes that result from continued offending. While these informants arevaluable sources, they do not tell us how they differ from the way that noviceoffenders make decisions. Because of this, it is difficult to know if decision-makingstrategies for inexperienced offenders are different from those used by high-frequencyoffenders. The goal of this research is to determine if experienced and novice autothieves assess the costs of crime similarly. Specifically, we describe the risks thatoffenders think about when engaging in auto theft and how these perceived risksvary by their level of experience with stealing vehicles.

Motor vehicle theft

Compared to other Type I crimes as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,the theft of motor vehicles is relatively under-researched (Clarke and Harris 1992a),although this pattern of neglect is beginning to change. In the past two decades,several studies have been published that explore auto theft from the offenderperspective (e.g., Spencer 1992, Light et al. 1993, Copes 2003a, 2003b, Cherbonneauand Copes 2006, O’Connor and Kelly 2006). What distinguishes this research fromother methodological approaches is the use of interviews and other ethnographictechniques to explore the perspectives, the social organization, and the behavior ofoffenders. Personal interviews with offenders can inform about the techniques,motives, and rationalizations of crime (Presser 2009, Tewksbury 2009).

Drawing on both in-depth interviews and ethnographic engagement withoffenders researchers have constructed several auto theft typologies to reflect thevaried motivations of offenders. Often this information is used to guide thinkingabout preventive measures with greater specificity (Challinger 1987, Clarke andHarris 1992a). One of the most widely cited motivational typologies is that ofMcCaghy et al. (1977), which consists of five distinct motivations for auto theft.They claim that the most common motivation for auto theft is to use the vehicle forshort-term, recreational use (i.e., joyriding). Those who steal to joyride are thoughtto be driven by a desire for excitement, to prove their manhood, or to gain statusamong their peers. The second type is short-term transportation, which occurs whenthieves steal for the sole purpose of getting from one place to another. In theseincidents the short-term car thief is thought to succumb to situational pressures thatlead to a self-defined necessity for immediate transportation (Copes 2003a, Jacobset al. 2003). The third motivation for stealing a vehicle is to personally keep and usethe car indefinitely. The fourth type of auto theft consists of those vehicles thatare stolen for profit, either by selling parts or the whole vehicle (Field et al.1992). Thefinal motivation, and likely the rarest, consists of those vehicles stolen for their use inthe commission of another crime.

Journal of Crime and Justice 63

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

The McCaghy et al. typology is widely credited with identifying the commontypes of auto theft that exist in the USA and elsewhere. Since publication of thistypology, however, others have elaborated on it. Challinger (1987) reformulated thetypology to include three motivational types: recreational, transport, and money-making. Similarly, Clarke and Harris (1992a) proposed a three-part typologyconsisting of theft for temporary use (joyriding and short-term transportation),professional theft (where thieves intend to deprive the owner permanently of thevehicle for purposes of extended use, parts chopping, resale, or export), and theftsfrom vehicles (e.g., car batteries, radios, and personal possessions inside thevehicle).

While each of these studies presents differing typologies, they all implydistinctions between novices (e.g., joyriders) and experts (e.g., professionals). It iscommonly assumed that joyriders tend to be younger and less experienced than thosewho steal for profit (Clarke and Harris 1992b). In addition, joyriders tend to exhibitdifferent patterns of decision-making, including target selection, enactment, andthoughts about law enforcement. In terms of enactment, some level of skill is neededfor most auto thefts. This is especially true for newer models that often comeequipped with security devices. Evidence shows that the introduction of steeringcolumn locks and electronic immobilizers has led to a reduction in thefts fortemporary use but not in thefts for profit (Levesly et al. 2004, Donkin and Wellsmith2006). While skilled thieves have learned ways around these security measures,novice offenders have been forced to use simpler means, such as carjacking orstealing keys (Levesly et al. 2004, Copes and Cherbonneau 2006).

Clarke and Harris (1992b) found that motivation largely determines the type ofvehicle stolen. They found that vehicles stolen for temporary use were more likely tohave automatic transmissions than cars stolen for other reasons. They attributethis to young joyriders who are unfamiliar with driving vehicles with manualtransmissions. Tremblay et al. (1994) used data from Canada to show how changingopportunity structures impact variation in vehicles stolen for temporary transporta-tion and for resale. They found that changes in rates of vehicles stolen for joyridingwere more sensitive to changes in target vulnerability and arrest risks than thosestolen for profit. Additionally, rates of those stolen for resale were more sensitive tochanges in market regulations (e.g., overcharging in the repair industry) than thosestolen for short-term use.

The motives auto thieves offer for their crimes also seem to be dependent on theirage and experiences. For example, Copes (2003b) interviewed incarcerated autothieves about how they account for or justify their crimes. He found that whilethieves of various experience levels neutralize their offenses at comparable levels,they relied on different techniques to do so. Those who were relatively inexperiencedwith auto theft most often denied that their crimes caused any real injuries. Sincemost of these offenders stole for short-term use, ‘returned’ the vehicles, and did notcause excessive damage to them, they argued that they did not cause any real harm.This was contrasted by high-frequency offenders who saw the victim as beingresponsible for the crime (i.e., denial of victim).

When asked to articulate their reasons for stealing cars, offenders’ ages seem toaffect their answers. For many marginalized youths, a stolen car can provide a degreeof escape, if only temporarily, from their social and economic dislocation (Dawes2002). The pursuit of excitement, to alleviate boredom, and the influence of peers arethe primary reasons given by young auto thieves (Spencer 1992, Light et al. 1993,

64 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

Dawes 2002). In the minds of these youthful thieves, few activities, legal or illegal,can trump the elation and sense of freedom derived from auto theft (Stephens andSquires 2003). More experienced auto thieves claim that the thrill of stealing carsmay have been a powerful motivator when they were young, but no longer is so.They described a more controlled and rational approach to their crimes, oftenclaiming that money was the sole reason they continued stealing cars (Copes 2003b).

