Advertisement

Resources, Solvability and Detection: A Theoretical Model

  • Richard Timothy CoupeEmail author
Chapter
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

The aims of this chapter are to draw on the findings of the substantive chapters to consolidate and develop an understanding of crime solvability and the theoretical underpinnings of the relationships between solvability, resources and detections. The geographical variation in incident solvability, resources and detection outcomes and their origins in jurisdictional crime profiles, varied offender populations and environmental circumstances are examined. The issues of identifying which ‘resource input–evidence output’ activities should be used to investigate different subsets of cases and the importance of strength and numbers of evidence items in solving cases are considered. The importance of lower, middle and higher solvability thresholds for allocating jurisdictional resources and for cost-effective investigative strategies are outlined, and the role of incident solvability in properly appreciating the relationship between crime demand and officer supply is highlighted. Finally, key facets are summarised in a resource–solvability model of crime detection.

Keywords

Solvability Resources Theory Model Jurisdiction Resource input–evidence output Solvability thresholds Resource–solvability model 

References

  1. Ahlberg, J., & Knutsson, J. (1990). The risk of detection. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(1), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audit Commission. (1993). Helping with enquiries: Tackling crime effectively. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  3. Bernasco, W. (2006). Co-offending and the choice of target areas in burglary. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3(3), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasco, W. (2010). A sentimental journey to crime: Effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology, 48(2), 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Das, S., & Miotra, D. (1988). Specialization and seriousness during adult criminal careers. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(4), 303–345.Google Scholar
  6. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1984). Patterns in crime. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1998). Crime pattern theory. In R. Wortley, L. Mazerolle, & S. Rombouts (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 78–93). Cullompton, Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  8. Burrows, J., Hopkins, M., Hubbard, R., Robinson, A., Speed, M., & Tilley, N. (2005). Understanding the attrition process in volume crime investigations (Home Office Research Study 295). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  9. Burrows, J., & Tarling, R. (1982). Clearing up crime. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coupe, R. T. (2016). Evaluating the effects of resources and solvability on burglary detection. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 5, 563–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coupe, R. T., & Blake, L. (2005). The effects of patrol workloads and response strength on burglary emergencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coupe, R. T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44, 431–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coupe, R. T., & Blake, L. (2010). The effects of target characteristics on the sighting and arrest of offenders at burglary emergencies. Security Journal, 24(2), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coupe, T., & Fox, B. H. (2015). A risky business: How do access, exposure and guardians affect the chances of non-residential burglars being seen? Security Journal, 28(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curtis, L. A. (1974). Criminal violence: National patterns and behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  17. Donovan, J., & Coupe, R. T. (2013). Animal rights extremism: Victimization, investigation and detection of a campaign of criminal intimidation. European Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, R. (2018, March 21). Shoplifting doubles as thefts under £200 go unpunished. The Times.Google Scholar
  19. Geerken, M., & Gove, W. R. (1977). Deterrence, overload and incapacitation: An empirical evaluation. Social Forces, 56(2), 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47(4), 1331–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Innes, M. (2002). The ‘process structures’ of police homicide investigations. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lamme, M., & Bernasco, W. (2013). Are mobile offenders less likely to be caught? The influence of the geographical dispersion of serial offenders’ crime locations on their probability of arrest. European Journal of Criminology, 10(2), 168–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nee, C., & Taylor, M. (2000). Examining burglars’ target selection: Interview, experiment or ethnomethodology? Psychology, Crime & Law, 6(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pontell, H. (1978). Deterrence: Theory versus practice. Criminology, 16(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rengert, G., Piquero, A., & Jones, P. (1999). Distance decay re-examined. Criminology, 37(2), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robb, P., Coupe, T., & Ariel, B. (2015). ‘Solvability’ and detection of metal theft on railway property. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(4), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, A., & Tilley, N. (2009). Factors influencing police performance in the investigation of volume crimes in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 10(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hotspots’: A randomised, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, D. J. (2007). Crime and the life course. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Spelman, W. (2006). The limited importance of prison expansion. In A. Blumstein & J. Wallman (Eds.), The crime drop in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, P., & Bond, S. (2012). Crimes detected in England and Wales 2011/12 (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 08/12). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  33. Tilley, N., Robinson, A., & Burrows, J. (2007). The investigation of high volume crime. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 226–254). London: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Tompson, L., & Coupe, R. T. (2017). Time and criminal opportunity. In G. J. N. Bruinsma & S. D. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tseloni, A. (2000). Personal criminal victimisation in the United States: Fixed and random effects of individual and household characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(4), 415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Koppen, P. J., & Jansen, R. W. J. (1998). The road to the robbery: Travel patterns in commercial robberies. The British Journal of Criminology, 38(2), 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can the police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright, R., & Logie, R. H. (1988). How young house burglars choose targets. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(2), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Criminology, University of CambridgeCambridgeEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations