Motor Vehicle Theft Research Paper

This sample Motor Vehicle Theft Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), motor vehicle theft has been on a decline in the United States during the last decade. Since 2001, the number of motor vehicle theft victimizations has decreased from just over one million to 606,990 per year. This is nearly a 40 % change in the last 10 years, with an average annual decrease of about 3.5 % (Truman 2011). The Uniform Crime Report (US Department of Justice 2011a) indicates a similar decline, with the motor vehicle theft rate decreasing from 430.5 per 100,000 people in 2001 to 258.8 per 100,000 people in 2009. Europe joins the United States in a reprieve from the inconvenience associated with higher rates of motor vehicle theft. Europe has also seen a 5.7 % decrease in motor vehicle theft between 2000 and 2007 (European Commission 2010).

Although these rates are representative of both regions as a whole, certain areas of the United States are still experiencing a disproportionate amount of stolen vehicles. In the United States, large cities are experiencing higher rates of motor vehicle theft (286 per 100,000 people), while smaller cities and rural areas experience much lower rates (142.5 and 105.3 per 100,000 people, respectively). The western and southern coasts of the United States experience disproportionately higher rates of motor vehicle theft. Cities in California close to the United States-Mexican border report that motor vehicle thefts account for 44 % of the total crime index. Cities experiencing such a high level of motor vehicle theft victimization are certainly inconvenienced by this type of crime.

Fundamentals Of Motor Vehicle Theft

Definition Of Motor Vehicle Theft

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (US Department of Justice 2011b) defines motor vehicle theft as the stealing or unauthorized taking of a motor vehicle. Completed thefts are those in which the vehicle is successfully taken by an unauthorized person. Attempted thefts are those in which the vehicle is unsuccessfully taken by an unauthorized person.

Sometimes motor vehicle theft and theft from motor vehicles are misunderstood. Motor vehicle thefts take place when a motor vehicle is removed from the location where it was left by the owner or a person who was authorized by the owner to drive the vehicle. Motor vehicle thefts are sometimes reported by the owner of the motor vehicle or a representative of the owner. Sometimes the reports are truly accurate in that the vehicle has been stolen by a person both unauthorized and unknown to the owner. Other times vehicles are reported stolen, but it is later determined that the owner’s child or relative was the thief. In this case, the thief was unauthorized but not unknown.

Thefts from motor vehicles are those thefts which occur when items are taken from on or within the vehicle. Items stolen from within the vehicle can include items that are stolen from inside a locked or unlocked vehicle. These items can have monetary value, personal value, or no value at all. Items that may be stolen off of the vehicle include things such as hubcaps, pendants, magnetic signs, or other memorabilia on the vehicle for either functional or decorative purposes.

The number of both motor vehicle thefts and thefts from motor vehicles varies greatly dependent upon the type of vehicle and the location of the vehicle when it is parked. In the United States, foreign motor vehicles suffer more thefts than those made domestically. Location of the vehicle is also an important consideration. Location variables include aspects of physical space (garage, lot, driveway, curb) and city structure (urban, suburban, rural) to become part of the risk calculation.

Thefts of and from motor vehicles typically occur as a result of two types of thieves: opportunistic or purposive. Opportunistic thieves are more likely to strike when the vehicle is unlocked or able to be unlocked easily (e.g., through an open window or sunroof). Purposive thieves are more likely to steal from a vehicle or the vehicle itself, whether locked or unlocked, if they want a specific vehicle or something specific from the vehicle. These thieves are not deterred by locked windows or doors.

History Of Motor Vehicle Theft

In 1919, the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, or Dyer Act (18 USCS } 2311 et seq.), became federal law. The purpose of the Dyer Act was to obstruct and control vehicles stolen by organized thieves. According to the Dyer Act, the following must be established beyond a reasonable doubt: the vehicle must have been stolen, the stolen vehicle operator must be a person who knows the vehicle was stolen, and the stolen vehicle must have been transported interstate. The punishment for committing these acts is a fine, up to 10 years imprisonment, or both. According to the Dyer Act, a motor vehicle is defined as including “an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motor cycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle not designated for running on rails.”

