Repeat burglary victimisation: a tale of two theories

Research consistently demonstrates that crime is spatially concentrated. Considering repeat burglary, studies conducted across a variety of countries and for different periods of time demonstrate that events also cluster in time. Two theories have been proposed to explain patterns of repeat victimisation. The first suggests that repeat victimisation is the consequence of a contagion-like process. If a home has been burgled on one occasion, the risk to the home is boosted, most likely because offenders will return to exploit good opportunities further (e.g. to steal replaced items or those left behind). In contrast, the second suggests that repeat victimisation may be explained by time-stable variation in risk across homes and a chance process. Different offenders independently target attractive locations for which risk is flagged. Understanding the contribution of the two explanations is important for both criminological understanding and crime reduction. Hitherto, research concerned with repeat victimisation has adopted a top-down methodology, analysing either victimisation or offender data. In this paper, results are reported for a simple micro-simulation experiment used to examine patterns of victimisation under conditions where the contributions of both theoretical mechanisms are varied. The findings suggest that increasing the heterogeneity of target attractiveness can generate spatial concentrations of crime not dissimilar to those discussed above, but that a contagion-like process is (also) required to generate the time course of repeat victimisation. The implications of the findings are discussed.

转化型入户抢劫的先行为探究

我国的司法解释只明确规定了入户盗窃后为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕、毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或以暴力相威胁的行为可以直接转化为入户抢劫,而对于入户抢夺、诈骗在同等情形下是否可以直接转化为入户抢劫无明确规定。但是,事实上入户抢劫在入户前无需具备抢劫等犯罪目的。入户抢劫的核心要件不在于"入户"行为本身的非法性,而在于行为人利用了入户后形成的环境优势。司法解释对于入户盗窃的转化规定不应是法律拟制而应是注意规定。基于罪刑相适应的原则,入户抢夺、诈骗后为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕、毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或以暴力相威胁的行为可以直接转化为入户抢劫。