Learning the different skill levels of burglars within an area lead to interventions that work.
Some time ago, a comment from a reader was made regarding how the ‘intent to actualisation’ cycle could be different for the various skill levels of criminals. This post will provide a brief answer to that comment.
The ‘intent to actualisation’ cycle, or criminal development pathway, referred to above can be defined as the pathway that an individual processes through from the initial development of deviant beliefs and behaviours, through to, and including the time that the individual acts on those beliefs and behaviours.
The process generally commences with the community that the person comes from where belief systems accept particular deviant behaviours. For example, that it is acceptable to burgle a person’s residence. Then the person will develop trust associations with likeminded people who harbour the same intentions. For example, through meetings with peers, siblings at school where conversations may centre around methodology, reasoning, and purpose, leading up to the development of intent to burgle a residence etc. Then the person turns that intent to actualization, where the person will take actions to carry out that intent. These actions are to gather intelligence, plan and prepare their intended attack to harm someone or something.
Using the last major project conducted by Anshin Consulting as an example , the identified communityies, consisted of youth aged in their early teens. All had deviant beliefs that included burglary, and all were observed to act on those beliefs. However, individuals within the group seemed to prefer to conduct their burglaries with specifically selected peer members. Observations of the various subgroups provide examples of how various skill levels of this community of deviants.
The amateurs of the group spent little time in planning their activities. For example, one group of three deviants was observed walking on route to one of their ‘hang out’ areas. On the way there, one individual within the group noticed a residence with the garage door open. All three members of this group were observed walking down the driveway and into the garage. This group had identified an opportunity, and immediately took steps to burgle the garage. They did not conduct a reconnaissance of the surrounding area, nor the residence itself to determine if occupied. When confronted they did have a cover story, of ‘have you seen our dog, he has run away’.
It is unknown what they would have done with stolen equipment, had they been successful.
On another occasion, intermediate members from this ‘gang’ were better prepared. This group identified their target residence, planned and prepared themselves. For example, a member of this gang was seen walking past a residence. He apparently saw an opportunity for burglary. He continued to walk past the property while using his mobile phone to record the outside and surrounding area of the property. Sometime later, this person returned with two other gang members. All three left their pushbikes some distance from the residence down an adjacent laneway. One member was stationed slightly away from the residence but with a good field of view of the street and surrounding area. The other two gang members approached the residence, taking note of the mail within the letter box. These two gang members started to climb over a fence that would give access to the back yard of the residence.
It was at that time that the lookout identified that he was being directly observed by an onlooker. The lookout then immediately shouted to the two gang members in the process of climbing over the fence. The two gang members immediately jumped down, and all three ran to their pushbikes and rode away.
This example shows how these intermediate burglars took the time to plan their entry, check occupancy, had a look out, and an escape method. What they lacked was the discipline to continually observe their surrounding area, and better timing of attack.
The professionals of the gang also took the time to plan and prepare their activities. And what to do with their stolen items. These members seemed to only work with each other, although they socialized with the other peers of their gang.
This group would conduct their planning similarly to that described above. However, they had the disciple to maintain watch on their surrounding area. When they had completed their burglary, they would disperse their gains with older associates and siblings. They believed that this would increase the difficulty for law enforcement to get a successful apprehension should the burglars be identified, and their own residences searched by law enforcement authorities. These gang members knew what they wanted from a burglary, how to get it, and how to disperse it for greatest gain.
The above examples show the different behaviours specific to each group. Even with the same goal in mind, each group conducted their activities differently. This not only included the different activities of planning, preparation and intelligence gathering, but also different levels of discipline, knowledge and operational skill levels.
In the above example, the understanding of these different levels led to the development of crime prevention interventions specific to each group. The overall effect being a 42% drop in burglary crime in the area. The specific case study related to this operation described above can be found by following the below link: https://anshinconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Anshin-Consulting-Kambah-Case-Study.pdf
Leave a Reply