In 1931 the US Supreme Court debated the definition of a motor vehicle as described by the Dyer Act. The question before the court was whether or not the definition outlined above applies to aircraft. In McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, the Court found that the language should be more specific if it wanted to include aircraft. Since the word “aircraft” was not mentioned in the language of the law, aircrafts were not to be considered motor vehicles. More recently the term motor vehicle is thought to include automobiles (vans, cars, trucks) as well motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds.

In 1984 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act in response to the growing problem of motor vehicle theft in the 1980s. This Act led to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, which mandated manufacturers to etch Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) into various parts of the motor vehicle. Despite the recommendations in 1984, motor vehicle theft was still on the rise in the 1990s. In response, Congress enacted the AntiCar Theft Act of 1992. The 1992 Act added federal penalties to motor vehicle theft, provided grant money to law enforcement to combat motor vehicle theft, and improved vehicle titles, registration, and salvage requirements.

Since the mid-1990s, motor vehicle theft has been decreasing nationwide. This translated into a significant shift of the top 10 cities for motor vehicle theft in the last decade. In 2000, the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) indicated that cities with major port facilities or those near international borders recorded the greatest number of thefts: Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia occupied the top three slots (National Insurance Crime Bureau 2000). In 2007, Las Vegas was ranked #1 (NICB 2008). In 2010, however, eight of the worst 10 cities for motor vehicle theft were in California with Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield in the top three (NICB 2011). This indicates a recent shift in motor vehicle thefts from coastal regions to inland areas and also demonstrates that California has been hit hardest by motor vehicle thieves.

Clearance Rates And The Impact Of Technology

Historically, clearance rates have shown that it is difficult for police to track and arrest offenders. Modern cities provide outsiders with easier access to target vehicles via better road networks, more anonymity, and increased awareness of city routes and pathways during every-day travel. Until about 10 years ago, the battle between the owner and thief was that of one-upmanship. An advance in technology would provide the owner with the option of buying anti-theft devices, and the thief would find a way around such technology. One example of such a product is the steering wheel lock. The vehicle owner could purchase a steering wheel lock that would prevent the steering wheel from being turned until the lock was removed. Since the steering wheel locks were made of durable metal, they were difficult to cut. The thief could, however, cut the steering wheel so that the device would slide off. Once cut, the steering wheel still functions, at least well enough to drive the vehicle.

In the past 10 years, we have seen an increase in technology that has been more difficult for offenders to circumvent. Recent advances in technology, including ignition kill devices, smart keys, and GPS, make vehicles more difficult to steal. Ignition kill devices work to prevent motor vehicle theft because a switch is inserted into the ignition circuit. The offender would need to know where the switch is located in order to flip it and steal the vehicle. Smart keys contain a coded computer chip or radio frequency. If the smart key is not located inside the vehicle, the vehicle will not start. Both ignition kill devices and smart keys make the vehicle hard to steal because it is difficult or impossible to start the vehicle without them working properly.

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) locator devices make the vehicle easier to find once it has been stolen. The deterrent effect with GPS is that once the police or GPS service providers are notified that the vehicle was stolen, the vehicle can be easily tracked and recovered. This may be one reason why, overall, the number of motor vehicle thefts is on the decline.

Research On Motor Vehicle Thefts

Current research suggests that motor vehicle thieves find certain types of locations more suitable than others. In general thieves are concerned with not getting caught, so all things being equal, they will target areas that provide adequate cover (including poor lighting, low visibility, and obstructed view), a selection of targets, and adequate time needed for the theft to take place. Parking facilities, transportation hubs, hotel and motel parking lots, shopping centers, and motor vehicle repair and parking lots provide unique opportunities for motor vehicle thieves.