Available research suggests that experience likely plays a role in how car thievesthink about their crimes and how, when, and where they select targets. Thus, wewould also expect that experience will have an influence on the risks auto thievesassociate with their crimes. It is this, as of yet unanswered, question that we addresshere.

Methods

The current study and its conclusions are derived from convicted auto thieves’accounts of their crimes gathered in semi-structured interviews. The 42 participantswere on community supervision (either probation or parole) in one metropolitanarea in Tennessee following convictions for various property crimes and hadcommitted at least one motor vehicle theft. The Tennessee Board of Probation andParole granted access to parolees’ and probationers’ files, which included enoughinformation to locate and contact offenders. Pre-sentence investigation reports(PSIs) were used as the primary source of data for finding and contacting suitablepersons to interview. If respondents had a motor vehicle theft in their prior record,official or unofficial, they were included in the study sample. After obtainingapproval from the Institutional Review Board, we solicited those offenders who fitthe criteria via letter and phone. To provide encouragement for participation, thosewho appeared for the interview were paid a small financial incentive.

Respondents, all males, ranged in age from 18 to 58, with an average age of 31.Nine participants were white, 30 were black, two were Hispanic, and one was Asian.Some had no previous arrests and others had long rap sheets that reflected years ofpersistent offending. The number of auto thefts committed varied significantly. Somewere relatively inexperienced, committing only one or two thefts, while others wereprolific, stealing in excess of 50 or more vehicles. Caution is urged, as the preciserelationship of this sample to larger populations of theoretical and substantiveinterest is unknown. It does, however, capture a wide range of auto thieves, in termsof their skills, motives, and experience.

Interviews focused on respondents’ motivations to commit motor vehicle theft,their experience with motor vehicle theft, the target selection process, perceived risksand rewards of participating in motor vehicle theft, and techniques and skills usedto accomplish their tasks. Additionally, respondents were queried about theirperceptions and fears associated with their involvement in auto theft. These issuesare the focus of the present analysis. The interviews varied in length from 30 to90 minutes and were recorded with the participant’s permission (all granted uspermission to record). To aid in analysis, the lead author transcribed all interviews tomirror the spoken words as closely as possible. All interviews were manually codedto identify common themes regarding perceptions of risk when committing autothefts. Once the overarching themes were established all transcripts were re-coded forconsistency. The passages of interviews where offenders talk about fear comprise thefindings that follow.

Journal of Crime and Justice 65

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

For purposes of analysis, the sample is dichotomized based on individuals’ levelof experience in auto theft. Although some offenders claimed to not know how manyvehicles they had ever stole and could provide only rough estimates based on theirtypical frequency and the number of years that they had been active auto thieves, wewere able to distinguish those who had only minimal (five or fewer) auto thefts andthose with more experience. Individuals who had stolen more than five cars wereclassified as high frequency and those with fewer than five were classified as lowfrequency. This cutoff was chosen because all individuals we interviewed had eitherstolen fewer than five cars or more than 10 cars. Thus, it became a ‘natural’ cutoffdistinguishing the two groups. There were 28 high-frequency offenders and 14low-frequency (‘novice’) ones. The mean ages at time of first auto theft and last autotheft for low-frequency offenders was 18 and 20. For high-frequency offenders, meanage for first theft was 17 and last auto theft was 25. Low-frequency offenders beganat approximately the same age but desisted from (or were apprehended for) autotheft much earlier than high-frequency offenders. The racial composition of thecategories is nearly identical; 21% were white and 79% were minorities for bothcategories (Table 1).

Findings

Fears and concerns of auto theft

The most consistent theme throughout the interviews was the common experience ofextreme physical sensations, often described as a ‘rush’ or ‘butterflies,’ that occurduring the offending activity. Such experiences can be interpreted as indications thatanxiety is a large part of the act of auto theft. When discussing his experiences oneoffender replied, ‘I remember that feeling of excitement. Like a big ole rush, but atthe same time I had that fear of what could happen.’ Even highly motivated andpersistent offenders view thieving as an emotional experience, with fear, anxiety, andsome degree of apprehension about stealing defining the crime (Lejuene 1977,Cusson 1993). It is hard to escape completely the discomforting effects on theemotions and the body that accompany risky and dangerous choices. As oneoffender stated, ‘I guess you was nervous but you too stupid to realize you wasnervous. The adrenaline gets to pumping. It might seem like you’re cool but you not.It’s always there, the thought of getting caught. It’s always there.’ Except for themost hardened criminals the actual event of stealing a vehicle evokes anxieties and

Table 1. Demographic profile of offenders by offending frequency.

High frequency (N¼ 28) Low frequency (N¼ 14)

Mean ageFirst auto theft 17 18Last auto theft 25 20

RaceWhite 6 (21%) 3 (21%)Black 22 (79%) 8 (57%)Other 0 (0%) 3 (21%)

Auto theft convictionYes 16 (57%) 6 (43%)No 12 (43%) 8 (57%)

66 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

fears that range from a mild sense of uncertainty about a situation to intense fright(Cusson 1993).

When looking at the experiences and concerns expressed by novice andexperienced auto thieves, there are some clear differences readily identified. Asdiscussed in what follows, differences are apparent in their fears of arrest, concernsabout detection by victims, concerns about loved ones learning of one’s thievingactivities, and worries about collisions. What is seen is that, generally speaking,novice auto thieves had greater concerns about detection by victims and familymember and were less confident in their abilities to successfully complete the theftand not be involved in a collision. The greatest concern mentioned by experiencedoffenders was being caught in the act by the owners of the vehicles they were stealing.They thought that being caught by victims would likely lead to unwanted violenceby or against them.

Auto thieves presented their anxieties/fears as focused on four primary concerns:the possibility and consequences of being caught and arrested, that their victims maybecome aware of a theft in progress and actively seek to defend their property(thereby initiating a violent altercation), the consequences of their families findingout about their criminal activities, and of being injured (and perhaps apprehended)as a result of an accident in the immediate aftermath of stealing a vehicle.

