State differences in burglary victimisation in Australia: a research note

Abstract

Australian social researchers have demonstrated an ongoing interest in investigating economic, political and cultural difference between the states. The paper reports findings from an exploratory analysis of state differences in burglary victimisation in Australia.

Examination of Routine Activities Theory by the property crime

“…For example, Walker and Dagger (1993) state the number of individuals in a residence is a vital factor of threat in terms of being a victim of burglary. In addition, houses in which married couples live have less possibility of being victimized than other types of families (Phillips 1995). Yet, single parent families are in the danger group according to Lindsay and McGillis (1986) because those people tend to be single renters and frequently leave their houses unattended for long periods.…”

Residential burglary victimization

“…That research suggested a reverse causal order between those two variables. In other words, a household member employs target-hardening techniques in response to prior burglary victimization (Phillips and Walker, 1997; Tseloni et al, 2004). The current study, however, found no clear evidence of the relationship between using target-hardening techniques and household burglary victimization.…”

“…In other words, burglary victimization may lead to a homeowner's fear of further victimization, which is in turn conducive to their installing antitheft systems (van Kesteren et al, 2014). This problem is pronounced because a majority of victimization surveys failed to ask a subject when he or she installed security devices (Phillips and Walker, 1997).…”

“…Based on this finding, older and retired individuals may be likely to spend more time in their residences than younger ones. Thus, the presence of an older resident may provide a guardian (Capowich, 2003; Cohen and Cantor, 1981; Phillips and Walker, 1997).…”

“…Home guardianship may be affected not only by the employment status of a resident, but also by the resident’s other activities outside the home, such as going to school, playing sports, and eating out, because the resident leaves his or her home without a guardian for those activities (Capowich, 2003; Miethe and Meier, 1994; Roundtree and Land, 1996). Based on the same logic, a household with a married or cohabitating couple may be better protected than one with a single adult, though only because one of the married or cohabitating couples is likely to stay at home if they are not employed outside the home (Miethe and Meier, 1994; Phillips and Walker, 1997).…”