Is Burglary a Violent Crime? An Empirical Investigation of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s Classification of Burglary as a Violent Felony

• Author: Phillip M. Kopp
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403416684594
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Date: 01 June 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416684594

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(5) 663 –680

© The Author(s) 2016

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403416684594

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Is Burglary a Violent Crime?

An Empirical Investigation

of the Armed Career

Criminal Act’s

Classification of Burglary

as a Violent Felony

Phillip M. Kopp1

Abstract

Traditionally considered a non-violent property offense, burglary is nonetheless

classified as a violent crime under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

The ACCA, a three-strikes law that provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15

years, is triggered when an offender, who has been previously convicted for a crime

classified under the ACCA as either a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense,”

is convicted at the federal level for any felony committed while in possession of

a firearm. The present study investigated the ACCA’s classification of burglary as

violent through analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data for the period of

2009 to 2014. Results showed that burglary is overwhelmingly a non-violent offense.

The national incidence of actual violence or threats of violence during a burglary was

7.9%. At most, 2.7% of burglaries involved actual acts of violence. Legislative reform

of the ACCA classification to match the empirical description of burglary is discussed.

Keywords

sentencing policy, violence, research and policy

In the late 1970s, the United States rejected the idea of rehabilitation (Cullen, 2005)

and got “tough on crime” in response to increasing crime rates and the politicization

of crime and public safety during the 1960s (Tonry, 2004). This hardened public

1California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Phillip M. Kopp, Division of Politics, Administration, and Justice, California State University, Fullerton,

800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92834-6848, USA.

Email: pkopp@fullerton.edu

684594CJPXXX10.1177/0887403416684594Criminal Justice Policy ReviewKopp

research-article2016

664 Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(5)

opinion about crime prevention in the 1970s, merged with the public’s growing fear of

drug-related crime in the 1980s, and led to major legislative efforts to toughen crime

control policies in the 1980s and 1990s (Musto, 1999; Tonry, 2011; Windlesham,

1998). Spurred by newly enacted mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws,

truth in sentencing, and life without parole laws, the prison population dramatically

increased as offenders received harsher sentences, served longer sentences prior to

release, or both (Tonry, 2004). More recently, tough on crime sentiments have waned

as re-entry, treatment, and restorative justice programs have proliferated across the

United States (Cullen, 2005; Tonry, 2011). However, many tough on crime era statutes

remain in effect, with the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) being just one

example.

The ACCA

Passed as part of the Federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and recodi-

fied and amended in 1986, the ACCA (18 U.S.C. § 924, 1986) is a focused three-

strikes law that provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life in prison,

in addition to a fine not to exceed US$25,000. The ACCA is triggered when an

offender, who has been previously convicted at either the state or federal level for a

crime classified under the ACCA as either a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense,”

is convicted at the federal level for any felony crime committed while in possession of

a firearm (a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922). Although violence can be defined in emo-

tional or psychological terms, the ACCA and the present study define violence as

threatened, attempted, or inflicted physical harm or injury to the person of another.

What constitutes a violent felony under the ACCA (1986) is defined using a two-

pronged definition. First, a violent felony is any crime that has as an element “the use,

attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another” (18

U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)) or second, “is burglary, arson, extortion, involves use of

explosives or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of phys-

ical injury to another” (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)), also referred to as the “otherwise

provision.” The elements and other offenses used by the ACCA to discern violent felo-

nies inherently involve either actual physical force or injury, or create situations highly

likely to result in physical force or injury. Burglary, defined as entering or remaining

in a structure with the intent to commit a crime therein (Culp, Kopp, & McCoy, 2015),

has long been considered a non-violent property crime and is the outlier.

The House and Senate Reports detailing the debate of the act provide some insight

into the act’s classification of burglary as a violent offense. Senator Arlen Specter

(Republican from Pennsylvania; R-PA) viewed burglary as one of the “most damaging

crimes to society,” involving the “invasion of [victim’s] homes and workplaces, viola-

tion of their privacy, and loss of their most personal and valued possessions” (H.R.

Rep. No. 98-1073, 1984, p. 3). The Senate Report stated that burglary was one of “the

most common violent street crimes” and that while it “is sometimes viewed as a non-

violent crime, its character can change rapidly, depending on the fortuitous presence