Parking Facilities

The physical structure of a parking facility can greatly impact the ability of residents and store owners to provide guardianship and informal surveillance over the vehicles. Several criminologists (Jacobs 1961; Newman 1972; Clarke and Harris 1992; Tilley 1993; Poyner 1997) acknowledge that the way the environment is built impacts perceptions of safety and can send cues to the criminal that one area is more suitable for the commission of a crime than another. Parking lots that are properly built can maintain the positive aspects of natural surveillance and encourage thieves to look elsewhere. Parking lots that are enclosed or located too far from residences or businesses reduce levels of natural surveillance and provide thieves with targets that are ripe for theft. Poor surveillance combined with a condensed number of vehicles in close proximity greatly increases the chance of motor vehicle theft. Research findings support the idea that parking lots should be created with increased surveillance both inside and outside the lots.

Current research has found that the layout of parking lots, level of lighting, presence of closed-circuit television (CCTV), and controlled vehicular access are also important factors utilized to enhance surveillance and on-site security. Lots with on-site security and personnel to monitor exits have better surveillance and report fewer thefts. Webb et al. (1992) found that parking lots, referred to as “surface car parks” (p. 15), have better attendant visibility; attendants can be seen from the entire lot and, also, can see all of the vehicles in the lot. Lots open in the evening and those with “pay and display” methods of payment are more likely to be victimized. Facilities that park the vehicles in the block method and keep the keys for owners tended to have fewer motor vehicle thefts. The block method prevents any vehicle from being stolen without moving at least one other vehicle. Parking in such a manner is one technique used to reduce motor vehicle theft in parking lots, decks, and garages.

Transportation Hubs

Transportation hubs provide a suitable environment for motor vehicle theft. This is related to both the concentration of people and the criminal’s expectation that the owner will be away from the vehicle for a long period of time while watching a movie, shopping, working, or taking public transportation to another destination.

Transportation hubs impact the risk for motor vehicle theft in three ways: by increasing the number of offenders who can easily access an area, by decreasing the number of capable guardians who can provide surveillance over these areas, and by increasing the number of suitable targets. The transportation hubs, themselves, provide easy access for offenders to travel to the location from which the motor vehicle will be stolen. For an offender to steal a motor vehicle, he first needs to arrive on the scene. If he takes his own vehicle, it will be left at the scene while he is committing the crime. Therefore, parking facilities that are within walking distance from transportation hubs are attractive to motor vehicle thieves. They provide transportation to the crime scene.

Parking facilities near transportation hubs such as airports, train stations, and bus terminals may have fewer opportunities for guardians to provide informal surveillance since these large parking areas are not usually in city centers or residential areas where citizens would recognize the vehicles and their owners. Those who may be traveling through the parking facilities do not know the vehicle owner and could mistake a thief for the owner. Pedestrians in these areas may not observe with the same critical eye as they would if the vehicle were parked on a street in their own neighborhoods.

The number of targets in large parking facilities provides increased opportunities for motor vehicle thieves. A large quantity of vehicles provides greater selection and an increased chance that some vehicles will be unlocked or easy to access. The close proximity of vehicles in the parking facility, such as a deck or garage, makes seeing between vehicles more difficult. This obstructed view provides increased cover for offenders and provides thieves with more time to open the door and access the vehicle without suspicion. Therefore, more vehicles provide more opportunities, and these opportunities provide a greater chance of success.

Overall, residential and commercial locations near transit stops and hubs experience an increased amount of crime as compared to similar establishments not located near transportation stops. Huang et al. (1998) found that hotels with easy access to public transportation tend to have a greater amount of motor vehicle thefts than hotels without transportation stops. Brantingham and Brantingham (1999) and Levine and Wachs (1986) identified transportation hubs as types of environmental gatherings that present a greater risk for victimization. In addition to crime within the transportation hub, the vehicle parked in a lot, without residents or interested consumers to play the role of capable guardian, is at great risk.

Accommodations

Motor vehicles create an increasing amount of opportunity. Most people who travel long distances in the United States travel by vehicle. Travelers going long distances stop at hotels or motels for evening accommodations. Offenders anticipate that vehicle owners will not return to their vehicles until at least the early morning hours, providing offenders with hours of uninterrupted time to steal vehicles or items from them.

