Co-offending Groups Research Articles

Exploring criminal specialisation in co-offending groups

ABSTRACT Researchers have studied criminal specialisation at the offenders’ level to understand criminal careers. Despite criminal careers comprising events in which offenders co-offend with others, we know less about the extent of co-offending groups showing signs of becoming specialists. To start addressing this gap, in this study we report a method through which we identified 1,796 co-offending groups in a network containing information about adult offenders (n = 76,697) connected to criminal investigations (m = 35,604) between 2010 and 2018. During this timeframe, one in five co-offending groups remained unchanged in their composition and re-offended. Of those re-offending, 54% became specialists in crimes such as those affecting private property. The other 46% that re-offended were generalists. Simulation analyses showed that the proportion of highly specialised groups was not observed by chance. These results suggest that criminal specialisation is a characteristic also shared by co-offending groups. Criminologists and practitioners might find helpful the method employed here to identify co-offending groups and assess their level of specialisation.

Historical Co-offending Networks: A Social Network Analysis Approach

Abstract Recent decades have witnessed growing use of social network analysis (SNA) to study criminal activities, including that of co-offending. However, few studies have examined co-offending networks within a historical context. This paper focuses on group-based crime in a large English town during the Victorian period, employing SNA methods to examine the prevalence, structure and composition of co-offending relationships. Networks for property, violent and victimless crimes were partitioned to compare co-offending across crime categories. Results indicate that co-offending groups were typically segregated, although there was a loosely-organised community of property crime offenders connected by ‘brokers’ who collaborated with multiple groups. Evidence also suggests that co-offending was largely characterised by assortative mixing in regard to sex, age and marital status.

The Consequences of Crime in Company: Co-Offending, Victim-Offender Relationship, and Quality of Violence.

Peers influence offending, both directly through co-offending and indirectly through information and advice. Despite such findings, there has been only limited research into the ways in which the presence of other offenders (i.e., accomplices) may impact criminal behavior, especially violence. Drawing on research on small group behavior, this study explores the relationship between the presence of co-offenders and offense severity, focusing on weapon use and victim injury. More specifically, this research hypothesizes that, owing to a diffusion of responsibility and other group processes, crimes committed by groups are more severe than crimes committed by a single offender and that crimes committed by large co-offending groups are particularly severe. This research also proposes that anonymity is an important mechanism behind this relationship and tests the hypothesis that the relationship between groups and offense severity varies according to the victim-offender relationship. Using National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data, the results indicate that (a) offenses committed by groups of offenders are more likely than offenses committed by a single offender to be severe (i.e., involve a weapon, result in injury); (b) as the size of the co-offending group increases, the likelihood of offense severity also increases; and (c) whether the victim is known to the offender is an important predictor of the relationship between co-offending and offense severity.

Co-offenders’ Crime Location Choice: Do Co-offending Groups Commit Crimes in Their Shared Awareness Space?

Co-offenders’ Crime Location Choice: Do Co-offending Groups Commit Crimes in Their Shared Awareness Space?

Searching For Influential Actors in Co-Offending Networks: The Recruiter

The co-offending literature research has recently unraveled the possible existence of a specific class of offenders commonly referred to as a “recruiter”: one who recruits others who are younger or less experienced for the purpose of offending. Yet the available evidence has focused on small or non-representative samples, and has supplied a limited conceptual scope for explaining how instigation takes place within co-offending groups. We provide evidence from population-level arrest records over eight years in Sacramento, California, is presented on 251,285 criminal charges (n=80,245 offenders). Social network analysis to used to study how “crime ideas” are transmitted. We identified 1,092 recruiters, yet this subgroup is responsible for 6% of arrest cases in Sacramento and a disproportionate number of younger and less experienced recruits. The data suggest a pattern of recruitment specialization in specific crime categories and wider age differentials in against-persons rather than property crime categories. We contextualize the findings within Dawkin’s (1976) meme theory as a more robust conceptual framework for explaining how recruitment takes place, why “crime ideas” can be seen as units of imitation, and under which conditions they are subsequently replicated, reproduced, and evolve. Directions for future research are then considered, with an emphasis on crime control initiatives.

