THE TIME COURSE OF REPEAT BURGLARY VICTIMIZATION
THE TIME COURSE OF REPEAT BURGLARY VICTIMIZATION
复制标题
重复入室盗窃受害事件的时间进程
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048138
复制
发表时间：
1991
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
K. Pease
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Polvi;T. Looman;Charles W. Humphries;K. Pease
研究表明，重复受害的可能性大于单独犯罪的可能性。风险升高的时间过程对预防犯罪具有重要意义。对于入室盗窃，目前公认的观点是，使入室盗窃更有可能发生的房屋特征会在中长期内持续存在。为了解决时间过程问题，作者之前的研究调查了首次犯罪后12个月内再次入室盗窃受害风险的变化（Polvi et al. 1990）。这项研究在这里扩展到对四年时间（1984年至1987年）的分析。研究发现，重复盗窃的高风险不会持续很长一段时间。根据目前的数据，风险在六个月后变为平均水平，并在此后保持平均水平。鉴于其令人惊讶的结果，有人认为这项工作应该被复制。这项研究的一个启示是，入室盗窃后应尽快采取预防措施。已故的理查德·斯帕克斯的犯罪学遗产之一是他认识到重复犯罪受害现象的重要性（见斯帕克斯1981）。从本质上讲，第二次或以后受害的概率是如果犯罪是独立事件所预期的概率的几倍。这似乎适用于很多类型的犯罪。斯帕克斯（Sparks, 1981）以典型的机智和清晰的方式回顾了造成这一现象的可能原因。这一事实在预防犯罪方面是有用的，因为把预防工作集中在先前的受害者身上，比集中在规模相似的不同群体上，成本效益更高。这是最近在罗奇代尔（Forrester et al. 1988）成功实施的入室盗窃预防计划的基石。总的来说，我们应该从犯罪可预测性的连续性角度来思考。犯罪地点越能提前确定，预防或侦查的机会就越大。在一个极端，诱捕是一种诱人的技术，因为它精确地定位了犯罪的地点和时间。在另一个极端，犯罪的随机分布使预防和侦查工作的分配极为困难。重复受害的可能性增加有助于将局势推向连续体的可预测终点。为了发挥作用，可预测性必须同时适用于地点（目标）和时间。迄今为止，对多重受害的研究忽略了时间，倾向于在一个标准时期（通常是一年）内观察风险的升高，而不是观察风险随时间的变化。然而，风险升高的时间过程对预防工作至关重要。具体来说，是什么
Research has demonstrated that the probability of repeat victimization is greater than the probability of an independent offence. The time course of elevated risk has important implications for crime prevention. For burglaries, the current received wisdom is that the characteristics of homes which make burglary more probable persist over the medium and long term. Addressing the time course question, previous research by the authors examined the change in risk of repeat burglary victimization for up to twelve months after the initial offence (Polvi et al. 1990J. The study is here extended to the analysis of a four-year time period (1984 to 1987). It was found that the elevated risk of repeat burglary does not last over long time periods. Based on the present data, the risk becomes average once six months has passed and remains so subsequently. It is contended that the work should be replicated, given its surprising results. One implication of this research is that preventative action should be taken as soon as possible after a burglary. One of the criminological legacies of the late Richard Sparks was his recognition of the importance of the phenomenon of repeat crime victimization (see Sparks 1981). In essence, the probability of being victimized a second or subsequent time is several times the rate that would be expected if offences were independent events. This seems to be true across a wide range of offence types. Sparks (1981) reviews possible reasons for this phenomenon with typical wit and lucidity. The fact is usable in crime prevention terms, since concentration of preventative effort on prior victims will be more cost effective than concentration on a different group of similar size. This was the cornerstone of a recent, apparently successful, burglary prevention programme in Rochdale (Forrester et al. 1988). Put generally, we should think in terms of a continuum of crime predictability. The more exactly a crime location can be specified in advance, the greater the opportunity for prevention or detection. At one extreme, entrapment is a seductive technique because it locates a crime precisely in place and time. At the other extreme, random distribution of crime makes the allocation of prevention and detection effort maximally difficult. The heightened probability of repeat victimization serves to move the situation towards the predictable end of the continuum. To be useful, predictability has to apply in terms of both place (target) and time. Research on multiple victimization has hitherto neglected time, tending to look at elevated risk over a standard period, typically a year, rather than at any changes in risk across time. Yet the time course of elevated risk is of crucial importance to preventative effort. Specifically, over what