Hotels and motels create an increased risk for all types of crime, especially motor vehicle theft, since they provide a great number of opportunities for motor vehicle thieves. Guests who are staying at hotels or motels are often transient individuals, if not all of the time, certainly at the time in which they are staying at the hotel or motel. Often these individuals drive out of state vehicles. When out of state vehicles are stolen, local police have a more difficult time tracking down the owners and maintaining contact. Hotel guests and other travelers also tend to have more items in their possession since they are going to be away from home for longer periods (Huang et al. 1998). Travelers do not see the harm in leaving items in the vehicle instead of carrying them in and out of the hotel room. When high-priced items such as cameras, video equipment, computers, tablets, or other portable devices are visible, they increase the chance that the vehicle will be targeted for both motor vehicle theft and theft from the motor vehicle.

Shopping Centers

Similar to transportation hubs, shopping centers provide thieves with a large number of targets in a condensed area. Thieves also have easy access to the vehicles and are fairly certain that individuals will be away from their vehicles for a significant amount of time once they park and enter the shopping center. Engstad (1975) believed that parking lots provide opportunities for theft from vehicles and vehicle theft because massive parking lots with thousands of spots present increased opportunities for motor vehicle victimization. Like transportation hub parking facilities, the legitimate users do not know each other and are unable to spot thieves approaching a vehicle.

Supermarket parking lots also provide additional incentives for motor vehicle thieves. Supermarkets are often located off major roadways or adjacent to highways. They can be considered ideal targets since they are open late hours and have access to roadways which can make escape fast and detection impossible. By the time the motor vehicle is reported stolen, the thief can be in another county or state.

Motor Vehicle Repair Shops And Auto Parts

Year after year, vehicles that are reported stolen most often are older and foreign. In 2010, according to the National Crime Insurance Bureau, the top five stolen vehicles were the 1994 Honda Accord, 1995 Honda Civic, 1991 Toyota Camry, 1999 Chevrolet Pickup (full size), and the 1997 Ford F150 Series/Pickup. The top three stolen vehicles are older Hondas and Toyotas, which have made the top of the list for a decade. These motor vehicles are stolen for their parts; vehicle parts for many models are worth much more than the vehicle’s street value.

Research in this area has supported these popular beliefs. Gant and Grabosky (2002) interviewed a snowball sample of motor vehicle thieves. Thieves in this sample indicated that professionals in search of parts to repair vehicles actually steal vehicles (especially older vehicles) and dismantle the vehicle for parts to sell them to motor vehicle repair businesses. Thieves steal for a number of reasons such as profit, transportation, or recreation. Those who steal vehicles to profit are thought to be more “professional offenders” and do not steal for reasons such as quick transportation and/or recreation. These professional offenders are often driven by the demand for certain makes and models of motor vehicles and their parts. Professional offenders may spend more time searching than offenders who are simply looking to joyride or find transportation home. La Vigne, Fleury and Szakas (2000) studied motor vehicle thieves and their travel patterns to chop shop locations. According to research by La Vigne et al., police or researchers can estimate the offender’s journey to crime by considering the average distance from the location of the theft to the location of the chop shop. Lu (2003) also found that travel distances between the location of the stolen vehicle and vehicle dump sites were short. Research by both La Vigne et al. (2000) and Lu (2003) indicate that the search for thieves can be narrowed if the locations of the theft and dump site are known.

Current Issues And Controversies

The current debate over motor vehicle theft presents three key environmental factors that influence the likelihood of a motor vehicle to be stolen: location, lighting, and security. Surely motor vehicles that are parked in locations that have poor environmental characteristics, poor lighting, and poor security are more likely to be victimized, but current research has found that each characteristic varies in its level of contribution to victimization.

Locations

The location of the potential motor vehicle target is an important factor that offenders consider before they offend. The characteristics of the motor vehicle theft location help the offenders determine if it is a “good” target to select. Offenders will use landscape and design features to determine if their crime will be concealed and if the layout of the area will impede their escape after the vehicle is stolen (Keister 2007). Jeffery (1971) noted that there is a decision model that offenders use during the actual commission of a criminal act. “The decision to commit a crime involves the past experience of the subject, the immediate opportunity for a crime, plus the chances of apprehension or injury” (Jeffery 1971, p. 251). The last part of the decision, the likelihood of apprehension, is discussed with regard to the layout of the location to be targeted. All other things being equal, offenders will choose locations that provide an easy get away and enhance the chance of escaping apprehension. Nichols (1980) suggests that after offenders decide to commit a crime they engage in a search pattern of potential sites. This is conducted by using a “mental map” (Nichols 1980, p. 156) of known locations to help offenders evaluate their options. Lu (2006) also addressed the importance of escape routes for motor vehicle thieves. Major roads and those connected to major roads had disproportionately more motor vehicle thefts than less traveled roadways.

The safest place to park a vehicle is a residential garage. The best places to park, in order from most safe to least safe, are residential garage, residential driveway, residential street parking, then parking lots/garages/decks. Clarke and Mayhew found that “parking in a domestic garage at night is safer by a factor of 20 than parking in a driveway or other private place, and safer by a factor of 50 than parking in a street near home” (1994, p. 91). This indicates an increased risk for victimization when a person parks in the street instead of in a personal garage located at the residence. Street parking provides reduced surveillance and, in high density locations, a similarly plentiful group of targets as do parking garages.

Many cities prefer garage parking since it takes up less ground space and is more cost-effective for those who own the facilities. However, due to decreased surveillance opportunities, parking garages are less safe than parking lots. Parking garages that are either partially or fully enclosed and elevated above ground offer less natural surveillance than parking lots. This problem is enhanced by sloping ramps and multiple floors which further cut surveillance from other individuals inside the garages.

Lighting

Poor lighting can provide cover for offenders. Just as offenders use hedges and walls to prevent their detection when breaking into a home or business, dark alleys and dimly lit streets hinder residents and other watchers from their important involvement in informal surveillance. It is critical that lighting is both provided in adequate levels and is aimed in the proper direction. Historically, lighting has been a problem with regard to many types of crime and public safety issues. Government organizations (such as police) and private organizations (such as residents’ associations) must work together to increase lighting.

Lighting is most important in parking lots and garages (Smith 1996; Webb et al. 1992) when garages are either partially or fully enclosed, limiting natural light from entering and prohibiting natural surveillance from the street (Tseng et al. 2004; Poyner 1997). Illuminance (the intensity of light) and vertical illuminance are important traits that must be considered when installing lighting. In addition to the intensity of light, placing white stain on the ceiling can reflect light and increase uniformity in the parking garages (La Vigne 1997; Painter 1994). Garages that can minimize ramps and utilize flat surfaces for parking areas will maximize the positive effects of light and reflected light and enhance natural surveillance from outside of the garage.

The presence and quality of lighting is an important site-level factor considered before the commission of a motor vehicle theft (Levy 2009; Levy and Tartaro 2010). Both the amount of lighting that is properly working and the intensity of that lighting are important in the overall lighting of streets at night. Street lighting is just one part of the lighting requirement of specific sites. Most businesses and residential areas obtain evening lighting from the streetlights and lights located on the store or residential property. Both the number of lights on the street and the property and the intensity of the light in these locations, are needed to determine if the lighting is adequate.

Farrington and Welsh (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of studies where street lighting was measured with regard to its impact on crime. Studies eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis had to meet the following criteria: the study utilized improved street lighting as the intervention, the outcome measure was crime, the methodology was sound with both preand postmeasures of lighting in experimental and control groups, and the experimental and control had at least 20 crimes in each group prior to the intervention. Farrington and Welsh (2002, 2004) concluded that improving street lighting decreased crime by roughly 20 %. This and other recent literature indicate that increasing lighting is an economical and effective way to reduce crime.

Security And Technology

Almost every kind of location employs some method of security in order to protect goods. For locations such as parking lots, controlling entrances and exits is an important security feature (Hunter and Jeffery, 1992). Webb et al. (1992) noted that the layout of the parking structure is a factor considered in motor vehicle theft. Parking structures with manned exits have the lowest risk for both motor vehicle theft and theft from motor vehicles. Manned exits not only provide increased surveillance, but bars or mechanical arms on the exits also provide a physical barrier to prevent vehicles from leaving the structures.

Owners of motor vehicles have their own set of precautions and security devices. Alarms are frequently installed by the manufacturer or are installed after market if the vehicle was not sold with an alarm. Research on motor vehicle alarms is mixed. Light et al. (1993) found that 35 % of motor vehicle thieves interviewed indicated that they would be deterred by alarms, 18 % said it would depend on the make of the alarm, while 9 % said it depended on the model of the alarm (p. 50). Conversely, Fleming, Brantingham, and Brantingham (1994) found that nearly 75 % of offenders would be deterred by an alarm. Many thieves also indicated that audio equipment “pull outs,” radio faces that are designed to be detached and taken with the driver, are usually left in the vehicle and therefore are not a major deterrent to thieves. Research on steering column locks is similarly mixed with steering column locks working better on some makes and models of motor vehicles and not as well on others.

More recently, LoJack and OnStar have shown to be very effective tools used to locate vehicles after they are stolen. Arrest rates for vehicles with LoJack and similar GPS locator systems are three times greater than for vehicles without the devices. The LoJack company states that 90 % of vehicles with LoJack are recovered (LoJack 2011). GPS devices have been the most effective tool available to date, but often do not prevent vehicles from being stolen; such devices only aid in motor vehicle recovery.

The presence of security hardware, especially in the case of motor vehicle theft, is only effective if the hardware is installed and maintained properly. Motor vehicle owners who leave doors unlocked or leave the radio face in place are not going to deter a thief from stealing the vehicle or even the radio. Similarly, parking lots with gated access and egress are most effective in preventing motor vehicle theft, but only if these gates are working properly all of the time. Technology can play a major role in decreasing motor vehicle theft, but it can only work if used properly. And, sometimes, despite proper use, crime prevention techniques may not thwart the skilled offender.

Repercussions Of Motor Vehicle Theft On Society

When compared to criminal homicide, forcible rape, and robbery, some of the other Part I offenses recorded in the Uniform Crime Report, motor vehicle theft typically has less of a direct personal impact on the victim. Despite this, victims of motor vehicle theft report crippling effects associated with the loss of a motor vehicle. Some of these effects include problems with insurance coverage or response times, the emotional impact of losing one’s possessions, and the increase in policy premiums for all motorists living in areas that have high motor vehicle theft rates.

When a motor vehicle theft occurs, the owner is left to report the loss to the police department and to file an insurance claim. Many insurance carriers do not provide replacement vehicles while the claim is being settled, so – even if temporary – the owner does not have a motor vehicle. If the vehicle is not recovered, the owner may be compensated for the current value of the motor vehicle. In many cases this does not cover the full amount owed on the vehicle nor allow the owner to purchase a replacement vehicle of similar style or value. If the vehicle is recovered, it may have sustained serious damage during the time that it was missing. What is returned may not be the same as what was stolen. This can create more complicated interactions between the owner and the insurance company, often resulting in little or no compensation for the loss.

In addition to the loss of the vehicle, owners may suffer emotional distress in a variety of ways. The owners may have lost items of personal significance or sentiment which were in the vehicle when it was stolen. These items may have been irreplaceable but not of great financial value. Other items that were in the vehicle may not be replaced unless receipts and proof of purchase are provided. Owners may also suffer a fear of future victimization. They may fear that the replacement vehicle will also be stolen and that they will have suffer greater insurance premiums if future motor vehicles are stolen.