Fear of arrest

Crime control policies are often created based on the idea that offenders take formalsanctions into account when contemplating crime. However, most research suggeststhat persistent street offenders seldom think about or are aware of the legalconsequences of their illicit actions (Feeney 1986, Wright and Rossi 1986, Shoverand Honaker 1992, Tunnell 1992). For the most part, those interviewed here werenot exceptions to this trend. Only eight offenders stated that the possibility of beingdetected by police was the most important factor in their decision-making.Interestingly, six of these eight were experienced thieves.

For those offenders who did not hold strong fears of apprehension, there wereseveral reasons for their confidence. Even those who did not actively process theirrisks recognized the possibility of apprehension, although it was commonlyperceived as unlikely to occur in the short term (Shover 1996). Such a belief, aswell as a lack of concern over apprehension, was supported by both their ownexperiences and knowledge of the experiences of others. Simply stated, as oneengages in criminal activities with impunity their beliefs about the slim likelihood ofsuch occurring are reinforced (Paternoster et al. 1982, Cusson 1993). One offenderwe interviewed claimed to have stolen over 200 motorcycles and at least 50 carswithout ever being arrested, and as he successfully continued his thieving, anyconcerns about arrest became more and more remote for him. Or, as another said:

Shoot, I’m not going to lie, I can’t count [the cars I stole]. Just that many. . . . If I gotcaught for all the crimes that I did I’d never see daylight. I was only caught five times. Ibeen doing it since 1974.

Interestingly, being ‘only caught five times’ was clearly seen as a mild exception tothe rule, and not something for which the individual was significantly concerned.Thus it appears that because of their success at evading law enforcement experiencedoffenders thought they had little or no need to fear being arrested. Even when

Journal of Crime and Justice 67

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

apprehension did occur, it was perceived as the exception rather than the rule andnot necessarily a reason to discontinue their thievery.

When asked what they thought would happen if they were caught, manyassumed that the consequences for their actions would be minor, allowing them toeasily dismiss the thought and continue on with their plans (Light et al. 1993,Fleming 2002). The anticipation that even if consequences did arise they would beminor was expressed by both experienced and novice auto thieves. Whileacknowledging the possibility of arrest and criminal justice processing, many alsoassumed that they would simply be given probation, a sentence that did not instillfear, trepidation, or even minor concern in them. Probation was almost universallyperceived as an easily managed and adjusted to sentence, not something that wouldimpose changes in the individual’s life. For most, probation, or in fact any likely tobe received sentence, was perceived as ‘a joke.’ One young offender expressed thissentiment when he was asked what he thought would happen if he got caught:‘I would just go to the police station and get signed out. I was just a juvenile soI couldn’t go to jail.’ Another offender’s response to being caught by police was,‘Fuck the police. They ain’t going to do anything but bring me to jail. I ain’t worriedabout 5–0, shit.’

Experienced offenders held the strongest views that there was little to fear fromany sanction or sentence arising from official criminal justice processing. Theexperienced auto thieves claimed that they did not fear incarceration, because theyhad previously been to jail, and the experience had shown them that there was noreal reason to fear confinement (Shover 1996). In the words of one offender, ‘Yeah[I feared getting caught], when I was young and shit. Yeah. Now, I been to jailalready so now when I do it, it ain’t shit.’ So, while auto thieves did not relishapprehension, and did express some concerns about arrest, it was not an event thatweighed heavily on their minds or decisions about future behavior.

Despite the fact that many, if not most, offenders claimed to have no fears ofpolice, some offenders did contemplate the legal consequences of their crimes. As thefollowing quote illustrates, not all offenders ignored the reality of police presencewhen committing crime:

The police, that’s what I’m worried about. I can get away [from the owner]. If I can’tfight them, I can out run them. I can get around them. But when you come against thepolice, I know it ain’t good.

Some offenders did rank the police high on their list of fears. Interestingly, themajority of those who thought this way were among the experienced group of autothieves. Although not the norm in this sample, several of the experienced offendersmentioned that they were aware that motor vehicle theft was a ‘hard charge’ andthey did not want to be prosecuted for it. One offender worried that if he wasapprehended he would possibly be used by over-eager police who would pressadditional charges on him in an effort to (inappropriately) clear outstanding cases.Because of this concern, not a worry about being charged with the actual offenseshe committed, he avoided stealing cars when he thought too many people were alsostealing.

They got beaucoup people that are stealing in the world, or in the town that we arein. And [if] one person gets caught up with the car, they [police] will charge him withmore cars because they’ll have those cases. They’ll give you those charges. You haveto look at that too. If it is kind of hot, if a lot of cars be missing, I ain’t about to

68 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

take those charges. We looked at those things too. We mostly did it when the air wasclear.

The possibility of being incarcerated for many years due to possessing a prior recordwas the primary reason the few experienced offenders considered arrest in theirdecision-making.

When novice thieves discussed their fears of being arrested they focused onthe uncertainty of spending time in jail. One inexperienced offender respondedto a question about his fears of arrest, saying ‘When I was young and shit, Ididn’t want to go to jail, you know what I’m saying.’ This same offender went on tosay:

I knew there was consequences but like I said I never stole them too many times so Inever was going to get caught. When I’m stealing radios it would be so easy because I’ddo it late at night, with nobody around. . . . But stealing cars I wouldn’t like take thechance because if the police behind you and runs the license plate number and its stolenpull them over. That’s too much bull shit.

Another inexperienced offender was worried about being arrested because he hada previous offense, which he believed would lead to a stiffer penalty if caught. In hiswords, ‘Just the fact knowing that I’m stealing. Just the fact knowing that I’m morethan a first offender. The three strike deal really makes you nervous.’

