8.1 Target Patterns

From the bodily outline drawn on the surface of the scene of the crime...

what progressively emerges is the outlined shape of the killer.

– Seltzer, 1998, p. 48

The geography of crime literature indicates the importance of various factors in determining the locations of a serial offender’s crimes. The major influences on criminal target patterns are discussed below.

8.1.1Place and Space

Crime event theory involves the study of locations (Eck & Weisburd, 1995b). Ecological psychology tries to understand how places “work.” Behaviour settings (places) are free-standing, natural units of the everyday environment with a recurring pattern of behaviours (standing patterns of behaviour), and a surrounding and supporting physical milieu. These units organize community life. Examples include bus stops, taverns, billiard parlours, parking lots, parks, playgrounds, street fairs, variety stores, welfare offices, and so on. This is a place-based process of interest.

Weisburd has argued that more effective crime prevention and control would occur with a shift of focus from individual offenders to specific places (Taylor, 1997). The development of a complementary focus on the context of crime, while a small scale concern, is perhaps more manageable. That context can be seen through a cone of resolution, from macro to meso to micro. Such studies so far have looked at CPTED, defensible space, territorial functioning, situational crime prevention, and crime pattern theory.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

There is an hierarchy of space that influences criminal action: (1) public space (e.g., street); (2) semi-public space (e.g., open front yard); (3) semiprivate space (e.g., fenced backyard); and (4) private space (e.g., house) (Newman, 1972, 1996). As an offender moves from the street to an apartment building parking lot, to inside the building itself, and to the interior of an individual apartment, he is progressively entering more private space and concomitantly increasing his risk. Most crimes happen quickly and are over in a matter of a few minutes (Felson, 1998). Shorter times translate into lower risk. Consequently, offenders prefer to remain close to escape routes and avoid targets that are situated too far into private space. For example, auto theft from personal garages is a fraction of what it is from public lots.

Offenders “consistently commit crime in neighbourhoods they personally know well or that are very similar in physical, social and economic characteristics to their home neighbourhoods” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995, p. 13). Familiarity with, access to, and departure from a scene affect an offender’s target choices (Beavon, Brantingham, & Brantingham, 1994). People congregate and interact at nodes. They also travel between such places via different modes of transportation. Nodes generate movement, and movement influences nodes.

Road network complexity and traffic flow are important crime determinants, and accessible or high-use areas experience more criminal problems. Beavon et al. (1994) found “that the design of street networks influences how people move about within a city and, consequently, their familiarity with specific areas” (p. 115). The permeability of a neighbourhood can be determined by the access from arterial routes, and a given block by the number of connecting streets. The beta index is a connectivity measure used for determining area permeability. For a given graph network the beta index is defined as follows:

where:

β is the beta index;

e is the number of edges in the network; and v is the number of vertices in the network.

Urban crime is more common along those streets arranged in a grid layout, and many burglars prefer corner houses because the intersecting roads offer two escape options40 (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1975; Walsh, 1986).

40 Cromwell, Olson, and Avary (1990, 1991) found that 39% of burglarized houses were located on corners. Offender preference for corner premises has been alternatively explained by the greater likelihood they will be noticed as potential targets, and by their lower surveillability (Reppetto, 1974).

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Risk of crime is higher in counties crossed by interstate highways, and neighbourhoods close to freeway exits (Felson, 1998), and Rengert found 21% of the burglaries he studied in Connecticut were located within 0.25 miles of a freeway exit. These are all examples of “porous” areas.

By contrast, offenders dislike organic street layouts with their winding streets, crescents, and cul-de-sacs. Both entrance and escape is limited, and criminals run a greater risk of becoming trapped. Neighbourhoods with few access paths, particularly those that are bounded and contained by edges, primarily experience crimes committed by insiders. Edges can be either physical or perceptual, and often exist at the juxtaposition of different neighbourhoods or land uses. Strangers are common in such areas and people travel along edges unnoticed. Higher crime rates result from the anonymity associated with these zones of transition (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1975, 1993a). Generally, a crime in a remote or “out of the way” location is more likely than one near a well-travelled route to be the responsibility of an offender with local area knowledge.

Routine activity theory suggests that because offenders need to intersect with victims in the absence of guardians, dangerous places are busy but not too busy. Hunters will seek out such places. Crime is patterned by an area’s permeability, and by the presence and location of edges, generators, and attractors. The concepts of crime generators and attractors were first introduced by Brantingham and Brantingham (1995). A crime generator is a hightraffic location (e.g., shopping mall, entertainment centre, transportation hub, etc.) that experiences crime as a by-product of the large number of people — potential victims and offenders — who regularly visit there. On the other hand, a crime attractor is a place that attracts offenders through its reputation for crime opportunities (e.g., bar districts, red-light zones, drug markets, etc.). A person may commit an offence while visiting a crime generator, but that was not his or her reason for going there in the first place. Crime attractors, however, pull in offenders intent on criminal activity. Crime attractors and generators are usually nodes.

Crime hot spots are small geographic areas that contain a disproportionate number of offences (Block, 1990; Block & Block, 1995; Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989). Generally, many different offenders and victims frequent these concentrated zones of generalized criminal activity. Hot spots can be calculated from various algorithms, and depicted by circles, ellipses, irregular polygons, and street blocks. Are they dangerous places? Not necessarily.41 Dangerousness is usually associated with the risk, or odds, of being victimized. A location may experience much crime simply by virtue of the fact that

41 Similarly, fear and criminality of place are often incongruent. The former is influenced by isolation, darkness, emptiness, niches, and alleys. The latter is affected by activity, access, and the presence of people. Both are time dependent, but in different ways.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

many people visit it. So while the numerator (number of offences) may be high, so is the denominator (population), resulting in a moderate victimization rate and risk level.

“Fishing holes” or “trap lines” (target-rich locations) act as crime attractors for violent predators. These places are seen as possessing high probabilities of containing potential victims, who may then be followed to a different location before being attacked. A trap line is a linear fishing hole, typically stretched along a street or commercial strip. Such locations can be dangerous places during active periods of criminal predators.

8.1.2Hunting Grounds

Fishing holes and trap lines are attractive to offenders because of their potential for containing desirable targets. Norris (1988) observes that certain serial killers stake out territories where vulnerable victims are likely to be found, preferring such locations as parking lots, dark city streets, university campuses, school playgrounds, rural roads leading from schools, and so forth.

A hunter goes where there is game ... Selection of a hunting territory is the first prerequisite for a successful kill. A slayer’s choice of stalking grounds may be determined by a private fantasy of vision, but it must include the basic elements of reasonable access, a supply of ready victims, and a decent prospect for evading capture ... In short, the ideal hunting ground depends upon a given killer’s personality and needs. (Newton, 1992, p. 64)

Victim selection often follows a multistaged or hierarchical process as a criminal makes step-by-step decisions regarding choice of neighbourhood, street, and building (Van Soomeren, 1989). Target preference first delineates the offender’s hunting ground, then specific victims are selected from within that area.

Attacks outdoors seem often to involve the preselection of an area by the offender with which he is familiar, rather than the preselection or targeting of particular victims. These offenders attack where they are comfortable and in surroundings which are known to them and where they may be confident of effecting escape. The victim is then selected by the circumstances in which she becomes available to the attacker and vulnerable to the attack. (Canter, 1994, p. 188)

LeBeau (1985) suggests type of hunting ground and differences in spatial behaviour are important for discriminating between serial and nonserial rapists. He found serial rapists overwhelmingly struck in areas characterized as small household, single and multiple family dwelling units, and inhabited by elderly and young renters. Canter (1994) noted consistency in offence

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC