Actual Problems of
Economics and Law




DOI: 10.21202/1993-047X.15.2021.2.360-378

скачать PDF

Authors :
1. Andrew M. Fox, Ph.D. and M.S., Senior Researcher
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families

2. Mutsumi Ogaki, B.S. in Criminology with an emphasis on Forensic Behavioral Science from, doctoral student in the Social Ecology Core program
University of California, Irvine

3. Jordan C. Pickering, Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice, is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology
California State University, Fresno

Beyond police boundaries: network analysis of multi-jurisdictional crime

Objective: network analysis of multi-jurisdictional crime in the United States of America.
Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods: formal-logical, comparative-legal, and sociological.
Results: in spite of the long-standing belief that crime is not restricted by arbitrary city or law enforcement jurisdictional boundaries, with a few exceptions, previous network studies relying on law enforcement data have been limited to criminal networks in one jurisdiction. Using incident and arrest data from seven law enforcement agencies in King County, Washington, the current study constructed crime specific multi-jurisdictional co-offending networks for four categories of crime: 1) violent, 2) property, 3) sex,
and 4) domestic violence. Results indicate the existence of highly socially connected criminal networks in the county, with a higher percentage of offenders committing violent and property crime in two or more jurisdictions (16.8 and 29% respectively). Moreover, logistic regression models indicate that network position of an individual is a significant predictor of engaging in multijurisdictional offending. For violent crime, offenders with high betweenness centrality are likely to operate multi-jurisdictionally.
Scientific novelty: the findings support the existence of a sizeable portion of offenders that cross jurisdictional boundaries to commit crime, implying the importance of sharing data among law enforcement jurisdictions.
Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering issues related to the crime prevention and suppression.

Keywords :

Multi-jurisdictional crime; Network analysis; Co-offending; Criminal mobility; Public order enforcement

Bibliography :
1. Warr M. Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
2. Green B., Horel T., Papachristos A. V. Modeling contagion through social networks to explain and predict gunshot violence in Chicago, 2006 to 2014, JAMA Internal Medicine, 2017, No. 177 (3), pp. 326–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/iamainternmed.2016.8245
3. Papachristos A. V., Wildeman C., Roberto E. Tragic, but not random: The social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries, Social Science & Medicine, 2015, No. 125, pp. 139–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.056
4. Berlusconi G. Do all the pieces matter? Assessing the reliability of law enforcement data sources for the network analysis of wire taps, Global Crime, 2013, No. 14 (1), pp. 61–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2012.746940
5. Rostami A., Mondani H. The complexity of crime network data: A case study of its consequences for crime control and the study of networks, PLoS One, 2015, No. 10 (3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119309
6. Marshall B., Kaza S., Xu J., Atabakhsh H., Peterson T., Violette C., Chen H. Cross-jurisdictional criminal activity networks to support boarder and transportation security, In Proceeding, The 7th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (IEEE Cat. No. 048749, pp. 100–105). IEEE, 2004.
7. Hipp J. R., Williams S. A. Advances in spatial criminology: The spatial scale of crime, Annual Review of Criminology, 2020, No. 3, pp. 75–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol- 011419-041423
8. Wiles P., Costello A. The ‘road to nowhere’: The evidence for traveling criminals, Great Britain Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2000, available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ca05/3ad43b15be383cc157cfc642166de652b920.pdf
9. Ackerman J. M., Rossmo D. K. How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2015, No. 31 (2), pp. 237–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9232-7
10. Groff E. R., McEwen J. T. Exploring the spatial configuration of places related to homicide events, Institute for Law and Justice, 2006, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth_Groff/publication/277285481_Exploring_the_Spatial_Configuration_of_Places_Related_to_Homicide_Events/links/556c329308aeccd7773a2e0c.pdf
11. Nichols W. Mental maps, social characteristics and criminal mobility. In D. Georges Abeyie and K. Harries (Eds.), Crime, a spatial perspective, Columbia University Press, 1980, pp. 156–166.
12. Hayslett-McCall K. L., Qiu F., Curtin K. M., Chastain B., Schubert J., Carver V. The simulation of the journey to residential burglary. In L. Lui and J. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems: Using computer simulations and geographic information systems. Information Science Reference, 2008, pp. 281–299. DOI: http://doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-591-7.ch014
13. Bichler G., Malm A., Enriquez J. Magnetic facilities: Identifying the convergence settings of juvenile delinquents, Crime & Delinquency, 2014, No. 60 (7), pp. 971–998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710382349
14. Eck J. E., Clarke R. V., Guerette R. T. Risky facilities: Crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities, Crime Prevention Studies, 2007, No. 21, pp. 225–264.
15. Weisburd D., Bushway S., Lum C., Yang S. M. Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle, Criminology, 2004, No. 42 (2), pp. 283–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2004.tb00521.x
16. Bastomski S., Brazil N., Papachristos A. V. Neighborhood co-offending networks, structural embeddedness, and violent crime in Chicago, Social Networks, 2017, No. 51, pp. 23–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/i.socnet.2016.12.003
17. Tita G., Greenbaum R. T. Crime, neighborhoods, and units of analysis: Putting space in its place. In D. Weisburd, W. Bernasco, G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place: Units of analysis in spatial crime research, Springer, 2009, pp. 145–170.
18. Tita G., Radil S. M. Spatializing the social networks of gangs to explore patterns of violence, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2011, No. 27 (4), pp. 521–545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9136-8
19. Porter M. Tackling cross border crime (No. 79). Home Office Police Research Group, 1996, available at: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/hopolicers/fcdps79.pdf
20. Egger S. A. A working definition of serial murder and the reduction of linkage blindness, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1984, No. 12 (3), pp. 348–357.
21. Lammers M., Bernasco W. 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, 2013, No. 10 (2), pp. 168–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812464533
22. Kim Y. A., Hipp J. R. Physical boundaries and city boundaries: Consequences for crime patterns on street segments?, Crime & Delinquency, 2018. No. 24 (2), pp. 227–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716687756
23. Malm A., Bichler G. Networks of collaborating criminals: Assessing the structural vulnerability of drug markets, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2011, No. 48 (2), pp. 271–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810391535
24. Papachristos A. V. Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide, American Journal of Sociology, 2009, No. 115 (1), pp. 74–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/597791
25. Papachristos A. V., Hureau D. M., Braga A. A. The corner and the crew: The influence of geography and social networks on gang violence, American Sociological Review, 2013, No. 78 (3), pp. 417–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413486800
26. Tita G., Griffiths E. Traveling to violence: The case for a mobility-based spatial typology of homicide, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2005, No. 42 (3), pp. 275–308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427804270051
27. Conway K. P., McCord J. A longitudinal examination of the relation between co-offending with violent accomplices and violent crime, Aggressive Behavior, 2002, No. 28, pp. 97–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.90011
28. Hindelang M. J. With a little help from their friends: Group participation in reported delinquent behavior, British Journal of Criminology, 1976, No. 16, pp. 109–125.
29. Bichler G., Malm A. E. Disrupting criminal networks: Network analysis in crime prevention, First Forum Press, 2015.
30. Tracy M., Braga A. A., Papachristos A. V. The transmission of gun and other weapon-involved violence within social networks, Epidemiologic Reviews, 2016, No. 38 (1), pp. 70–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv009
31. Bouchard M., Konarski R. Assessing the core membership of a youth gang from its co-offending network. In C. Morselli (Ed.), Crime and networks, Routledge, 2014, pp. 81–93.
32. Gravel J., Tita G. E. With great methods come great responsibilities: Social network analysis in the implementation and evaluation of gang programs, Criminology & Public Policy, 2015, No. 14 (3), pp. 559–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12147
33. Bright D. V. Identifying key actors in drug trafficking networks. In G. Bichler and A. E. Malm (Eds.), Disrupting criminal networks: Network analysis in crime prevention, First Forum Press, 2015. Pp. 67–88.
34. Morselli C. Assessing vulnerable and strategic positions in a criminal network, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2010, No. 26 (4), pp. 382–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986210377105
35. La Vigne N. G., Paddock, E., Irvin-Erickson, Kim K., Y., Pererson B. E., Bieler S. A blueprint for interagency and crossjurisdictional data sharing, Urban Institute, 2017.
36. Malm A., Bichler G., Nash R. Cooffending between criminal enterprise groups. Global Crime, 2011, No. 12 (2), pp. 112–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2011.567832
37. Wasserman W., Faust C. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
38. Pampel F. C. Logistic regression: A primer, Sage, 2000.
39. Klofas J. M., Hipple N. K., McGarrell E. F. The new criminal justice: American communities and the changing world of crime control, Routledge Press, 2010.
40. Braga A. A., Kennedy D. M., Waring E. J., Piehl A. M. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2001, No. 38 (3), pp. 195–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427801038003001
41. McGloin J. M., Rowan Z. Street gangs and co-offending networks. In G. Bichler and A. E. Malm (Eds.), Disrupting criminal networks: Network analysis in crime prevention, First Forum Press, 2015, рp. 9–25.
42. Fox A. M., Ogaki M., Pickering J. C. Beyond Police Boundaries: Network Analysis of Multi-Jurisdictional Crime, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 2020, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 21–35.

Citation :
Fox A. M., Ogaki M., Pickering J. C. Beyond police boundaries: network analysis of multi-jurisdictional crime, Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 2021, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 360–378. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.15.2021.2.360-378

Type of article : The scientific article

Date of receipt of the article :

Date of adoption of the print :

Date of online accommodation :