Fear of apprehension by victims

While the potential of being apprehended and processed by criminal justice systemofficials and winding up in jail or prison may be a concern for at least some autothieves, the more commonly voiced concerns about apprehension centered on beingcaught or confronted by the owner of the vehicle being stolen. This concern wasequally likely to be voiced by auto thieves of all levels of experience. The source ofthis concern arose out of their recognition that they were imposing on other people’sproperty and if detected by potential victims the situation held a strong likelihoodto turn violent. Fearing that a victim may seek to actively and violently defend theirproperty or retaliate against the auto thief in some manner was based on thesethieves’ own beliefs about their probable responses if they were in the role of thevictims. As expressed by one car thief:

I know I’d kill a mother fucker if I catch him down in my shit, you know. . . . It’s adangerous game, you know, in itself. That’s just like your old lady, your car. At least tome. You value those mother fuckers.

Another put it even more bluntly,

I owned a 1954 Mercury custom pro street, antique. It’s my pride and joy. If you wouldactually steal it, I would kill you, your wife, kids, your dog, your gold fish, just for thecar. I know what that car does.

Getting shot or severely injured during the commission of a crime understandablyenters the minds of many thieves as they consider their targets (Wright and Rossi1986, Jacobs 2000). These concerns are also reinforced by the experiences of anumber of auto thieves as several of the offenders interviewed had suffered seriousinjuries at the hands of victims. One offender, who himself had been identified by

Journal of Crime and Justice 69

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

victims and suffered retaliation for his actions, explained the potential harm thatcould come to someone who tried to forcibly take the property of another:

I done been shot at. I done been stabbed and connected. Like, I [came across] this littlefemale right up under the light. . . . I told her, ‘You got two things you can do. You takea ride with me or you can get out right here.’ . . . She had one of them butterfly knives.When I seen it, it was too late. It was in my knee.

Another offender had a cousin who was killed in the process of stealing a car.

I got a cousin he just got killed three months ago doing that. Somehow he got caughtup. He run and they run him down and kill him. All a mistake. He had just got out thepen. He hadn’t been on the street six months. He’s dead now. A mistake can cost youyour life.

Such situations were not desirable, and auto thieves, like most property offenders,actively attempted to avoid confronting the owners of the property they werestealing. Avoiding one’s victims was beneficial for both avoiding apprehension andinjury (Wright and Decker 1994, Cromwell and Olson 2004). In this sample, bothexperienced and inexperienced thieves said they worked to avoid been seen andidentified, as such would invariably have a negative outcome for the individual.One novice offender explained succinctly, ‘The police take ya to jail, but the owner’llkill ya.’ When asked whom he feared more, the police or the owner, a younginexperienced thief who ventured into rural areas to steal responded:

The owners! Shoot, this is country folk. These people don’t believe in calling the cops.You in their yard stealing something; they coming out with shotguns. It might not benothing but pellet shots in it, but it still going to sting. Like I said, it was dangerous.You don’t know whose land you’re on. You don’t know who or what they are capableof doing. People shoot you around here and bury you in their backyard and no one willever miss you. Especially if you are in their yard trying steal something. Don’t no oneknow you’re there. Think about, if you in their yard stealing you ain’t telling no one youwas going to steal this. This ain’t organized crime where you got a boss. This is smalltime stuff. So, I was more scared of them coming out finding me. And nine times out often they probably knew my parents.

Another responded to a query about whether he had fears while stealing avehicle, and whether his fears were stronger for law enforcement authorities or hisvictims:

I always have fears, you always have worries of people in they windows, if they see youbut they just not saying nothing. They loading their guns right now. They waiting andthey are going to shoot me, you know all that. Yeah, you have fears. Most times youhave fears in everything you do, especially when it’s wrong doing.

When assessing the perspectives of experienced and inexperienced auto thievesregarding their expectations for possible confrontations with victims the inexper-ienced thieves more frequently mentioned a concern that owners or bystanderswitnessing the car theft would report it to the police. Fears of an attack by the victim,while mentioned by some, were more infrequent among the novice auto thieves,suggesting that such a fear may be the product of actual experiences, and until oneactually encountered a resisting or retaliating victim the possibility of such may bedownplayed. Concerns about resisting/retaliating victims arose not only from theactual time that a vehicle was obtained, but also from the time following the actual

70 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

taking when the thief is in possession of the vehicle, and could be found in possessionof the vehicle by others.

Driving a recently-stolen vehicle was often a very stressful time for car thieves,especially if they stole in areas where they were known and they were inexperiencedauto thieves (Cherbonneau and Copes 2006). Being in a stolen vehicle is hard-to-deny evidence of one’s having stolen the vehicle, meaning that victim retaliationwould be facilitated. As one offender explained:

You don’t have nervousness until . . . after you done left the lot where you done took itfrom. Then you worry. You start thinking, I wonder who saw me. If this ladyrecognized me when I pulled out the drive way off the lot. . . . And then another thingI worried about was who saw me riding around in the car, you understand. If I didn’t gono further than the hotel parking lot or the concert parking lot I always worried aboutwho saw me on my street or going to my shop. That’s the only thing I always worriedabout.

Another young, inexperienced auto thief discussed his concerns about being seenin a vehicle he stole, although his concerns centered more on being perceived ‘outof place’ rather than simply being identified by a victim. As he recalled, ‘Yeah,I had plenty of fear because I was paranoid every time I drove the car. I’m ayoung man sitting in a $60,000 car, people staring at me always got me paranoid,always.’

This is all not to say that all offenders were afraid of their victims. Many thoughtthey could leave the scene if approached. If a vehicle’s owner or anyone elseapproached car thieves in the act, offenders had two options. First, they could flee orat least try to make an escape without a confrontation, which was by far the mostcommon reaction of inexperienced auto thieves in these situations. When asked whathe would have done if the owner came out, one inexperienced offender stated,‘We wouldn’t be there. If he comes out, or if we even think they are coming, if wehear a door crack or anything, a light come on, we are gone. Period. There is nostaying behind.’ Or, more simply, as another stated, ‘If we would have seen anybodywe would have broke out running.’ Avoiding the owner, even to the extent ofrunning from them, is consistent with research on other types of property crimes,especially burglary (Wright and Decker 1994). It is well known that most burglarstake precautions to avoid going into occupied or protected homes (Rengert andWasilchick 2000, Hakim et al. 2001). Most auto thieves behave similarly; that is, theyplan their crimes to avoid confrontations with the owner.

However, when confronted, fleeing was not always successful or defined as thedesired response. Here was a difference between more and less experienced autothieves. It was common for the more experienced auto thieves to take the secondoption when owners ‘step up on them’ by physically attacking or threateningthem. Only five offenders actually reported using violence to escape an owner, allbut one of which were experienced auto thieves. They thought that by initiatingthe threat or use of violence they could prevent the victim from using violenceagainst them.

I always had something on me, a gun. If they come out I’m going to defend myself.I don’t want to try to hurt them or nothing but if I see them trying to get at me I’m goingto make them get in the house or something. You know, probably shoot in the air andscare them like so I can get away. . . . I probably let them know I had a gun and get themback in the house so I could get away.

Journal of Crime and Justice 71

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

A willingness to escalate their threats into actual physical violence was primarilyidentified among the more experienced auto thieves, although it was still not thenormative response. As recalled by another thief:

We got caught in a parking lot stealing this guy’s car and he was a big old guy. A big fatguy. . . . And he was like right next door with this chick. He jumped out [screaming] ‘yousons of bitches, what are you doing?’ We were like this is our car we are getting in itbecause the keys are locked in it. He was like, ‘I’ll be a son of a bitch. This is my car.’ Hewas walking over there the whole time, man. As soon as he got there my partner thatI was with, he is a really good fighter, he busted the guy in the solar plexus. It like wetnoodled him and we just took off.

However, several others claimed they would do whatever it took to avoid capture,even if it meant seriously injuring another person. Clearly, the property offense ofauto theft is not without a violent component; although the offense itself doesnot typically involve the use or threat of violence there is clearly opportunity forsuch, and for at least a notable minority of offenders, a willingness to resort toviolence to complete a theft or ‘defend oneself’ when situations require is a very realpossibility.

Fear of family finding out

The first two categories of anxieties and fears expressed by auto thieves focused onofficial and (potentially) violent sanctions and responses from law enforcementofficials and victims. The third category of fear expressed by these offenders wasthe informal costs of shame from friends and families. Despite a large body ofquantitative research that suggests attachment to one’s family is a deterrent to crime(Farrington and Welsh 2007, Piquero et al. 2009), interviews with persistent streetthieves indicate that they rarely worry about family or friends discovering theirbehavior (Tunnell 1992). Concern that one’s family members would learn that theywere stealing vehicles varied based on one’s level of experience with crime. It wasrare among those with criminal experience, but relatively common among the novicethieves. The only experienced thieves who feared their family finding out did sobecause their families had grown tired of their chronic wrongdoings and wouldreport them to police.

In the present sample, a general lack of concern for the effects of one’s criminalactivities on those around them was most pronounced and obvious for the moreexperienced auto thieves. For some, there was concern about possible familyconsequences when they were young, but these concerns were no longer seen asrelevant or important. As one experienced offender said, ‘I’m grown, fuck. I do whatI want to do. I ain’t staying with none of them, so I mean they ain’t got nothing totell me.’ The lack of concern for the views and possible interventions of familymembers were most often accompanied by indications that the offenders thoughttheir families had little to no interest or concern with them. As one experienced autothief explained it, ‘I didn’t care if they found out really because they wasn’t therehelping me. If that was the case I wouldn’t of [stole cars] in the first place.’ Anotheroffender went so far as to say the reason he continued stealing cars was to hurt hisfamily. ‘I didn’t want them to know certain things but I wanted to hurt them.I wanted to let them know what I been through when I was ignored.’

One likely reason experienced auto thieves were unconcerned about their familiesfinding out was because family members often minded their own business, and

72 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

therefore they were simply unlikely to learn of their actions. As one offender stated,‘My wife asked me no questions. And I told her no lies. [But] I’m pretty sure sheknew I was doing something illegal.’ Suspicions or actual (unspoken) knowledge waspresumed by many thieves for their family members. However, the experiences ofthese auto thieves were that these family members simply said nothing. They did notspeak of the car parts lying around the yard, of the extra cash car thieves had in theirpockets, or the designer car accessories that were in their possession.

My mom knew, she probably knew, but she didn’t tell me nothing. She probablywanted to tell me something but didn’t, because every night I’ll have like a set of rimsin my house and she’d be like where you got that from. [I told her] I bought that. Shewould leave it like that. . . . She minded her own business and I minded my ownbusiness.

If other family members ignore illegal behavior, there is no need for offenders tofactor family reactions into their decision-making process.

For novice offenders, however, families were taken into account, at leastminimally, before engaging in crime (Spencer 1992). It is notable that of the 12offenders who indicated their family was an important consideration in their criminalactivity, nine had relatively little criminal experience. It appears that as one gainsexperience, and becomes more deeply involved and invested in criminal offending,concerns about informal sanctions from family members weaken and dissolve.

Inexperienced auto thieves were more likely to consider familial consequencesbefore stealing cars than were more experienced thieves. The sanctions that wereanticipated to arise from family members obtaining knowledge of one’s role as anauto thief were identified in two forms: punishment from family members and injuryto familial relationships. The short-term constraint that one’s family, especiallyparents of juveniles, had on car thieves was the possibility of being punished.Obviously, punishment was a factor only to those car thieves who were youngenough to live at home at the time they were stealing. Several of the offendersmentioned having rather severe punishments inflicted upon them when their parentsor guardians discovered the car theft. For example, one young offender said:

[My Grandma] whooped me bad. She whooped me, punished me, on my knees with saltrocks. She punished me. My grandmother, God rest her soul, like my mama says too, ifmy grandma would still be living I wouldn’t be in trouble now.

