Retaliatory Auto Theft

Abstract

Drawing from a qualitative sample of active auto thieves, this article examines the moralistic underpinnings of auto theft. Our findings indicate that retaliatory auto theft is either direct or indirect. In direct forms of payback, auto theft reprises a specific violator for a specific affront, and the theft serves as that reprisal. In indirect payback, the target's culpability is lacking: Auto theft either removes some generalized loss or facilitates a broader retributive objective secondary to the theft target. Discussion focuses on the distinction between revenge and retribution and how auto theft emerges as a feasible choice given the universe of available retaliatory options, and despite the longstanding preference among street offenders for violence.

Nerve Management and Crime Accomplishment

“…An African American male in his late 20s, native of the study site, and desisting offender, he assisted us on multiple other projects in this setting. He was adept at identifying respondents and assessing their suitability for the study, which we have described in detail elsewhere (Cherbonneau and Jacobs 2015; Jacobs and Cherbonneau 2016).…”

“… 3. This is likely as true for some committed offenders (Jacobs 2010) as it is for uncommitted ones; the latter tend to overestimate sanction risk because of their general lack of experience with punishment and punishment avoidance (Anwar and Loughran 2011; Matsueda, Kreager, and Huizinga 2006; Pogarsky, Piquero, and Paternoster 2004), while the present-orientation that is often emblematic of the former can enhance sensitivity and responsiveness to risks, particularly immediate ones (Cherbonneau and Jacobs 2015; Jacobs and Cherbonneau 2017). …”

Reconciling Emotion and Rational Choice: Negativistic Auto Theft, Consequence Irrelevance, and the Seduction of Destruction

“…We also glimpsed this tendency in the realm of normative conduct, which is essentially instrumental behavior with a moralistic twist. Moralistic auto theft—crimes in which offenders steal cars to right perceived wrongs—plays an appreciable role in the etiology of this crime (Cherbonneau and Jacobs 2015) and many others. Indeed, the notion of “crime as social control” has long played a role in private responses to perceived infractions the world over (Black 1983).…”

“…We believe that such acts are particularly compelling evidence of negativism because offenders attack the object of the violator rather than the violator herself or himself, a choice that can signal weakness in a world that lionizes face-to-face reprisal (see Jacobs and Wright 2006). That choice is especially noteworthy given that, in sneaky (noncontact) crimes, the violator may have no clue that she or he was singled out for reprisal (Cherbonneau and Jacobs 2015; Jacobs 2004). Not knowing whether one was reprised, malicious thefts may be perceived as just another act of random property victimization rather than the payback it really is.…”