The Journey to Crime & Distance Decay

I have written a little bit about crime journeys and the “distance decay” effect before, however in this article I want to explore it in a bit more detail. In terms of predicting crime – including violent crime – it has been found that place/location is a better predictor than offender characteristics and offender history etc. Most criminal acts happen in a few distinct places, rather than being evenly distributed across a city or urban landscape etc. This is also one of the reasons behind repeat victimization i.e., if someone has a reason to be in a place, that is susceptible to crime, it is unlikely that being in that location is a one-off event e.g., if someone’s journey to work sees them walk along a street/block where street robberies take place, they are likely to come across motivated offenders more than just once etc. Just as an offense has to happen in a particular space, and at a particular time, an offender has to start from a particular location, to get there e.g., they must leave a “base” that they use such as their house, their place of work (many criminals have a full or part-time job), or a bar they frequent, and journey to the location where they commit their offense(s). By better understanding how the crime location, the starting point/base, and the journey to crime (JTC) relate, we can form a better understanding of how offenders operate. In this article I want to take a look at how offender decision-making and space/geography affect offending.

One widely accepted idea in Environmental Criminology is that of distance decay; that an offender’s offending declines with distance from the base(s) that they start from. It is worth noting that whilst there is empirical evidence to support this idea, it can not be used as a universal theory/concept e.g., if I am planning to break into Fort Knox in Kentucky and am assembling a team of specialists from around the world to do so, the distance that each team member has to travel is likely to be pretty irrelevant. There is only one Fort Knox on the planet, and if we want to break into it, we will have to travel to it, whatever that distance is. It is unlikely that offenders who live nearby are more likely to try to break into Fort Knox than those who live further away, because the skills and abilities needed to do so, are unique enough that they are unlikely to be geographically concentrated in that particular area, and the perceived reward of breaking in – if successful – is going to significantly outweigh the cost of travel etc. However, it is more likely that a team based/living in the US, will attempt such a crime than one based in Europe. The reason for this is that some local knowledge will be required to pull off such a job, such as knowing how to get rid off the gold bullion once stolen, including how to transport it, where to store it, and who to sell it onto etc. Even if the goal is to fly/ship it out of the country, some US contacts will be needed. This restricts the distance between associates, and their distance from the place of the intended crime, due to the social networks that they operate in e.g., a team committing such an offense are more likely to be geographically close to each other, sharing common social networks etc. This means that it may be equally likely, for example, that a criminal team located in Texas would plan such an offense, as a team located in Massachusetts. Whilst I have chosen a high-profile target, and a professional gang to illustrate these points, the same concepts apply to a loose gang of friends (living/based in a rural town), travelling to a particular city, to engage in shoplifting, and/or recreational drinking and violence etc.    

In many crimes, distance decay does have an effect on offending, especially where mobility is concerned e.g., if an offender doesn’t have a car (or access to one), and/or limited public transport options, they will be limited to locations that are within walking distance etc. This is one of the reasons that many young offenders commit crimes close to their homes. Another reason why young offenders often limit their offending to such locations is that they have a limited number of awareness and activity spaces. As we get older, we experience – and become more comfortable – in a greater number of different spaces; these are our activity spaces. We also become aware of other types of spaces, maybe through news reports and other media, or from friends who have visited other places i.e., as we age our world tends to become much larger. This allows older offenders to know of areas and locales that are not in their close proximity e.g., there are probably towns and villages that you know now, that you didn’t know of when you were younger e.g., when I was at university, I became much more aware of the geography of the UK, and what different places were like, through meeting and interacting with students who lived in these different towns and cities etc. Older offenders will be aware of more places than younger ones and are probably also aware of the types of criminal opportunity available to them in these locales; especially if their knowledge of a place comes from another offender. When an offender has a specific target in mind, distance decay is less of a factor in their offending.

However, not all offenders do have specific targets in mind. Most, especially where low-level crimes such as street robbery are involved, are more opportunistic in nature. They may set out from their home or base with deliberate intent to offend, or even head to a location that is conducive for offending however if a suitable opportunity presents itself, they will take it. Some criminologists make the argument that offenders won’t commit crimes within a certain distance from their home/base, however my own research has shown both burglars and street robbers committing crimes within their own apartment buildings, and/or on the streets outside their homes etc. There may be some more careful criminals who travel a certain distance before engaging in criminal activities, but this is certainly not true for all. A suitable opportunity that presents itself is all they need in order to offend i.e., the right person, in the right place, and at the right time. When we boil low-level crimes down to this definition of “opportunity” we can see how central time and place are to predicting crime.

A forensic scientist named Stuart Kind, working on the case of the Yorkshire Ripper (who killed 13 women in the 1970’s), used a very simple method, involving the Journey to Crime, to predict the home location of Peter Sutcliffe i.e., the Ripper. He deduced that victims killed in the morning, or in the evening, were those probably close to the perpetrator’s house, and represented those he targeted as he was leaving for work (morning killings), and those when he was returning home after work (evening killings); with those homicides in the middle of the day representing his maximum journey distance before returning home etc. By working out how far a car/vehicle could travel in these times, he was able to limit the killer’s home location to a very small area. This can help demonstrate how powerful an understanding of the Journey to Crime can be, as well as showing how important both time and space are in understanding criminal decision-making and predicting future crime(s).