Long-term damage to familial relationships, such as loss of trust, also constrainedthe behavior of inexperienced auto thieves. To these young men, the short-termconsequences such as being ‘whooped’ or made to kneel on rock salt did not hurt asmuch as the sorrow they caused their families (i.e., the social aspects of punishmentoutweigh the physical aspects). Knowing they let loved ones down often weighedheavily on the minds of young offenders. Inexperienced offenders recognized thatthe abuse of familial trust may never be regained, and that the effects of one’s actionsmay be permanent. When asked if he worried about his family finding out oneoffender stated:

That kind of hurt the most, because my mom is a Christian and stuff. I said they aregoing to look at and people are going to talk about it. It’s going to eventually get outand I don’t know what kind of impression they are going to have about it. They stillshow love for me, you know. It may not be the same as it used to be but it’s there.I don’t know if they show as much trust.

Journal of Crime and Justice 73

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

When asked which was harder, dealing with consequences from his family or fromthe state, one offender was quick and clear in his pronouncement that the informalsanctions received from his family were much stronger and more influential on him.As he stated, ‘The consequences of my family. Because I know one thing, I’m goingto get off [of probation], one day.’

The three experienced offenders who feared their family gaining knowledge oftheir illicit activities were not the norm among the experienced offenders, and in facthad interesting reasons for not wanting their family to know. Namely, they believedthat family members would report them to police. As one offender said:

I didn’t want news to be spread out wide what I’m doing, you know. When you’re doingcrime or something illegal you don’t want nobody to know what you are doing. Younever know who going to tell on you. You can’t trust nobody when you doing crime,not even your family.

When asked what his family had to say about his auto theft conviction oneexperienced offender responded:

[My mother] wasn’t very shocked because the charge I have right now, the unauthorizeduse of a moveable, was my dad’s truck. [My parents] expected it. They set me up, let’sput it that way. I felt they set me up because they knew I was going to do it.

Fear of an accident

It is not uncommon for offenders to express concern for their physical safety whenengaging in acquisitive street crime. Typically, concerns of this nature stemmedfrom worries about being beaten up or injured from physical confrontations withpolice or owners. However, this was not the only way offenders could injurethemselves. Automobile accidents have the potential to cause serious bodily harmto drivers and passengers. Accidents may be more likely to occur in a stolen vehiclebecause the bodies of offenders are pulsing with adrenaline (as reflected in theearlier discussion of the emotional response to thieving) and, not infrequentlyalcohol or illicit drugs, a combination that can significantly impair their ability todrive (Light et al. 1993). Also, especially relevant when focusing on novice youthfulauto thieves, a number of offenders are relatively inexperienced drivers. Inrecognition of these factors, it is instructive that six offenders said that the mostpressing fear on their mind while stealing cars was the possibility of getting into anaccident.

Without exception, those who identified accidents as a major fear were young,inexperienced drivers and novice thieves (also see Spencer 1992, Light et al. 1993,O’Connor and Kelly 2006). The place of youth in the calculations of two offenderswas evident in the following statements, ‘I never had the music on, I never hadnothing on. I was scared I was going to wreck and then when I drove it for like anhour I was like damn I can turn the music on.’ Similarly, another offender noted:

The first time I was scared to wreck. You see we didn’t know how to drive the Jeep and Ithought don’t let me wreck, don’t let me wreck. Because I kept saying that if you wreck,I had envisioned a picture if you wreck you automatically die. I done seen so many caraccidents you know. I just had this picture in my head that if you wreck youautomatically die. And yeah I was still young you know what I’m saying there was a lotof stuff going through my mind. That’s the only real fear I had was don’t let me die,don’t let me wreck.

74 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

Typically, when offenders mentioned the deterrent effects of fear of accidents, theyclaimed that the fear emerged after the fact, when they finally realized the severity oftheir actions. Whereas at least for some auto thieves fears and concerns aboutapprehension, confrontations with victims and family members learning of theiractions function as a deterrent to offending, concerns over an accident (and itsrepercussions) did not enter into the pre-crime calculus. Instead, such fears wereexperienced and influential only on post-theft behavior. As one offender recalled,‘I just was fortunate. I could have killed myself. I’d never do it again like that.I would never do that again.’ One wreck was so traumatic for the offender he claimedto have never stolen another car. ‘I can recall another time that I stole a 1963 Buickand ran it into a ditch. That was a tragedy. . . . That was the last car I stole.’

This suggests that the fear of accidents and resulting injury may have a smalldegree of deterrent effect, but only once fears had been realized. Concerns aboutthe potential for an accident and being subsequently injured did not deter offendersfrom engaging in thieving initially. These are concerns that are largely the result ofexperience, and only with experience did the fears appear to have an impact on thebehavior of the offenders.

Conclusion

The potential consequences, both formal and informal, of crime certainly enter theminds of most offenders. The way offenders perceive, experience and react to fear isneither static nor consistent across all offenders. Auto thieves, like many types ofoffenders, actively engage in techniques to reduce the potential costs of crime (Jacobsand Miller 1998, Cherbonneau and Copes 2006, Copes and Vieraitis 2009, Holt et al.2009). Thus, not all offenders experience the same fears, and even when they do havesimilar types of fears they are likely to experience them differently. Criminalexperience appears to be a highly salient factor in how offenders both evaluate thecosts and benefits of crime and react to their results of their calculus. Findings of thecurrent study indicate that, in terms of fear of formal control (i.e., arrest andincarceration), inexperienced auto thieves have relatively little fear of being arrested.This is because they see the consequences as being inconsequential. Whenexperienced offenders voice fears about police, they do so primarily because theyrealize that their long criminal history entitles them to harsher punishment from thestate.

It appears that informal controls are the most considered sanctions regardless ofexperience level. Specifically, offenders of all experience levels acknowledge that theirbiggest fears when committing auto theft is the possibility of being detected byvictims, and the potentially violent interactions that are likely to arise fromdetection. This is not to say that all auto thieves fear confrontations with victims.Many offenders, including both novices and experienced offenders, stated that theyput little thought into the potential of confrontations with others. Inexperiencedthieves say that if someone approaches they will simply run from the scene, therebyeliminating any potential consequences. Experienced thieves say they do not worryabout confrontations because they can easily handle the situation by eitherabandoning the theft and leaving the scene or being the actor to initiate the use ofviolence, thereby deterring their victims from effectively using violence against them.

