Advertisement

Pickpocketing on Railways

  • Stephanie SharpEmail author
  • Richard Timothy Coupe
Chapter
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this study is to help investigators identify the characteristics of pickpocketing cases that are related to their solvability and detection and to use them to develop a predictive model for guiding case-screening decisions. It is based on a population of 36,260 pickpocketing incidents that took place on railway property policed by the British Transport Police between 2010 and 2015. Ten solvability factors were identified that explained 44% of the variation in detection outcomes and were used to calculate a solvability score for each incident, which indicates whether or not cases should be screened in for further investigation. The predictive model is five times as accurate as existing screening practices and can be used to discriminate between highly solvable cases likely to be detected and low-solvability cases with poor prospects of being solved. The use of a case-screening tool based on this predictive model could, depending on the solvability threshold selected, result in 30% rather than 90% of unsolved cases being investigated, saving over 20,000 h of investigation time a year wasted investigating difficult, if not impossible, to solve cases. A small number of cases that are currently solved would, with statistical case screening, remain undetected.

Keywords

Solvability factors Pickpocketing Crime screening Investigation 

References

  1. Andersson, P. K. (2014). ‘Bustling, crowding, and pushing’: Pickpockets and the nineteenth-century street crowd. Urban History, 41(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandl, S. G., & Frank, J. (1994). The relationship between evidence, detective effort, and the disposition of burglary and robbery investigations. American Journal of Police, 13(3), 149–168.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Chaiken, J. M., Greenwood, P. W., & Petersilia, J. (1976). The criminal investigation process: A summary report. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Coupe, R. T., & Kaur, S. (2005). The role of alarms and CCTV in detecting non-residential burglary. Security Journal, 18(2), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eck, J. E. (1979). Managing case assignments: The burglary investigation decision model replication. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  8. Eck, J. E. (1983). Solving crimes: The investigation of burglary and robbery. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  9. Eitle, D., Stolzenberg, I., & D’Alessio, S. J. (2005). Police organizational factors, the racial composition of the police, and the probability of arrest. Justice Quarterly, 22(1), 30–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill, M., Hart, J., Livingstone, K., & Stevens, J. (1996). The crime allocation system: Police investigations into burglary and auto crime (Police Research Series, Paper 16). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  11. Greenwood, P. W. (1970). An analysis of the apprehension activities of the New York City Police Department. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood, P. W., Chaiken, J. M., Petersilia, J., & Prusoff, L. (1975). The criminal investigation process: Volume III: Observations and analysis. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. Isaacs, H. (1967). A study of communications, crimes and arrests in a metropolitan police department. Task force report: Science and technology. Washington, DC: UN Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Jansson, K. (2005). Volume crime investigations—A review of the research literature (Home Office Online Report OLR 44/05). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  15. Newton, A., Partridge, H., & Gill, A. (2014). Above and below: Measuring crime risk in and around underground mass transit systems. Crime Science, 3(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Olphin, T. W. L. (2015). Solving violent crime: Targeting factors that predict clearance of non-domestic violent offences (unpublished MSt thesis). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Paine, C. (2012). Solvability factors in dwelling burglaries in Thames Valley (Unpublished MSt thesis). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Peterson, J., Sommers, I., Baskin, D., & Johnson, D. (2010). The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  19. Pickpocketing: A survey of the crime and its control (1995). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 104(3), 408–420.Google Scholar
  20. Reiss, A., & Bordua, D. J. (1967). Environment and organisation: A perspective on the police. In D. J. Bordua (Ed.), The police: Six sociological essays. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, M. J. (2008). Addressing the security needs of women passengers on public transport. Security Journal, 21(1–2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waegel, W. B. (1982). Patterns of police investigation of urban crimes. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10(4), 452–465.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British Transport PoliceLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of Criminology, University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations