Файл: [D._Kim_Rossmo]_Geographic_Profiling(BookFi.org).pdf

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

finance, and many other areas (Casti, 1998). Apparently, the world is lazy.
Refracted light bends at angles that create a path of minimal travel time.
Word frequency studies show languages attempt to communicate as much
information as possible in the fewest number of symbols. The coding regions
in DNA molecules appear to do the same, and least action governs human
movement patterns.

Studies of trail systems, for example, show that people do not just follow

the shortest path. Instead, they do something more complicated by minimiz-
ing their discomfort. Existing routes may not be the most direct but creating
new paths takes effort, so walkers compromise between convenience and
distance. Trail growth (caused by people walking) and decay (brought on by
weather and overgrowth) has been shown to follow processes of natural
competition and selection (Casti, 1998).

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Target and Hunt

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 influ-
ences on criminal target patterns are discussed below.

8.1.1 Place 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 com-
munity 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.

8

© 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) semi-
private 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 person-

ally know well or that are very similar in physical, social and economic
characteristics to their home neighbourhoods” (Brantingham & Branting-
ham, 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 determi-

nants, 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:

β

 = 

e

/

v

(8.1)

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 options

40

 (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 neigh-
bourhoods 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 phys-
ical or perceptual, and often exist at the juxtaposition of different neighbour-
hoods or land uses. Strangers are common in such areas and people travel
along edges unnoticed. Higher crime rates result from the anonymity asso-
ciated 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 intro-
duced by Brantingham and Brantingham (1995). A crime generator is a high-
traffic 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 gen-
erator, 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 disproportion-

ate 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 victim-
ized. 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 victimiza-
tion rate and risk level.

“Fishing holes” or “trap lines” (target-rich locations) act as crime attrac-

tors for violent predators. These places are seen as possessing high probabil-
ities 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.

8.1.2 Hunting Grounds

Fishing holes and trap lines are attractive to offenders because of their poten-
tial 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 cam-
puses, 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 circum-
stances 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