The major differences in offender fears about informal consequences are familialconsequences and injury due to automobile accidents. These are significant sources

Journal of Crime and Justice 75

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

of fear only for those younger, less experienced auto thieves. The only real fearrelated to family that experienced auto thieves report is that they will turn them in tolaw enforcement officials; however, this is not a common belief among this sample.Younger offenders may still be very much committed to their families and try tominimize the amount of damage done to their familial relationships, as theseoffenders are dependent upon their families, financially, emotionally and socially.

While fears are barriers to committing a particular crime, they can be easilyovercome, especially with the help from drugs, co-offenders or cognitive devices(Wright and Decker 1994, Hochstetler and Copes 2003). However, in somecircumstances the degree of fear experienced can be significant, and may leadoffenders to desert a particular offending opportunity and find a less daunting, moresuitable target. While fear certainly affects decision strategies of all auto thieves,the more experienced ones reported that fear served only to turn them away fromspecific targets, not to turn away from auto theft as a behavior. The fears thatsuccessfully intercede with an offending instance are those that are situational innature, including seeing police nearby, encountering target-hardening devices andowners of vehicles they are attempting to steal. These deterrents, however, only serveto delay the offense and/or displace the offender. Finding a suitable target thatevokes a manageable level of fear is not especially difficult. As a result, fear had littleimpact on the criminal careers of experienced auto thieves.

While we think we have contributed to a fuller understanding of the risksassociated with engaging in auto theft, this study is not without limitations thattemper our findings. The sample consists of only offenders who have been identified,convicted and sanctioned (although not always for auto theft). Interviews based oncaptive populations are often criticized because it is assumed that the experiences ofcaptured and confined offenders may not be representative of the larger populationof offenders (for review of these criticisms see Copes and Hochstetler 2010). Theirarrest and conviction are evidence that they are unsuccessful offenders and,therefore, may differ in important ways from those who have not yet been caught.Additionally, some argue that incarcerated offenders are more likely to present‘rational reconstructions’ of their crimes; that is, they discuss crimes as they wouldlike them to occur and not how they actually occurred (Cromwell and Olson 2004).Despite these and similar misgivings about interviewing offenders who areincarcerated or at the least known to criminal justice agencies, there is little hardevidence that these offenders think, act, or report information differently than activeoffenders contacted independent of criminal justice sources. In fact, a recent studyexamining target selection of burglars found a ‘striking similarity’ between studiesusing free-ranging and prison-based samples (Nee and Taylor 2000, p. 45).

However, despite the noted limitations, it is instructive that the present study hasboth supported the findings of previous research on the experiences and strategies ofauto thieves, and has added new dimensions to our understandings. As shown, it isimportant to highlight the degree of experience of an offender to understand howthey operate, and what factors may or may not influence their decisions aboutcriminal engagement both in general and in particular circumstances. For auto theft,novice and experienced thieves clearly have some important differences in how theyexperience their actions, and what external factors may or may not either facilitateor inhibit their criminal ways.

These findings suggest potential directions for future research on how experienceshapes decision-making. One line of research that may be promising would be to

76 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

extend the discussion of experience and fears to other forms of crime. Auto theft maybe unique in that it is committed for a wider range of reasons than other propertycrimes (McCaghy et al. 1977). It is certainly more common to find youths who stealcars for fun than to find those who commit robbery for fun. Thus, it is possible thatrobbers or burglars have different perceptions of their crimes and the impact ofcriminal experience may operate differently. Additionally, qualitative research isoften seen as ideal for building theory and that quantitative research is better suitedto test these theories. Assuming this is true, then, it would be advantageous to testthe assumptions described here using survey design. Researchers could develop asurvey to measure fears and experience level and distribute them to a sample ofincarcerated auto thieves. Doing so would provide a statistical test of the ideasproposed. Regardless of the direction that future research takes, it is our hope thatthe current findings will stimulate further interest in studying auto theft and theimportance of criminal experience on decision making.

Notes on contributors

Heith Copes is Associate Professor of Justice Sciences at the University of Alabama atBirmingham. His research interests include qualitative methods, auto theft, and theintersections of criminal motivation and experiential aspects of the offending experience.

Richard Tewksbury is Professor of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville. He is aformer editor of Justice Quarterly and of the American Journal of Criminal Justice. His researchcenters on issues of identity construction and management among deviants and stigmatizedcriminal offenders, sex, sexuality and sex offending and pedagogical issues in criminal justice. Heis both an advocate for and practitioner of alternative fieldwork approaches.

References

Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L., 1978. A theoretical model of crime site selection.In: M.D. Krohn and R.L. Akers, eds. Crime, law and sanctions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,105–118.

Brookman, F., et al., 2007. Gender, motivation and the accomplishment of street robbery inthe United Kingdom. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 861–884.

Carroll, J. and Weaver, F., 1986. Shoplifters’ perceptions of crime opportunities: a process-tracing study. In: D. Cornish and R.V. Clarke, eds. The reasoning criminal: rational choiceperspectives on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag, 19–38.

Challinger, D., 1987. Car security hardware: how good is it? In: Car theft: putting on thebreaks. Proceedings of seminar on car theft, May 21. Sydney: National Roads andMotorists’ Association and the Australian Institute of Criminology, 42–48.

Cherbonneau, M. and Copes, H., 2006. Drive it like you stole it: auto theft and the illusion ofnormalcy. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 193–211.

Clarke, R.V. and Harris, P.M., 1992a. Auto theft and its prevention. In: M. Tonry, ed. Crimeand justice: a review of research. Vol. 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–54.

Clarke, R.V. and Harris, P.M., 1992b. A rational choice perspective on the targets ofautomobile theft. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 2, 25–42.

Copes, H., 2003a. Streetlife and the rewards of auto theft. Deviant Behavior, 24, 309–332.Copes, H., 2003b. Societal attachments, offending frequency and techniques of neutralization.

Deviant Behavior, 24, 101–127.Copes, H. and Cherbonneau, M., 2006. The key to auto theft: emerging methods of auto theft

from the offenders’ perspective. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 917–934.Copes, H. and Hochstetler, A., 2010. Interviewing the incarcerated: pitfalls and promises. In:

W. Bernasco, ed. Offenders on offending: learning about crime from criminals. Cullompton,UK: Willan Publishers, 49–67.

Copes, H. and Vieraitis, L., 2009. Bounded rationality of identity thieves: using offender-basedresearch to inform policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 237–262.

Journal of Crime and Justice 77

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

Cornish, D. and Clarke, R., eds., 1986. The reasoning criminal. New York: Springer.Cromwell, P. and Olson, J.N., 2004. Breaking and entering: burglars on burglary. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.Cusson, M., 1993. Situational deterrence: fear during the criminal event. In: R. Clarke, ed.

Crime prevention studies. Vol. 1. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, 55–68.Dawes, G., 2002. Figure eights, spin outs and power slides: Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander youth and the culture of joyriding. Journal of Youth Studies, 5, 195–208.Donkin, S. and Wellsmith, M., 2006. Cars stolen in burglaries: the Sandwell experience.

Security Journal, 19, 22–32.Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, B.C., 2007. Saving children from a life of crime: early risk factors

and effective interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.Feeney, F., 1986. Robbers as decision makers. In: D. Cornish and R. Clarke, eds. The

reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag,53–71.

Field, S., Clarke, R.V., and Harris, P., 1992. The Mexican vehicle market and auto theft inborder areas of the United States. Security Journal, 2, 210–225.

Fleming, Z., 2002. The thrill of it all: youthful offenders and auto theft. In: P. Cromwell, ed.In their own words: criminals on crime. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing, 71–79.

Hakim, S., Rengert, G., and Shachmurove, Y., 2001. Target search of burglars: a revisedeconomic model. Papers in Regional Science, 80, 121–137.

Hochstetler, A., 2001. Opportunities and decisions: interactional dynamics in robbery andburglary groups. Criminology, 39, 737–764.

Hochstetler, A. and Copes, H., 2003. Managing fear to commit felony theft. In: P. Cromwell,ed. In their own words: criminals on crime. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 87–98.

Holt, T.J., Blevins, K.R., and Kuhns, J.B., 2009. Examining diffusion and arrest avoidancepractices among Johns. Crime and Delinquency. doi:10.1177/0011128709347087.

Jacobs, B., 1996a. Crack dealers and restrictive deterrence: identifying narcs. Criminology, 34,409–31.

Jacobs, B., 1996b. Crack dealers apprehension avoidance techniques: a case of restrictivedeterrence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 359–381.

Jacobs, B., 2000. Robbing drug dealers: violence beyond the law. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Jacobs, B. and Miller, J., 1998. Crack dealing, gender, and arrest avoidance. Social Problems,

45, 550–569.Jacobs, B., Topalli, V., and Wright, R., 2003. Carjacking, streetlife, and offender motivation.

British Journal of Criminology, 43, 673–688.Johnson, B. and Natarajan, M., 1995. Strategies to avoid arrest: crack sellers’ response to

intensified policing. American Journal of Police, 14, 49–69.Lejeune, R., 1977. The management of a mugging. Urban Life, 6, 123–147.Levesley, T., et al., 2004. Emerging methods of car theft: theft of keys. London: Home Office,

Home Office Findings No. 239.Light, R., Nee, C., and Ingham, H., 1993. Car theft: the offender’s perspective. Home Office

Research Study No. 130. London: Home Office.Logie, R.H., Wright, R., and Decker, S., 1992. Recognition memory performance and

residential burglary. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 109–23.McCaghy, C.H., Giordano, P.C., and Henson, T., 1977. Auto theft: offender and offense

characteristics. Criminology, 15, 367–385.Nee, C. and Meenaghan, A., 2006. Expert decision making in burglary. British Journal of

Criminology, 46, 935–949.Nee, C. and Taylor, M., 2000. Examining burglars’ target selection: interview, experiment or

ethnomethodology? Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 45–59.O’Connor, C. and Kelly, K., 2006. Auto theft and youth culture: a nexus of masculinities,

femininities and car culture. Journal of Youth Studies, 9, 247–267.Paternoster, R., et al., 1982. Perceived risk and deterrence: methodological artifacts in

perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73, 1238–1258.

Piquero, A.R., et al., 2009. Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocialbehavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 83–120.

Presser, L., 2009. The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 177–200.

78 H. Copes and R. Tewksbury

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011

Rengert, G.F. and Wasilchick, J., 2000. Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs. 2nd ed.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Shover, N., 1996. Great pretenders: pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Shover, N. and Honaker, D., 1992. The socially bounded decision making of persistentproperty offenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 276–293.

Spencer, E., 1992. Car crime and young people on a Sunderland housing estate. London: HomeOffice, Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper 40.

Stephen, D. and Squires, P., 2003. Adults don’t realize how sheltered they are: a contributionto the debate on youth transitions from some voices on the margins. Journal of YouthStudies, 6, 145–164.

Tewksbury, R., 2009. Qualitative versus quantitative methods: understanding why qualitativemethods are superior for criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Theoretical andPhilosophical Criminology, 1, 1–21.

Tremblay, P., Clermont, Y., and Cusson, M., 1994. Jockeys and joyriders: changing patternsin car theft opportunity structures. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 307–321.

Tunnell, K., 1992. Choosing crime: the criminal calculus of property offenders. Chicago: NelsonHall.

Wright, J. and Rossi, P., 1986. Armed and considered dangerous: a survey of felons and theirfirearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Wright, R.T. and Decker, S.H., 1994. Burglars on the job: street life and residential break-ins.Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Wright, R.T. and Decker, S.H., 1997. Armed robbers in action. Boston: NortheasternUniversity Press.

Journal of Crime and Justice 79

Downloaded By: [Copes, Heith] At: 14:31 18 February 2011