Finally, motorists living in areas with high rates of motor vehicle theft will have similarly high motor vehicle insurance premiums. As thefts continue to increase, so too will the premiums. Motor vehicle thefts impact the entire city because insurance companies base premiums on the location of the policy holder’s home, the distance the policy holder travels, and the locations most frequented by the policy holder (work or school locations), in addition to the rate of motor vehicle theft in those areas. Motor vehicle insurance premiums are calculated based on all of these factors and are higher in areas with higher motor vehicle theft rates.

The Complicated Nature Of Repeat Victimization

Motor vehicle theft presents researchers with a challenge when defining the role of “victim” in the motor vehicle theft event. Technically, there are three ways in which a victim of motor vehicle theft can be defined: address, vehicle, and owner.

An address can be a repeat victim. Motor vehicles parked in the same lot, same driveway, or same street segment can suffer multiple motor vehicle victimizations. In this example the address or location has been victimized. Criminologists can study the characteristics of these addresses or locations to better understand why the area may be suffering repeat victimization. Some potential causes of repeat victimization in these settings are reduced visibility by residents or business owners, little or no lighting in the evening, and poor security devices. Security devices that can be used to protect addresses or locations are gates, fences, security alarms on residential or commercial garages, and surveillance equipment.

A vehicle can also be a repeat victim. The same motor vehicle can be stolen from the same owner, or the same vehicle can be stolen from a different owner or renter. In this situation, the vehicle is likely to have certain features that make it more likely to be stolen. These features can be parts that were installed by the manufacturer such as engines and catalytic converters. Vehicles can also be repeatedly stolen or have parts repeatedly stolen, which were added after market. Items added after market that have high theft rates include portable GPS units, entertainment systems, rims, and tires. Security devices that can be used by vehicles in order to prevent repeat victimization are alarms, ignition devices, smart keys, and vehicle locator devices such as LoJack and OnStar.

Finally, an owner can be a repeat victim. The same owner can have many vehicles stolen at one or many points in time. Owners who find that they have many stolen motor vehicles likely have behaviors which put them at increased risk of victimization. Owners may continually purchase foreign-made vehicles which are more likely to be stolen. They may live in or routinely travel to an area that has a high motor vehicle theft rate. Finally, they may fail to lock vehicle doors, set alarms, or leave valuable items in plain sight. Any of these behaviors may put vehicle owners at an increased risk for repeat motor vehicle victimization.

Looking Forward

It appears that motor vehicle theft victimization is following a downward trend. However, that does not mean that motor vehicle theft is no longer a problem worthy of study. Over 737,000 motor vehicles were stolen in the United States in 2010.

With each motor vehicle that is stolen, the costs to the owner, insurance company, and all motorists increase. With that said, it seems that advances in technology have created a significant obstacle for motor vehicle thieves to overcome. It may be that the risk has now met or exceeded the reward.

Bibliography:

Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1999) A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):7–26
Clarke RV, Harris PM (1992) Auto theft and its prevention. Crime and Justice 16:1–54
Clarke RV, Mayhew P (1994) Parking patterns and car theft risks: policy relevant findings from the British Crime Survey. In: Clarke RV (ed) Crime prevention studies, vol 4. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey
Engstad PA (1975) Environmental opportunities and the ecology of crime. In: Silverman RA, Teevan JJ (eds) Crime in Canadian Society. Butterworths, Toronto
European Commission (2010) Crime statistics. Retrieved from Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statistics
Farrington DP, Welsh BC (2002). Effects of improved street lighting on crime: a systematic review. Home Office Research Study 251: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
Farrington DP, Welsh BC (2004) Measuring the effects of improved street lighting on crime. Br J Criminol 44:448–467
Fleming Z, Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1994) Exploring auto theft in British Columbia. In: Clarke RV (ed) Crime prevention studies, vol 3. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, pp 47–90
Gant F, Grabosky P (2002) The stolen vehicle parks market. In Crime facts info, No. 16. Australian Institute of Criminology
Huang WS, Kwag M, Streib G (1998) Exploring the relationships between hotel characteristics and crime. FIU Hosp Rev 16(1):81–93
Hunter RD, Jeffery CR (1992) Preventing convenience store robbery through environmental design. In: Clarke RV (ed) Situational crime prevention: successful case studies. Harrow and Heston, Albany
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities: the failure of town planning. Peregrine Books, London
Jeffery CR (1971) Crime prevention through environmental design. Sage, Beverly Hills
Keister T (2007) Thefts of and from cars on residential streets and driveways, vol 46, Problem-oriented guides for police, problem-specific guides series. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Washington, DC
LaVigne NG (1997) Visibility and vigilance: Metro’s situational approach to preventing subway crime. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, Washington, DC
LaVigne NG, Fleury JK, Szakas J (2000) Auto theft and detecting chop shop locations. In: Turnbull LS, Hendrix EH, Dent BD (eds) Atlas of crime: mapping the criminal landscape. Oryx Press, Phoenix
Levine N, Wachs M (1986) Bus crime in Los Angeles: I–measuring the incidence. Transp Res A 20(4):273–284
Levy MP (2009) Opportunity, environmental characteristics and crime: an analysis of auto theft patterns. LFB Scholarly, El Paso
Levy M, Tartaro C (2010) Repeat victimization: a study of auto theft in Atlantic City using the WALLS variables to measure environmental indicators. Crim Justice Policy Rev 21:296–318
Light R, Nee C, Ingham H (1993) Car theft: the offender’s perspective. HMSO Books, London
LoJack (2011) Theft facts. Retrieved from http://www.lojack.com/why/pages/theft-facts.aspx
Lu Y (2003) Getting away with the stolen vehicle: an investigation of journey-after-crime. Prof Geogr 55(4):422–433
Lu Y (2006) Spatial choice of auto thefts in an urban environment. Secur J 10:143–166
Maxfield MG, Clarke RV (eds) (2004) Understanding and preventing car theft. Crime prevention studies. Vol. 17. Lynn Rienner, Boulder
National Insurance Crime Bureau (2000) Vehicle theft booming in port and border communities; people should be more vigilant than ever, Warns NICB. Retrieved from http://www.nicb.org/services
National Insurance Crime Bureau (2008) Vehicle theft brochure. Retrieved from https://www.nicb.org
National Insurance Crime Bureau (2011) Hot wheels, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.nicb.org/newsroom/news-releases/hot-wheels-2010
Newman O (1972) Defensible space. Macmillan, New York
Nichols WW (1980) Mental maps, social characteristics, and criminal mobility. In: Georges-Abeyie DE, Harries K (eds) Crime: a spatial perspective. Columbia University Press, New York
Painter KA (1994) The impact of street lighting on crime, fear, and pedestrian street use. Secur J 5:116–124
Poyner B (1997) Situational crime prevention in two parking facilities. In: Clarke RV (ed) Situational crime prevention: successful case studies. Willow Tree Press, Monsey
Smith MS (1996) Crime prevention through environmental design in parking facilities. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, national Institute of Justice. Research in Brief, Washington, DC
Tilley N (1993) The prevention of crime against small businesses: the safer cities experience, vol 45, Police research group: crime prevention unit series. Home Office Police Department, London
Truman JL (2011) National crime victimization survey: criminal victimization, 2010. (Report No. NCJ 235508). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf
Tseng A, Duane J, Hadipriono F (2004) Performance of campus parking garages in preventing crime. J Perform Constr Facil 18(1):21–28
US Department of Justice (2010) Crime in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from the Federal Bureau of Investigation http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/ table_01.html
US Department of Justice (2011a) Crime in the United States, 2010. Retrieved from the Federal Bureau of Investigation http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime
US Department of Justice (2011b) Property crime. Retrieved from the Bureau of Justice Statistics http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty¼tp&tid¼32
Webb B, Brown B, Bennett K (1992) Preventing car crime in car parks, vol 34, Crime prevention unit series. Home Office Police Department, London