DOCSLIB.ORG

Burglary, Theft, Robbery Fact Sheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Burglary, Theft, Robbery Fact Sheet H D T E C N I R A C P L X E E R Burglary, Theft, Robbery S E A M I C T H C A L L V I Burglary, theft, and robbery each amount to billions of dollars in total monetary losses every year. Larceny-theft (or simply “theft”) is defined as the unlawful removal of property. Burglary is defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure with the intent to commit a crime inside.1 Robbery, on the other hand, is the violent theft of property or money. 10 9 CRIME TRENDS 8 7 Rates of personal and household burglary, theft, and robbery have6 decreased consistently over the past two decades. The 5 national rate of personal robbery has decreased 67%, from 6.3 victimizations4 per 1,000 people age 12 or older in 1995 to 2.1 per 1,000 in 2015. Similarly, the rate of personal theft dropped 84%3 (from 1.9 to 0.3), while burglary and household theft2 have declined 60% and 65%, respectively. The rate of motor vehicle2 theft has also declined 75% (from 17.1 to 4.3 per 1,000 1 A3 households).10 0 9 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 8 A A 7 Personal Robbery and Theft Household Theft,Personal Burglary, The6/Larceny and MotorRobbery Vehicle Theft 6 rate per 1,000 people age 12 or older rate per 1,000 households 5 10 300 104 300 9 Household theft 3 8 Personal robbery 250 2 243.9 Household burglary 7 6.3 Personal theft/larceny 1 200 Motor vehicle theft 6 0 5 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 150 120.3 4 3.1 Personal The6/Larceny Robbery 84.4 3 100 1.9 2.1 54.4 2 0.9 50 30.6 22.0 1300 0.3 17.1 8.6 0 0 4.3 25019951995 19971997 19991999 20012001 20032003 20052005 20072007 20092009 20112011 20132013 20152015 19951995 1997 199920002001 2003 20052005 2007 200920102011 2013 20152015 Household Burglary Motor Vehicle The6 The6 200 Personal The6/Larceny Robbery 150 300From 1995 to 2015, the rates of robbery, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft known to law enforcement have declined. 40 Robbery100 has decreased from 2.2 per 1,000 individuals to 1. Burglary decreased 50%, from nearly 10 per 1,000 individuals to 250 35 about50 5. Similarly, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft decreased by 41% and 61%, respectively. It is important to note that 30 200the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) includes commercial crimes in these estimates, while the National Crime Victimization 0 25 Survey1995 (NCVS) does2000 not. Despite2005 this difference,2010 the UCR 2015and NCVS have reported comparable changes over the years.B 20 150 Household Burglary Motor Vehicle The6 The6 15 B 100 Burglary, Theft, and Robbery Known to Law Enforcement 10 rate per 1,000 people DID YOU KNOW? 4050 5 40 0 35 Larceny-theft 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 A 30.40 Burglary In 2014, 60.9% of robberies were reported to the police. 30 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Robbery Burglary Larceny-The6 Motor Vehicle The6 Motor vehicle theft 25 22.9 In 2015, more than 50% of robbery victimizations were Household Burglary Motor Vehicle The6Robbery The6 A 20 17.8 committed by strangers. 15 In 2015, 42% of robberies involved the use of strong- 109.9 arm tactics, 41% involved the use of firearms, and 8% 40 7.3 B4 5.65 4.2 involved the use of a knife or other cutting instrument. 35 2.2 1.4 2.2 0 1.0 30 19951995 1997 199920002001 2003 20052005 2007 200920102011 2013 20152015 25 Robbery Burglary Larceny-The6 Motor Vehicle The6 20 2018 National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Resource Guide: Crime and Victimization Fact Sheets 15 10 5 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Robbery Burglary Larceny-The6 Motor Vehicle The6 Public Road Business CURRENT DATA ON BURGLARY, THEFT, ROBBERY Residence Bank Other Of the 284,722 robberies known to law enforcement in Burglaries are more likely to occur at residential dwellings, 2015, 40% occurred on public roads; 23% occurred within compared to stores, offices, or other non-residential businesses, including gas stations, service stations, and locations. Public Road convenience stores; and 19% occurred at other locations, Business such as within houses of worship, on public transportation, Location of BurglaryB Residence at schools, and within government offices.B by type of residence Bank Location of RobberyB OtherResidence (72%) Non-residence (28%) Public road (40%) BusinessPublic Road (23%) ResidenLal ResidenceBusiness (17%) Bank (2%) Non-ResidenLal Residence Other (19%) Bank Other ResidenLal Residential dwellings are also at a greater risk during the day, In 2015, 46% of larceny-theft knownNon-ResidenLal to law enforcement was while most non-residential burglaries occur at night.B worth over $200. The most commonly reported types of theft included motor vehicle theft and shopliftingMotor Vehicle. The category “other” included pocket-picking, purse-snatching, coin- Shopli6ing Burglary by Time of DayB operated machine thefts, thefts involving items from behind and type of residence a fenced enclosure, the theft of animals, outdoor furniture Buildings B ResidenLal and machinery, boats, jet skis, and airplanes. 100% Motor-Vehicle Accessories Residence Non-ResidenLalNon-residence B Larceny-Theft by BicyclesType 38 MotorOther Vehicle 21 13 Motor vehicle (24%) 10 12 7 Shopli6ingShoplifting (22%) Day Night Unknown Buildings (12%) Buildings Motor vehicle accessories (7%) Motor-VehicleBicycles (3%) Accessories Other (35%) Bicycles Motor Vehicle Other Shopli6ing Buildings NOTES SOURCES 1 The NCVS measures household burglary. Motor-Vehicle Accessories A Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Concate- nated File, 1992-2015, (U.S. Department of Justice) 2 Household theft is categorized as the taking (attempted or completed) of property by an individual who has a right to beBicycles in the house. Household B FBI, Crime in the United States, 1995–2015, (U.S. Department of Justice), burglary is categorized as the taking of property by an individual who has UCR Data tool, Years 1995–2014; 2015 Violent Crime Tables 1, 23; 2015 no right to be in the house. Other Robbery Table 3 3 For all trends: In 2006, the NCVS methodology was updated. Please be careful when comparing to other years. 4 The FBI defines strong-arm tactics as the use of hands, arms, feet, fists, or teeth as a weapon. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • Shoplifting & Internal Theft Prevention
    Computer fraud To fight the problem, institute strong policies against accepting gifts, make sure employees Many smaller companies are turning to computers require competitive bids, and rotate purchasing for checkout, billing, inventory records and agents and suppliers. Shoplifting & Internal payrolls. The technology may be new, but the crimes are the same – theft, larceny, embezzlement, Good business practices and fraud. Here are some tips to help protect your Theft Prevention business from computer crooks: good management will help avoid many of these problems. Make sure your computer is programmed to reveal unauthorized use or program Tighten your hiring practices alterations. Require job applicants to fill out a detailed application form. Then use it – contact all Separate computer programmer and operator references and former employers. functions. Minimize after-hours access to and use of the Separate functions computer. The bookkeeper should never handle cash. The Make sure programs contain a statement of person who makes purchases should not be the ownership. person who pays the bills. Your accounting system should enforce accountability through a series of Monitor and log all inputs and outputs. checks and balances. Each function should serve as a check on all the transactions that went before. Bribery & kickbacks Have an independent company audit your books The employee who lets a business every year. secret slip for a price … the loading supervisor who ignores a short Set a good personal example order for a little fee … the The boss who takes merchandise and office contracting officer who’ll supplies without paying encourages employees to speed things up for a small do the same.
    [Show full text]
  • INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General
    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General OFFICE: INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES TITLE: FORGERY; PERJURY; THEFT CASE ID: 2017-12-0293 DATE: August 30, 2018 Inspector General Staff Attorney Kelly Elliott, after an investigation by Special Agent Mark Mitchell, reports as follows: The Indiana General Assembly charged the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and wrongdoing in the executive branch of state government. IC 4-2-7-2(b). The OIG also investigates criminal activity and ethics violations by state workers. IC 4-2-7-3. The OIG may recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct in state government. IC 4-2- 7-3(2). On March 23, 2017, the OIG received a complaint from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that alleged a former BMV employee, Richard Pringle, submitted false information to the BMV on personal certificate of title applications. OIG Special Agent Mark Mitchell conducted an investigation into this matter. Through the course of his investigation, Special Agent Mitchell interviewed Pringle and reviewed documentation received from BMV, including their internal investigation report on this matter. According to BMV’s investigative report of the allegations against Pringle, BMV found that Pringle submitted an application for a 1997 GMC Yukon in October 2016 that listed a sale price 1 that was different from the price the seller of the vehicle stated they sold it. At the conclusion of their investigation, BMV terminated Pringle’s employment in or around March 2017. Special Agent Mitchell reviewed the BMV certificate of title application for the 1997 GMC Yukon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Larceny Act
    LARCENY THE LARCENY ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Short title. PART I. Inferprefafion 2. Interpretation. 3. Definitions. 4. Offensive weapons. PART 11. Indictable Ofences 5. Simple larceny. 6. Larceny of cattle. 7. Killing animals with intent to steal. S. Larceny, etc., of dogs. 9. Larceny of wills. 10. Larceny of documents of title to land, etc. 11. Taking, destroying, etc., documents for a fraudulent purpose. 12. Damaging fixtures with intent to steal. 13. Praedial larceny. 14. Larceny of goods in process of manufxture. 15. Abstracting electricity. 16. Larceny, etc., of ore from mines, etc. 17. Larceny of postal articles. 18. Larceny in dwelling-houses. 19. Larceny from the person. 20. Larceny from ships, docks, etc. 2 1. Larceny by tenants or lodgers. 22. Larceny and embezzlement by clerks or servants. 23. Stealing or embezzlement by officer of Post Office. 24. Conversion. 25. Conversion by trustee. [The inclusion of this page Is authorized by L.N. 180At20061 LARCENY Factors obtaining advances on the property of their principals. Frauds by director. etc. Fraudulently inducing persons to invest money. Falsification of accounts. Falsification of account books of a bank. etc. Clerks. etc.. making out false dividend warrants. Personating the owner of stock. Personation with intent to obtain land. etc. Falsely acknowledging bail. etc. False pretences. Obtaining credit by fraud. Robbery. Sacrilege. Burglary. House-breaking and committing felony. House-breaking with intent to commit felony. Being found by night armed or in possession of house-breaking implements. Extortion. [Repealed by Act 29 of 200.5.] [Repealed by Act 29 of 2005.1 [Repealed byAct 29 of 2OO5.] Receiving.
    [Show full text]
  • WALKER V. GEORGIA
    Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTEMUS RICK WALKER v. GEORGIA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA No. 08–5385. Decided October 20, 2008 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the denial of the peti- tion of certiorari. Petitioner brutally murdered Lynwood Ray Gresham, and was sentenced to death for his crime. JUSTICE STEVENS objects to the proportionality review undertaken by the Georgia Supreme Court on direct review of peti- tioner’s capital sentence. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, afforded petitioner’s sentence precisely the same proportionality review endorsed by this Court in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279 (1987); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37 (1984); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983); and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), and described in Pulley as a “safeguard against arbitrary or capricious sentencing” additional to that which is constitu- tionally required, Pulley, supra, at 45. Because the Geor- gia Supreme Court made no error in applying its statuto- rily required proportionality review in this case, I concur in the denial of certiorari. In May 1999, petitioner recruited Gary Lee Griffin to help him “rob and kill a rich white man” and “take the money, take the jewels.” Pet. for Cert. 5 (internal quota- tion marks omitted); 282 Ga. 774, 774–775, 653 S. E. 2d 439, 443, (2007). Petitioner and Griffin packed two bicy- cles in a borrowed car, dressed in black, and took a knife and stun gun to Gresham’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoplifting and the Law Shoplifting - a Model Code -And the Law
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ~----------------------------------------------------____~ ____________________m. ____________ ~ __.. __ ~ .................. ~~ .. • • SHOPLIFTING AND THE LAW SHOPLIFTING - A MODEL CODE _ -AND THE LAW Published By NATIONAL COALITION TO PREVENT SHOPLIFTING A MODEL CODE DECA, ARF, GFWC Atlanta, Georgia Judi Rogers, Director . -r MODEL CODE AND COMMENTS Prepared By LA W FIRM OF SHELDON 1. LONDON Washington, D.C. JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMENTS Prepared By JOSEPH L. vmITE @ CoPyt':ght 1980 by th N t' 'b e a tonal Coalition To Prevent Shoplifting L1 rary of Congress Catalog Card ' Atlanta, Georgia Number: 80-85015 Prepared for the National Coalition to Prevent Shoplifting by the law firm of Sheldon I, London I ""--' SHOPLIFTING AND THE LAW - A MODEL CODE - Published By NATIONAL COALITION TO PREVENT SHOPLIFTING DECA, ARF, GFWC u.s. Department of Justice 81811 A tlanta, Georgia National Institute of Justice Judi Rogers, Director •.. This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the pers?n or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated In thIS documen~ ~re tho.s.e of the authors and do not necessarily repr~sent the offICIal posItIon or pOlicies of the National Institute of JustIce. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material in mi­ crofiche onl~ has been granted by JUdl Rogers/Exec. Director NCPS to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). ~urther reprodu~tion outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sIon of the copynght owner. MODEL CODE AND COMMENTS Prepared By LA W FIRM OF SHELDON I. LONDON Washington, D.C. JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMENTS Prepared By JOSEPH L.
    [Show full text]
  • Larceny Embezzlement Theft
    COLLECTOR’S INK October/November 2009 • Volume LIV, No. 8 LARCENY EMBEZZLEMENT THEFT by Jerry Muto, CAC’s CPA y assignment in this article is to discuss the “E” ing” until they can eventually pay back the amounts taken word – Embezzlement. So why, in the title, did I through their shrewd financial maneuvering. put the words larceny and theft? Larceny and theft M People and families all over the world have been affected are both defined as thievery and an embezzler is a thief; by the recent world economic melt-down, and in some cas- these definitions are linked in a Thesaurus to one another es, do not see any solution to their own economic problems (reference embezzle, larceny, theft). outside of embezzlement. People are being pushed to their I wrote a “teaser” article in the September 2002 Collector’s financial and economic limits with, in their mind, no hope Ink labeled “Hot Topic: Embezzlement” which was designed for financial recovery. A good example is where one or to stimulate interest in a workshop presented at the 2002 both working members of a family lose their jobs because CAC Annual Convention & Expo. The text in that “teaser” of company layoffs or the company going out of business. article is still applicable today and maybe even more so. They have no economic or financial safety valve to rely on To save you from trying to retrieve your archive copy of the because they may have been living from paycheck-to-pay- Collector’s Ink issue referenced, or calling the CAC office check.
    [Show full text]
  • Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey Author(s): Michael Oliver Foley Document No.: 181241 Date Received: 04/14/2000 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0032 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL-FINAL TO NCJRS Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey h4ichael Oliver Foley A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. 2000 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I... I... , ii 02000 Michael Oliver Foley All Rights Reserved This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability
    STATE OF FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Kurt M. Spengler Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A. 390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32802 Tel: (407) 843‐3939 Email: [email protected] www.wickersmith.com Christopher Barkas Carr Allison 305 S. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 222‐2107 Email: [email protected] L. Johnson Sarber III Marks Gray, P.A. 1200 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 800 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Tel: (904) 398‐0900 Email: [email protected] www.marksgray.com A. Elements of Proof for the Derivative Negligence Claims of Negligent Entrustment, Hiring/Retention and Supervision 1. Respondeat Superior a. What are the elements necessary to establish liability under a theory of Respondeat Superior? Under Florida law, an employer is only vicariously liable for an employee's acts if the employee was acting to further the employer's interest through the scope of the employee’s employment at the time of the incident. An employee acts within the scope of his employment only if (1) his act is of the kind he is required to perform, (2) it occurs substantially within the time and space limits of employment, and (3) is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Additionally, once an employee deviates from the scope of his employment, he may return to that employment only by doing something which meaningfully benefits his employer's interests. Borrough’s Corp. v. American Druggists’ Insur. Co., 450 So.2d 540 (Fla.
    [Show full text]