International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 37

International Journal on Criminology
note was contained in the main report on the 2000 British Crime Survey. . . , but here more
explicit links are made between BCS results and implications for local crime reduction
practice” (Kinshott 2001, 1).
For vehicle-related theft, the context was the same as for burglaries: “Between 1997
and 1999, the number of thefts of vehicles fell by 11%; thefts from vehicles fell by 16%; and,
attempted thefts by 13%. Between 1995 and 1997 these figures fell, by 25%, 14%, and 27%
respectively” (Kershaw et al. 2000, 25). In parallel, “levels of vehicle security have steadily
increased since the early 1990s” (Kershaw et al. 2000, 27).
The possible relationship of cause and effect is once again presented as a hypothesis
in the chapter “Explaining the Trends” of the Home Office report of 2000: “Security may also
play a part in the fall in vehicle-related thefts” (Kershaw et al. 2000, 56).
The questions of the BCS on the progress of vehicle thefts were also used so that times
and zones “where more vehicle crime occurs” (Kinshott 2001, 6) were taken into account “in
shaping a vehicle crime reduction policy” (Kinshott 2001, 6).
The questions asked of victims of vehicle thefts during the BCS also allow an
estimation of the proportion of crimes where the vehicle was later recovered. These numbers
provide “some indication of [how] many thefts are likely to be at the more professional end
of the scale (see Webb and Laycock 1992; Brown and Sallybanks 1999)” (Kershaw et al. 2000,
30).
In fact, it considered that when “the intention is to use the vehicle temporarily for
casual use—sometimes known as ‘joyriding’ or ‘twocing’ (taking without consent)—the
vehicle is usually recovered after)” (Kershaw et al. 2000, 30).
When the number of vehicle thefts drop, “the declining recovery rate of stolen vehicles
suggests that opportunist thefts are falling most, consistent with security improvements
deterring less determined and accomplished thieves” (Kershaw et al. 2000, 56).
In his acceptance speech for the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, Jan Van Dijk
approached this subject in the same framework, in light of the data collected during ICVS
surveys:
Traditionally a large part of car thefts are committed by juveniles for temporary
transportation, known in Britain as joyriding. A smaller part is committed by
professional thieves for resale or sale of car parts. If the recent falls have indeed
been caused by improved security, this effect is likely to have been stronger on
theft for temporary transportation by opportunistic juveniles than on theft by
experienced professionals. In the ICVS victims of car theft are asked whether the
stolen car was ever recovered. To test the hypothesis that drops in thefts in car have
been most pronounced among the category of theft for temporary transportation,
we have looked at trends over time in recovered and non recovered car thefts in
thirteen Western nations (Van Dijk 2012, 23).
It thus appears that, according to the ICVS survey, “In the thirteen Western countries
together rates of joyriding dropped by 50% (from 1.4% in 1988 to 0.6 in 2005) while rates of
car theft remained stable at a one year victimization rate of 0.4%” (Van Dijk 2012, 23).
36