Co-Offender Ties and the Criminal Career

Objectives: This study aims to assess three related aspects of co-offending networks: (1) the characteristics of co-offending groups and the duration of group offending careers, (2) the impact of membership in co-offending groups on total offending and the length of individual offending careers, and (3) the impact of offender arrest (or changes in co-offending group structure) on the offending patterns of connected co-offenders. Methods: Data on sentenced burglary offenders ( N = 270) in one county in Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2010 are used to examine the impact of co-offending group membership, as well as the relationship between the changing network structure and the offending patterns of connected co-offenders, within a two-level modeling framework. Results: Larger groups with more dispersed offending structures offend over the longest span. Additionally, membership in co-offending groups is associated with more total offending and a longer individual offending career. Finally, the arrest of structurally important offenders, compared to more peripheral offenders, is significantly associated with the decreased offending of connected co-offenders. Conclusions: The removal of a highly central “instigator” or “recruiter” is associated with desistance among connected co-offenders. Future research should examine the mechanisms behind these effects, and why the arrest of co-offending partners is associated with desistance.

Characteristics of Co-offending Groups: Burglary and Robbery Co-offenders

Characteristics of Co-offending Groups: Burglary and Robbery Co-offenders

The Structure of Age Homophily in Co-Offending Groups

This article examines age homophily among co-offenders, using data on approximately 440,000 co-offenses recorded by police in Canada during 2006 to 2009. Log-linear models for social mobility tables are applied to an 86-by-86 table of frequencies of co-offending among year-of-age groups for individuals from 3 to 88 years old. The results indicate strong age homophily for co-offenders of all ages, but decreasing with age. There is further structuration into four age groups: children (3-11 years), youth (12-17 years), young adults (18-45 years), and older adults (46-88 years). The “Fagin” hypothesis that offenders below the age of criminal responsibility are particularly attractive as co-offenders for older offenders is disconfirmed.

Co-offending in Canada, England and the United States: a cross-national comparison

This article compares the characteristics of police-reported co-offending groups and solo offenders in Canada, England and the United States. Comparative analysis of crime in these three countries is fostered by the relative similarity of their substantive criminal codes (all originating in English common law), their approaches to law enforcement, and their crime recording procedures. The data include over 100,000 incidents cleared by a large UK police force, 2.5 million incidents in Canada, and 1.3 million incidents in 36 states in the United States, in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Comparative analyses include the prevalence of co-offending, the size and composition of co-offending groups, and key correlates of group crime, such as offence type and the age and sex of participants. Substantial similarities are observed across the three data sets, although there are also intriguing differences. These findings are discussed in relation to ongoing attempts to draw general conclusions regarding the nature and extent of group crime and co-offending networks.

Exploring a model of professionalism in multiple perpetrator violent gun crime in the UK

The present study examines co-offending groups that commit violent firearms offences within the UK, in order to develop an understanding of these groups in terms of their level of professionalism. A sample of 69 cases was selected from two British law databases, consisting of offences that involved the utilization of a firearm in a violent crime committed by more than one offender. Cases were content analysed for offending behaviour. The presence of a three-way thematic model of criminal professionalism, previously identified in robbery, was tested using multi-dimensional scaling. Three themes of offences were identified as Targeted, Gratuitous and Reactive, which differed in the level of professionalism displayed. Gratuitous was the most common theme for the sample, demonstrating some evidence of planning but also gratuitous violence towards victims. In conclusion, while violent gun crime is typically a phenomenon involving young males, not all groups display the same behaviour or levels of professionalism, as is evident in the existence of all three themes. These differences are important for understanding the psychology of the offences and designing operational responses.

Comparing the ties that bind criminal networks: Is blood thicker than water?

Structural analysis of illicit markets suggests that criminal enterprise is to some degree linked with legitimate enterprise, and that, networks generally comprise groups and clusters of individuals with varying subgroup structural characteristics. Rather than investigating networks formed exclusively through formal organizational ties, this study compares the structure of criminal networks formed by different types of ties (co-offending, kinship, formal organization membership and legitimate business or other non-criminal connections) using p*(exponential random graph) models. The results indicate that kinship and formal organization networks are highly cohesive and have low fragmentation probabilities. Therefore, the results show that blood, both through kinship ties or the metaphoric blood that ties formal criminal organizations is thicker than the ties that bind co-offending groups. Policy implications for policing techniques are also discussed.

Does Race Matter? Examining the Relationship Between Co-Offending and Victim Characteristics for Violent Incidents Involving Female Offenders

Using National Incident-Based Reporting System data from 1998, the current study examines important factors concerning the situational context of violent incidents. First, the study explores the relationship between co-offending groups and several victim-related measures. Second, the study uses an intersectional approach to determine the extent to which these relationships may or may not be conditioned by offender(s) race. Two findings are notable in terms of offending differences among females: (a) race conditioned the relationship between offending group and victim(s) sex for robbery incidents and (b) race conditioned the relationship between offending group and the social distance between victim(s) and perpetrator(s) for aggravated assaults.