Occasional Property Crimes
Most occasional property criminals lack a past official history of criminality. They exhibit little
progressive knowledge of criminal techniques or of crime in general. In contrast to career criminals
or even conventional criminals, crime is not their sole or major means of livelihood, and they do not
view themselves as criminal. Not identifying with criminal behavior, they have little of the vocabulary
or “street sense” of the conventional criminal.
Under the category of occasional property offenses, discussion will center on shoplifting, vandalism,
motor vehicle theft, and check forgery. (Professional crimes of these types will be discussed later.)
Surprisingly, there have not been many studies that focus on occasional and ordinary property
offenders (Hepburn, 1984; Shover, 1983).
Shoplifting
The polite term for shoplifting used by the retail trade industry is “inventory shrinkage”—quite
literally, goods have disappeared or shrunk from the total of accountable inventory. The slang term
“five-finger discount” is a less polite term for this same process. While shoplifting is perhaps as
ancient as trade or bartering, the post-World War II emergence of a consumer society and of large
retail chains has created both a greater desire and a greater opportunity for retail theft. Inventory
shortage costs in the United States account for about 2 percent of retail sales; the actual proportion
may be considerably higher, depending on location, product, and clientele. Hollinger and Davis
(2002) estimate the average retail firm loses 1.7 percent of gross revenues to “inventory shrinkage.”
Shrinkage refers to the losses that are due to shoplifting, employee theft, vendor fraud, and
administrative error. About one third of these losses are due to shoplifting. The average shoplifter is
caught with $200 worth of merchandise, and the U.S. retail industry loses an estimated $10 billion
per year to shoplifting. Many shoplifters are not motivated by need, as illustrated in the case of
actress Winona Ryder, shown in Photo 10.1.
The classic study on shoplifting is Mary Owen Cameron’s The Booster and the Snitch: Department
Store Shoplifting (1964), which was based on store records and arrest data in the late 1940s; later
research by L. E. Cohen and Stark (1974) supports her findings (see also Klemke, 1992). Cameron
distinguishes between “boosters” (or “heels”)—professional shoplifters—and “snitches,” amateur
shoplifters.
Boosters (to be discussed later in this chapter) are like other professional criminals in carefully
planning and skillfully executing their thefts and in concentrating on expensive items that can be
quickly converted to cash by prearrangement with a “fence” (dealer in stolen goods). On a
continuum of shoplifters, between the booster and the snitch are “shadow” professionals (Hellman,
1970; Stirling, 1974, p. 120), individuals who in an avocational manner supplement their legitimate
incomes by stealing. The majority of shoplifters are snitches, amateurs or individuals who do not
view themselves as criminals. According to Cameron (1964), most are females and the vast majority
have no official history of previous recorded criminal involvement. One example is the highly
publicized case of Oscar nominee Winona Ryder, who was arrested at Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly
Hills for shoplifting. She stole $5,560.40 worth of designer merchandise. Acquitted of burglary, she
CRJ 105 – Crime and Criminal Behavior
© 2017 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University. Page 28 of 30
was convicted of grand theft and vandalism. Authorities believe that most shoplifters have the money
to pay for their stolen items. One illustration of that is the case of Claude Allen. Convicted in 2006,
Allen was at the time an assistant to George W. Bush on domestic policy. He perpetrated a
fraudulent return scheme at Washington, D.C.–area stores. Taking purchased merchandise to his
car, he would return to the store later with his receipt and select duplicate items of what he had just
bought and request a refund for them. His take in 2005 was estimated at $5,000. His salary that year
at the White House was $161,000 (Rohrlick, 2007).
The most likely to be shoplifted in the United Kingdom in 2011 were choice cuts of meat, expensive
bottles of alcohol, and hi-tech items such as electric toothbrushes and smart phones (G. Smith,
2011). Similar, small and expensive items are the most coveted in the United States. The rate of
male shoplifters was only slightly higher than the female rate. While there were more adult
shoplifters than juveniles, the latter were more frequently caught. Shoplifting increases during the
Christmas shopping season, while shoplifting arrest rates increase in March (Spring Break). An
annual survey conducted by Richard Hollinger of the University of Florida on behalf of ADT Security
Services estimated the losses for inventory shrinkage in 2006 to be $40.5 billion and that 47 percent
of this ($19 billion) was due to shoplifting (“Shoplifting Costs U.S. Retailers,” 2007).
Most snitches steal small, inexpensive items for their own personal use. In most instances, they
have on their person sufficient funds to cover the stolen items. Such snitches come from all walks of
life. Nettler (1982, Vol. 3) indicates, for instance, that “theories of poverty and low education and
shoplifting would surprise store owners in university towns who experience three times the amount
of theft as stores in other neighborhoods” (p. 106). Most snitches simply do not anticipate being
caught. In the past when snitches were apprehended, most stores avoided lawsuits or possible
adverse publicity by releasing the offenders after brief admonishment. When apprehended, snitches
usually attempt to rationalize or excuse their behavior. For the middle-class offender with a
psychology bent, “kleptomania”—a compulsion to steal—becomes a handy rationalization.
Adventure, excitement, need, greed, or simply available opportunity or inadequate security may
prove to be more likely reasons. Cameron (1964) claims that most snitches, when caught and faced
with an unacceptable criminal self-image, cease shoplifting.
Sensormatic Electronics assumes that shoplifting tends to increase during recessions—“when the
going gets tough, some of the tough go shoplifting” (A. Newman, 1990). Sensormatic produces a
variety of equipment, including security tags attached to articles that will set off alarms if the article is
taken from the store without the tag having been removed by a salesperson. Dabney, Hollinger, and
Dugan, in “Who Actually Steals? A Study of Covertly Observed Shoplifters” (2004), used closed-
circuit television to observe shoppers and recorded their demographic and behavioral
characteristics. A significant number (8.5 percent) were determined to be shoplifters. They found that
juveniles and young adults were not more likely to shoplift. Middle-aged shoppers (35–54) were the
most common shoplifters. More research is needed in order to confirm this finding. A number of
states have passed antishoplifting statutes that enable retailers to stick shoplifters with some of the
cost of security. “Civil demand” letters are sent to the accused shoplifters or their parents asking for
payment of a $100 to $200 penalty in addition to the returned merchandise in exchange for the
retailer not suing for civil damages (Schellhardt, 1990).
Offenses against property, among the earliest to be punished under formal legal systems, include a wide variety of violations usually labeled larceny (theft). These offenses can be committed by a
CRJ 105 – Crime and Criminal Behavior
© 2017 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University. Page 29 of 30
variety of criminal types, two of which are discussed and contrasted in this chapter: occasional property criminals and conventional property criminals. Career criminality is characterized by identification with crime, criminal self-concept, group support, association with other criminals, progression in criminality, and crime as a sole means of livelihood. While occasional property offenders are the antithesis of career criminals, conventional property violators are on the bottom rung of the ladder of career criminality. Occasional property offenders commit their crimes relatively infrequently, irregularly, crudely, and without identifying themselves as criminals. Conventional criminals commit their offenses more regularly and tend to aspire to career criminality. Occasional property criminal behavior includes most, but not all shoplifting, vandalism, motor vehicle theft, and check forgery. Cameron distinguishes between two types of shoplifters: boosters (professionals) and snitches (amateurs). The majority of snitches have no previous criminal history, do not identify with criminality, and are deterred from future activity when threatened with formal legal processing. Vandalism, the willful destruction of the property of others, has been identified by Andrew Wade as consisting of three types: wanton (senseless), predatory (criminal), and vindictive (hateful). Wanton vandalism by juveniles is the most common type and usually represents an extension of play activity. Motor vehicle theft also consists of a variety of types: joyriding, short-term transportation, long-term transportation, and profit. Joyriders, who borrow a car for temporary adventure, illustrate well the occasional property criminal. Check forgers have been distinguished by Lemert as consisting of two types: naive check forgers and systematic check forgers. The former, who are occasional property criminals, write bad checks as a means of resolving a temporary crisis. The bad check writing is a result of closure, or limited possibilities for solving this problem. Conventional property criminals are those who commit larceny-theft and burglary on a fairly persistent basis, constituting a rudimentary form of career criminality. Such offenders are less skilled and organized than their professional counterparts and represent about half of the prison inmates in the United States. Most will eventually reduce or cease their “careers” by their mid-twenties. Burglary involves the unlawful entry of a structure in order to commit a felony or theft. This may include actual forcible entry, unlawful entry without force, or attempted entry. As a rule, burglars attempt to avoid violence. Marilyn Walsh identifies types of burglars. These include professionals, known burglars, young burglars, juvenile burglars, and junkies, in decreasing order of sophistication and organization. Other characteristics of burglars and burglary were described separately by Scarr, Repetto, and Pope. Indispensable to property criminals and particularly burglars is the fence, a dealer in stolen property. Successful police “stings,” or anti-fencing operations, were described. Most conventional offenders are nonspecialists; they “hustle,” or take advantage of various criminal opportunities. Larceny-theft, which includes a broad category of property crimes, makes up over half of the index offense total and as a category constitutes a “wastebasket concept,” a catch-all. Property offenses are more characteristic of youthful offenders, who tend to commit crimes in groups. Arson, which has since 1979 been included as a UCR index offense, involves any willful or attempted malicious burning of another’s property. Arson is described as a special-category property offense because of the variety of motivations involved, including (according to McCaghy’s typology) profit, revenge, vandalism, crime concealment, sabotage, and excitement. Comparisons of criminal careers of occasional versus conventional property criminals demonstrate that only the latter exhibit any level of commitment to criminality, and even they are often youthful offenders whose property criminality peaks at age 16, halves by age 20, and continues to decline thereafter. Societal reaction to occasional offenders is relatively mild, but it is relatively strong against conventional property offenders. Anthropological field research, such as that by Shover, suggests that programs aimed at identifying and getting tough with “career criminals” must be careful to examine the interplay among employment, threatened incarceration, and aging of offenders lest they get tough at the very time that most will mature out of crime. In sociology, professionals are those in occupations who possess useful knowledge and claim a service orientation for which they are granted autonomy. In this light, the term may be an inappropriate tag with which to designate skilled, able grifters or intensive career criminals. It is so widely used in the literature, however, that not to use the concept would be more confusing than to employ it. Sutherland’s classic 1937 work on the subject, The Professional Thief, describes some characteristics of professional criminals as including crime as sole livelihood,
CRJ 105 – Crime and Criminal Behavior
Place Your Order Here!
