Property Crime Theory

In attempt to explain why certain crimes transpire, various theories have been developed to answer such inquiries. Focus of individual and structural criminological theories have been highly advantageous in the illumination of why property offences occur. The essay outlines statistical trends regarding property offences present within Australia, as being of a decreasing nature. Multiple property offences will be discusses broadly, with a particular focus of burglaries. Through the application of both Rational Choice Theory and General Strain Theory it is determined why individuals engage in the committal of such property offences.

Property crime is deemed the most prevalent type of offence in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology [AIC], 2014a), highlighting the importance of analysing statistical trends of property offences. An individual who has ownership or interest over an object or land holds a property right, an entitlement over a thing (right in rem), enforceable against the whole world, designed to protect ones property being unjustly taken (Edgeworth, Rossiter, Stone, O’Conner, 2012). AIC defines property offences to include “damage or destruction of homes, businesses and land as well as theft of vehicles and household burglary” (AIC, 2014a).

Throughout the past 2 decades there has been a

general decreasing trend of property crime rates in Australia. Property crime has fallen almost successively since 2003 (AIC, 2014b). Such data follows on from a long trend in property crime increases during the 1970’s-1980’s (Mayhew, 2012). Nelson (2015) asserted that rates of property crimes stabilized during the 1990’s, then preceded to decrease by more than half during the 2000’s, and is still on a continuing decline in Australia.
The decrease in property crime is displayed particularly in burglary and theft. Between 2001 and 2011, police recorded crimes of burglary and vehicle theft to have declined by at least 50% (AIC, 2015). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Crime Victimisation report (2016) highlighted a drop of over 4000 incidents of motor vehicle theft and drop of over 17,000 in malicious property crime compared to previous year’s report.
Most locations of crimes are found to be committed in retail localities. During 2013, 38% of property crimes were perpetrated in retail sites, followed by 21% of property crimes committed in outbuilding/other residential land, as indicated by AIC (2014b). In regard to residential locations, studies by ABS exhibited 71% of incidents of unlawful entry with intent and 43% of motor vehicle offences were took place in residential vicinities (ABS, 2012).
Research conducted by Fernandez, Clare and Morgan (2006) regarding offenders locational selection in burglary clarified that majority of offenders commit such crimes closest to home. Two thirds (66.2%) of the police recorded burglary in WA occurred within the first five kilometres of the wrongdoers dwelling. Approximately half (47.8%) of the burglaries occurred within two kilometres (Van Dijk & Mayhew, 1992). The greater the distance offenders have to travel, the greater the decrease in number of burglaries. However income levels and affluence of potential targets were factors of influence and motivation for offenders to travel greater distances. Furthermore the study highlighted that out of the offenders living in Central Metropolitan Perth (areas of high level prosperity), only 5.3% of them would venture out to lower socio-economic areas to commit crimes. Areas of low socio-economic areas, such as South Metropolitan Perth, contained the highest proportion (87.4%) of offences committed by local residences (Fernandez et al., 2006). These statistics signify prevalence of crime correlating to differing levels of socio-economic status.
The data additionally emphasises the offender’s internal deliberation process in determining target destinations, this decision making can be explained by Rational Choice Theory. The theory is premised on the belief that humans are reasoning beings with free will and with the capacity to make rational decisions (White and Perrone, 2015). The offender executes cost-benefit analysis, based on the attractiveness of perpetrating the crime. Before partaking in delinquent behaviour, the wrongdoer makes an intentional choices to conduct himself/herself in a way which maximises positives and minimises the negatives (Seipel and Eifler, 2010).
Such rationalisation processes supports the above data regarding offenders adopting to travel lengthier distances for victim targets. The offender will bear the effort expended in further distances to suburbs of high socio-economic regions, as the benefit far outweighs the burden (Fernandez et al., 2006). The offender takes into account that such high income homes contain valuables of expensive jewellery and luxury cars (Van Dijk & Mayhew, 1992). On the other hand, the highest proportions of burglary offending occurred within the very close vicinity of the offender’s residence (Fernandez et al., 2006), which again highlights the offenders balancing up between benefit of ease and burden.
The criminal individual aims to minimize risks in considering a variety of surrounding factors. Situations of low consequence to the offender provides motivation for delinquent behaviour (Seipel and Eifler, 2010). An advantageous environment where opportunity for one to partake in criminal conduct arises with the right motivation, suitable targets and in absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Factors such as time influence the offender, nightfall (12pm-6am) accounted for almost a third (32.1%) of burglaries (Fernandez et al., 2006). It is clear that there is a mix of both the individual’s personality traits and how the individual chooses to respond to his surroundings and the opportunities that arise before him (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
However some underlying problems are inherent in the Rational Choice Theory. One being the assumption that everyone has free will and is capable of rational decision making. In considering criminal behaviour committed by those of diminished mental capacity, for example; young persons, persons under drug or alcohol influence, persons suffering psychological illnesses, such persons lack ‘normal’ rationalising capabilities (White & Perrone, 2015). Additionally the theory fails to take into consideration social inequalities of; poverty, sexism and racism (Young, 2011). It has also been argued that a person does not have conscious decision making processes, but rather uncontrolled cognitive processes which comes about from inborn mental operation (Seipel and Eifler, 2010). Magnusson (1978; Magnusson & Ekehammar, 1978; Magnusson & Stattin, 1981), highlighted an idea of absolute consistency, whereby persons act in a certain manner notwithstanding the situation, endorsing the idea that there are overpowering cognitive systems resulting in deviant actions.
Overall Rational Choice Theory highlights the interaction between the individual offender and his internal decisions with the environment encompassing him/her. It looks at the decisions an offender makes before, during and after committing the offence. The focus of the theory looks to why an individual chooses to offend, what about the crime is attractive and causes the person to choose the delinquent path. Subsequently the theory turns on the individual harmful decisions for which he deserves proportionate punishment (Pettit & Braithwaite, 1993).
General Strain Theory is based upon the notion that all individuals desire the same goals, however certain individuals cannot attain such goals and as a result suffer strain.

