Police officers’ theory of crime

Citation

(2014), "Police officers’ theory of crime", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2014-0072

Police officers’ theory of crime

Article Type: Perspectives on policing From: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Volume 37, Issue 3.

Andrea Allen and Scott Jacques

American Journal of Criminal Justice

2014

Vol. 39

pp. 206-227

Review DOI 10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2014-0072

This paper examined theories of crime held by police officers. Components of traditional criminological theories, such as rational choice, social learning, social bond and Gottfredson and Hirschi's 1990 low self-control theory, have previously been extended by police officers as explanations of crime. In addition, other factors, such as the weather, the economy, offender's drug use and victim's behavior, have also been used by police officers as an explanation of crime. This understudied area has largely encompassed the beliefs of municipal police officers. The authors extend this line of research to another type of police officer, university campus police. The work environment of college law enforcement officers is unique in that colleges are a relatively safe environment, yet they experience heavy drinking, and are largely composed of demographic groups less likely to be involved in violent crime.

This study utilized qualitative data in the form of 16 semi-structured, in-depth interviews, utilizing open-ended questions, with campus police officers in a large university in the Southeastern USA. Though the sample size is small, nearly half of the total patrol officers (n=33) at the university were interviewed. The supervising officer on duty of the patrol unit assigned officers to participate in the study and no officer refused to participate. Officers were asked to name the crime they handled most frequently and to explain why. In addition, an alcohol specific version of this question was asked. Participant interviews were recorded and typically lasted between 30 minutes and one hour. The data were analyzed using the qualitative data software package, NVivo. Board categories were first coded followed by smaller distinctions among the broad categories.

The most common type of crime that officers identified was petty larceny. Officers had several theories about why this crime was most common. They included motived offenders (both students and non-students) and trusting on the part of the students due to immaturity. Underage drinking was seen as the most common crime generally by nearly half of the officers and most common alcohol related crime by all but one officer. The officers believed that college culture and a lack of parental control explained underage drinking. Marijuana use was also cited as a common crime for similar reasons as underage drinking. Though presented in a piecemeal fashion, the authors tied together the officers’ individual theories in order to create a multivariate theory of the officers’ views of crime.

Both the petty theft and underage drinking and marijuana use theories of crime were based on a rational choice theory perspective. In regards to petty theft, motivated offenders come across victims in the form of college students that have not experienced previous victimization because of the protection their parents provided and are too trusting of others and therefore fail to guard their property. In regards to underage drinking and marijuana use, people are motivated to participate in these crimes because of the pro-substance culture portrayed by media, while not seeing great costs for offending. These students find like-minded peers who pressure and facilitate substance use. Again, the removal of parental supervision facilitates these crimes. The authors conclude by suggesting more research to assess the generalizability of officers’ theories of crime and figuring out why officers ascribe to the theories.