NCCD Research Review : Life in the Fast Lane: a Retrospective View By Commercial Thieves
| Published date | 01 July 1982 |
| Author | John J. Gibbs,Peggy L. Shelly |
| Date | 01 July 1982 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002242788201900210 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
299
NCCD
RESEARCH
REVIEW
LIFE
IN
THE
FAST
LANE:
A
RETROSPECTIVE
VIEW
BY
COMMERCIAL
THIEVES
JOHN
J.
GIBBS
PEGGY
L.
SHELLY
[
In
this
issue
of
the
Journal,
the
NCCD
Research
Centers
are
deferring
their
usual
opportunity
to
present
a
report
on
their
own
work
in
order
to
share,
with
the
Journal’s
readers,
some
interim
findings
from
an
important
research
effort
that
is
still
in
progress.
Through
the
strong
collaborative
lanks
that
exist
be-
tween
NCCD
and
the
Graduate
School
of
Criminal
Justice
at
Rutgers
Univer-
sity,
we
have
been
following
with
interest
the
research
being
conducted
in
the
School’s
Center
for
the
Study
of
Crime
for
Gain,
a
project
funded
by
the
Na-
tional
Institute
of
Justice
and
directed
by
Professor
Richard
Sparks.
Ceding
the
"NCCD
Research
Review"
space
to
a
report
solicited
from
our
colleagues
at
Rutgers
represents
a
small
contribution
on
our
part
toward
alleviating
a
chronic
problem
faced
by
researchers:
the
seemingly
interminable
lag
time
be-
tween
the
initiation
of
a
research
project
and
the
public
availability
of
the
project’s
findings
.]
This
article
contains
an
analysis
of
interviews
with
commercial
thieves.
Both
the
interviews
and
analysis
of
them
were
shaped
by
the
perspective
that
certain
kinds
of
crime
are
like
certain
kinds
of
work.
The
article
describes
a
variety
of
methods
for
illegally
acquiring
and
distributing
commercial
goods,
paths
of
entry
into
the
business
of
commercial
theft,
and
the
relation
between
the
work
of
the
thief
and
his
life
style.
In
October
1980,
the
National
Institute
of
Justice
awarded
a
re-
search
grant
to
the
School
of
Criminal
Justice
at
Rutgers
University
to
establish
the
Center
for
the
Study
of
the
Causes
of
Crime
for
Gain.
During
the
first
eighteen
months
of
funding
the
Center
proposed
to
ex-
plain
theoretically
and
examine
empirically
serious
property
crime,
or
JOHN
J.
GIBBS:
Assistant
Professor,
School
of
Crimmal
Justice,
Rutgers
Uni-
versity,
Newark,
New
Jersey;
Principal
Investigator,
Commercial
Theft
Project,
Center
for
the
Study
of
the
Causes
of
Crime
for
Gain,
Rutgers
University.
PEGGY
L.
SHEL-
LY :
Research
Associate,
Commercial
Theft
Project,
Rutgers
University.
The
research
on
which
this
article
is
based
was
conducted
as
part
of
the
Com-
mercial
Theft
Studies
Project
of
the
Center
for
the
Study
of
the
Causes
of
Crime
for
Gain.
The
Center
was
established
at
Rutgers
University
under
Grant
Number
80-IJ-
CX-0060
from
the
National
Institute
of
Justice,
United
States
Department
of
Justice.
Points
of
view
or
opinions
stated
m
this
article
are
those
of
the
authors
and
do
not
necessarily
represent
the
official
position
or
policies
of
the
Department
of
Justice.
300
those
crimes
committed
for
pecuniary
gain.
In
this
article,
we
are
con-
cerned
primarily
with
truck
hijacking
and
commercial
burglary.
This
article
contains
a
description
of
the
information
that
we
gathered
from
thieves
on
how
people
go
about
planning
and
carrying
out
acts
of
theft.
The
perspective
that
has
shaped
our
research
is
that
&dquo;crime
for
gain,&dquo;’
of
which
property
theft
is
a
species,
is
much
like
legitimate
work
and
that
many
of
the
factors
that
place
constraints
on
or
allow
for
the
success
of
legitimate
work
operate
as
well
in
work
of
an
illegitimate
nature.
We
are
interested
here
in
examining
opportunities
for
il-
legitimate
work,
the
technology
and
skills
associated
with
the
work
tasks,
and
the
social
controls
that
inhibit
or
induce
involvement
in
il-
legitimate
work.
As
part
of
the
Center’s
initial
empirical
work,
it
was
agreed
that
a
study
of
commercial
burglary,
including
the
theft
of
goods
in
transit,
would
be
conducted.
There
were
two
major
reasons
for
choosing
large-
scale
commercial
theft
as
the
subject
of
the
Center’s
first
empirical
in-
vestigation.
First,
we
felt
it
likely
a
priori
that
large-scale
thefts
from
factories,
warehouses,
retail
stores,
banks,
port
areas,
airports,
and
the
like
were
most
likely
to
exemplify
the
major
characteristics
of
&dquo;crime
as
work.&dquo;
We
wanted
to
explore
the
issues
of
technology
and
of
environ-
mental
constraint,
of
recruitment,
of
group
organization,
and
of
rela-
tions
with
other
behavioral
systems
and
offender
groups
(e.g.,
receivers
of
stolen
property)-or
all
those
things
about
crime
that
resemble
legit-
imate
work.
All
of
these
factors
are
more
likely
to
be
found
when
the
target
is
a
factory
or
container
truck,
and
the
property
stolen
is
a
large
or
expensive
quantity
of
merchandise,
than
when
the
target
is
a
resi-
dence
and
the
property
stolen
is
a
small
amount
of
cash.
Second,
the
crime
of
commercial
burglary
is
undoubtedly
serious,
in
financial
terms.
In
addition
to
the
property
lost
through
such
thefts,
protection
against
them
entails
large
expenditures
(ultimately
passed
on
to
con-
sumers)
for
insurance,
private
and
public
police,
and
other
security
measures.
This
article
explores
two
kinds
of
&dquo;crime
for
gain,&dquo;
commercial
burglary
and
truck
hijacking,
from
the
perspective
of
those
who
con-
sider
them
their
work.
Our
major
purpose
is
to
portray
the
world
of
the
commercial
thief,
to
face
the
problems
he
faces,
to
learn
to
do
what
he
does,
to
see
what
he
sees.
1.
Sparks
(1982:2)
describes
the
meaning
of
"crime
for
gain"
as
follows:
"The
ex-
pression
crime
for
gain
is
not
now
a
recognized
term
of
art
in
criminology....
We
have
so
far
used
it,
in
our
research,
to
refer
in
a
general
way
to
crimes
which
involve
the
misappropriation
(through
stealth,
fraud,
or
threat)
of
money
or
other
property—that
is,
to
kinds
of
illegal
acts
done,
in
a
plain
sense,
for
material
gain
rather
than
(say)
for
their
symbolic
or
expressive
value.
Paradigm
cases
of
what
we
call
’crime
for
gain’
would
in-
clude
such
things
as
burglary,
larceny,
robbery,
extortion,
and
fraud.
There
is
an
abun-
dance
of
empirical
evidence
that
most
of
those
who
commit
crimes
of
this
kind
are
(or
at
least
appear
to
be)
psychologically
normal;
and
clearly
the
motivation
behind
their
crimes
is
(by
definition)
not
mysterious."
301
The
basic
methodological
and
analytical
assumption
underlying
this
article
is
that
we
can
only
understand
a
particular
kind
of
crime
by
examining
what
the
criminal
is
confronted
with,
the
problems
he
must
solve
and
the
steps
he
must
take
to
solve
them
(Levi,
1981:5).
Our
view
is
that
exploring
assumptive
worlds
of
those
involved
in
the
behaviors
we
wish
to
subject
to
scientific
scrunity
is
not
just
a
useful
heuristic
technique;
it
is
necessary
for
the
development
of
explanatory
constructs
which
make
actions
intelligible.
The
subjective
experience
of
the
thief,
the
meaning
of
events
to
him,
is
the
context
in
which
his
actions
can
be
understood
(see
Ryan,
1973:6-8).
STALKING
THE
COMMERCIAL
THIEF
Our
first
step
in
obtaining
the
information
we
needed
to
describe
the
world
of
the
commercial
thief
was
defining
and
finding
the
kind
of
person
we
wanted
to
interview.
After
reviewing
descriptions
of
profes-
sional
thieves,
full-time
miscreants,
good
burglars,
successful
criminals,
and
big-time
operators
which
collectively
featured
such
inclusion
criteria
as
planning,
a
code
of
conduct,
a
certain
modus
operandi,
and
stylish
dress,2
we
decided
to
include
in
our
sample
individuals
who
had
been
involved
in
any
large-scale
commercial
burglary,
larceny,
or
rob-
bery
(excluding
banks)
that
resulted
or
had
the
potential
to
result
in
a
substantial
financial
gain.
Our
plan
was
to
interview
a
large
number
of
commercial
offenders
and
to
use
interview
content
in
conjunction
with
data
collected
from
agency
files
to
classify
them
according
to
criteria
contained
in
others’
and
our
own
definitions.
We
predicted
that
the
use
of
complex
criteria
for
sample
selection
would
result
in
a
restricted
sample
with
limited
variation
in
some
factors
of
interest,
and
the
application
of
the
criteria
would
be
difficult
at
best
because
much
of
the
required
information
would
not
exist
in
institutional
files
or
other
sources
of
information
that
could
be
used
to
develop
a
sampling
frame.
We
concluded
that
a
very
broad
definition,
which
would
yield
a
large
pool
of
interview
candidates,
had
many
theoretical
and
operational
advantages
over
a
more
precise
definition.
Our
initial
experience
in
selecting
a
sample
from
institutional
files
2.
Sutherland
(1937),
Shover
(1973),
and
Letkemann
(1973)
have
all
used
defini-
tions
of
professional
thieves
that
incorporate
some
of
these
elements.
Shover,
for
exam-
ple,
defined
his
"good
thieves"
as
those
who
"...
(1)
[are]
technically
competent,
(2)
have
a
reputation
for
personal
integrity,
(3)
tend
to
specialize
in
burglary,
and
(4)
have
been
at
least
relatively
successful
at
crime"
(1973:501).
Shover’s
operational
definition
of
the
good
burglar
is
as
follows:
"[The]
respondent
must
have
(1)
received
$4000
or
more
on
his
largest
score,
and
either
(2)
opened
a
safe
at
some
time
by
drilling
or
burn-
ing,
or
(3)
entered
a
place
at
some
time
by
cutting
a
hole
in
the
roof
or
wall"
(1971:502).
This
definition
is
obviously
too
restrictive
to
be
of
much
use
to
us.
To continue reading
Request your trial