Louise E. Grove

Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime

Abstract The term ‘heritage crime’ has been recently brought into the spotlight by English Heritage — the organization tasked with protecting England’s heritage assets — and is attracting an increasing amount of attention from individuals and organizations from a range of disciplines. Heritage crime includes recognized crime types (such as arson, criminal damage, theft, and graffiti) but arguably has a greater impact on the country’s legacy for future generations because of the types of sites affected. This paper presents an initial examination of our understanding of heritage crime, and limitations to that knowledge. The paper contributes an initial typology to facilitate future interdisciplinary discussions of the problems facing heritage assets, and presents a possible route for expanding our ability to tackle this problem. Whilst this is an initial foray into the world of heritage crime, it is hoped that this paper will act as a stimulus for further discussion and action.

Towards a Comprehensive Research Plan on Opportunity Theory and the Crime Falls

Over the past 20 years, dramatic, unexpected and unprecedented falls in crime occurred in many countries. In the UK, for instance, crimes measured by the British Crime Survey fell 50 percent between 1995 and 2010 (Flatley et al., 2010). Yet, as mentioned in earlier chapters and discussed in the next and final chapter to this book, there is little agreement amongst criminologists about either their explanation or their policy implications. Key previous hypotheses drawn from United States’ (US) data are inapplicable elsewhere and cannot offer any explanation for why some crimes, particularly mobile phone theft and Internet-related crimes, had increased concurrently with drops in other crime types (Flatley et al., 2009; Farrell, Tilley, Tseloni and Mailley, 2010).

Crime, Inequality, and Change in England and Wales

Since the 1970s, criminological research has turned its attention increasingly to the plight of victims, to victim typologies and to patterns of victimization. This is in contrast to offender typologies and explanations of crime patterns by reference to criminal propensities, which previously comprised criminology’s almost exclusive focus (see, for instance, Karmen 2001). In their seminal study, using bivariate analyses to compare specific socio-demographic groups to the rest for individual crime types, Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978) identified subgroups at high risk of victimization. They drew on US data from the forerunner to the National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS). Their lifestyle theory, according to which crime levels are a function of exposure to risk that in turn is a function of styles of life, developed from these empirical results and is still relevant today albeit with some notable improvements (Lauritsen, 2001; Tseloni, 2006).

Preventing Repeat Domestic Burglary: A Meta-Evaluation of Studies from Australia, the UK, and the United States

Abstract Domestic burglary repeat victimization prevention programs are examined across three countries: the UK, Australia, and the United States. The success of these programs is reviewed using a combination of systematic review and scientific realism techniques. Repeat burglary prevention programs in the UK had demonstrable success, while those in Australia and the United States did not. Programs need to be tailored to the specific context of the crime problem and designed to avoid common implementation problems.

What’s the Future for Heritage Crime Research?

This volume has drawn together contributions on heritage crime from around the globe. Authors have drawn attention to the plight of heritage in their respective countries and shone a light both on laudable practice and areas that need further attention. Time and again authors have called for more understanding of the issues at both micro and macro levels. Cooperation and collaboration are seen as key to the success of future endeavours to protect the world’s heritage.

Non-invasive detection and chemical mapping of trace metal residues on the skin

Residual traces of the metals copper and lead on an individuals skin may be elucidated by reaction of rubeanic acid with a gelatine lift taken from the target area in question, yielding intensely coloured reaction products. This non-invasive technique has been shown to offer promise in chemically mapping the distribution of the minute metal residues across an individuals hand deposited through touching metal items, a technique with potential forensic significance.

Identifying sites at risk from illicit metal detecting: from CRAVED to HOPPER

ABSTRACT Archaeological sites are at risk from acquisitive crime: this paper focuses in particular on illicit metal detecting. The effects of theft in this context are not merely financial, but have devastating impact on our knowledge and understanding of the site. Even where items are later recovered, we lose the vital clues about the precise context of an object. We therefore need to reduce the risk of theft occurring in the first place. This paper draws on case studies from England and presents a new methodology to assess which archaeological sites may be at risk from illicit metal detecting: ‘HOPPER’ identifies the characteristics of sites likely to be targeted by offenders looking for antiquities. In brief: History (a history of finds at the site); Open (the site has physical public access, and/or is documented in the public domain); Protection (protected status can act as a beacon for offenders); Publicity (site is known about or receiving new attention); Evasion (there are known ways to escape apprehension); and Repeat victimisation (The site has been a target before). The impact of HOPPER will be its use in the field to develop a pragmatic risk assessment applicable both in a local and international context.

Enriching the university experience through volunteering A pilot project

This article details the first year of a collaborative effort between a campus-based university and its local Victim Support scheme. The key innovative component was that student volunteers were trained to provide support to peers who experienced crime. Not a formal evaluation, this article outlines how the work appeared beneficial to the university, its students and Victim Support. The first two benefited through improved on-campus service to victimized students and to those who were trained and worked as volunteers. Victim Support benefited from increased numbers of volunteers and consequently improved services. Some implementation difficulties are also described. This study provides a platform for further efforts and their more formal evaluation.

Thirty Years of Police Stops: Findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales

Trends in police stop and search of pedestrians and motor vehicles are examined using data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) from 1982 to 2010. The average number of stops per survey year stood at 215.7 (SD = 62.3) compared with 26.7 (SD = 8.5) for searches per 1,000 of the population. From the late 1980s onwards, the distribution of police stops and searches decreased. There were steep declines in the number of stops after 1997 (following the Stephen Lawrence enquiry), but some increases in pedestrian stops have been evident since 2001 (possibly owing to new terrorist concerns). The likelihood of a search resulting from a stop decreased from 28 to 23 per cent from the 1990s to the 2000s for pedestrians, but remained stable at around 10 per cent for motor vehicles. The arrest yield of police stops and searches was low, but it was evident that pedestrian encounters were more investigative in nature than motor vehicle encounters, as it appeared that police officers were more inclined to ask those stopped on foot further questions. By contrast, the police tactic was targeted towards motorists who had committed some form of motoring offence. However, it is apparent that police stops are very unevenly distributed. Each year, the majority of all stops are repeats of the same pedestrians or vehicles, and a small proportion are stopped frequently. Findings from the 2010/11 CSEW showed that around 9.8 per cent of persons stopped on foot accounted for 81.7 per cent of stops, and around 4.8 per cent of stopped vehicles for 62.0 per cent of stops (two or more stops). Further research and policy attention to the repetitive nature of stops and searches is warranted.