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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