Following on from the strain, the hampered individuals resort to delinquent behaviour in attempts to achieve sought after goals (Pratt & Godsey, 2003). Agnew (1992) presented 4 main types of strain; firstly inability to achieve goals; secondly loss of positive stimuli; thirdly presence of negative stimuli; and fourthly disjunction between expectations and achievements. Such types of strain lead one to frustration and anger, having a causal link to offenders engaging in criminal

activity.
Persons in low socio-economic classes may experience strain due to societal barriers in accessing universal values of social and economic success (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2011). Underprivileged persons compare themselves against other members of the community with higher levels of economic success, generating feelings of exasperation within the underprivileged, causing them to resort to crime in attempt to close the gap b/w higher socio-economic standards (Pratt & Godsey, 2003). Such theory correlates to studies presented by Fernandez et al. (2006), in which South Metropolitan Perth sustained the highest level of local offenders committing burglaries, suburbs of low socio-economic standards within Western Australia. Persons in low classes are dissatisfied and deem themselves worthy of the same goals as other more privileged members of society. They believe they are ‘stuck’ in such social rank, the only way to escape lower class status is by unlawful methods (Agnew, 1992).
Offenders usually lack the resources to ‘move up the social ladder’, community inequality is present and the offender feels unjustly done by. Agnew (1992) identifies why an offender may commit property crimes. Firstly to increase their outcomes, the individual attains property by theft. Secondly to lower their input, the individual attains valuables/money without having to work for it. Thirdly to lower outcomes of others, in vandalism or theft. Fourthly to increase inputs of others, working to replace or fix stolen/damaged goods. Such deviancy is an attempt to attain desired goals and to restore equality between societal boundaries.
Critiques of General Strain Theory include the overlooking in explaining why middle class and higher class persons offend. The types of strains and negative situations previously presented are applicable to persons of lower class classification, but those same circumstances of strain may not be applicable to alternative groups (Agnew, 1992). Additionally all persons experience and respond to strain differently, not everyone resorts to delinquency. Furthermore the measurement of strain is highly difficult. Agnew (1992) also established that his theory overlaps with other theories in attempting to explain why crime occurs, such as Social Disorganisation and Social Learning Theory.
Attempting to find one particular explanation for why crime occurs through using only one theory is highly improbable. Answering such questions is vastly complex which is why in analysing one particular crime (property offences), one sees various other concepts of other theories combine as in the case above. Rational Choice Theory and General Strain Theory have been particularly noteworthy in the explanation to why property offences occur. Incorporation of individual and structural theories highlight why trends of property offences are of a decreasing nature within Australia and will continue to inform of such statistics thereafter.