As described in the previous narrative as well as those to follow, Sam’s career is a series of acts and turning points in response to changing social situations, including: his stepfather’s favoritism toward his own children, the lures of adult life as a young man “on the make,” his mother’s absence at court proceedings when Sam first got into “trouble,” the learning of crime skills and attitudes during incarceration, the expansion of criminal opportunities that came from associating with the “local clique,” the shift to “moonlighting” in crime and a background criminal role as pragmatic response to (1) declining physical skills and enhanced legal risks; and (2) evolving self-pride in the conventional stature and local community’s view of him as a “legitimate” businessman. We define the significant phases and shifts characterizing Sam’s criminal career below.
Juvenile Phase—Midteens. Sam had an uneventful childhood. He was an average student. He was raised mostly by his grandparents, who were strict and financially tight. He had to fend for himself much of the time. As a young teenager, he was involved in some minor thefts and vandalism (“ordinary kid stuff” as he calls it). He typically hung with an “older crowd.” Then, he was an accomplice in gas station burglaries with his girlfriend’s cousin. Eventually he was arrested and incarcerated in a juvenile reformatory.
Occasional Burglar—Late Teens and Early Twenties. Sam worked at a local factory and participated in “after work” burglaries with work colleagues. By his own description, Sam was a “half-assed” thief at this time; however, he also recognizes a growing preference for and an increasing “business” orientation toward burglary. This involvement eventually led to Sam’s arrest and incarceration, subsequent escape from prison, and rearrest and lengthy rein-carceration. In confinement, Sam hung out with the “better thieves” and “good burglars” and acquired a “business” perspective on crime.
Good Burglar, Part-Time Fence—Thirties to About Age Forty. After his release from prison Sam moved to American City, where he initially worked at odd jobs and burgled off-and-on with several local burglars whom he met largely through prison contacts. Within a year or so, Sam opened a small upholstery shop and also hooked up with Jesse, a good burglar from the area. The partnership with Jesse, which lasted about eight years, specialized in safecracking and theft of antiques, and greatly elevated Sam’s stature in the local underworld. Sam eventually expanded his upholstery business to include secondhand goods and antiques, and he also drifted into fencing. Sam and Jesse were arrested for burgling a house full of antiques. Sam served eighteen months of a three-year sentence, after which he returned to American City where, as he put it, “I decided to stop crawling in windows but instead to have someone crawl into windows for me.”
Large-Scale Fence, Part-Time Burglar, Part-Time Racketeer—Midforties to Midfifties. Sam became a large-scale generalist fence but “mixed in” an occasional burglary (e.g., opening a safe or orchestrating an antiques heist). Sam also became a peripheral player in the “local clique “ that dominated the rackets in American City. Meanwhile, the legitimate side of Sam’s business in antiques and secondhand goods also flourished. Sam was arrested, convicted, and served four years for “receiving stolen goods.” (Steffensmeier met Sam at this time.)
Part-Time Fence—Midfifties to Late Sixties. Sam settled in Tylersville (about ninety miles from American City), where he gradually established an upholstery business, which he combined with a small trade in antiques and secondhand furniture. The “shop” eventually employed seven or eight workers and was Sam’s major involvement and source of income. However, he also still dabbled in fencing—mainly in antiques, jewelry, and guns; and he occasionally gave tips to thieves about prospective places “to clip. “ He occasionally opened safes that had been carried from the premises by an acquaintance burglar; and he “doctored” phony or fraudulent antiques for resale. In effect, Sam “moonlighted” at crime, but his major source of income and even identity were more that of a legitimate “businessman.” Sam was arrested twice for fencing stolen property during this final phase of his criminal career, but neither arrest resulted in incarceration.
The most notable starting point in an examination of burglary and criminal entrepreneuers more generally is the influential work of Edwin Sutherland, in particular, The Professional Thief ‘(1937) and White Collar Crime (1949). The former is one of the earliest sociological studies of career thieves, whereas the latter is the first large-scale sociological analysis of upperworld criminality and the variety of business behaviors that Sutherland described as “white-collar” crime. Thieves and white-collar criminals overlap in many ways, according to Sutherland. Both sets of activities require tutelage and specialized skill, and prestige among colleagues was enhanced, not diminished, because of criminal activity. But they also differ, apparently because they identify with different social worlds. As Sutherland saw it, “Professional thieves, when they speak honestly, admit that they are thieves,” while white-collar criminals “think of themselves as honest men,” defining what they have done as nothing more malevolent than “shrewd business practice” (1937:95-96). Both studies, moreover, were instrumental in Sutherland’s efforts to develop differential association as a general theory of criminal behavior. Since criminality is learned, Sutherland and Cressey (1966) observed, it can be and is learned at all social levels.
The research behind Confessions provides an opportunity for an ethnographic revisit (Burawoy 2003) of Sutherland’s The Professional Thief The Professional Thief is a fascinating glimpse into the underworld of professional thieves and con men. The account is based on the recollections of Broadway Jones, alias “Chic Conwell”—thief, ex-drug addict, and ex-con, who worked for twenty years as a pickpocket, shoplifter, and confidence man. Conwell’s recollections include details about the roles of members of the mob (criminal group), their criminal argot (slang), the fix (ways of avoiding conviction and/or doing time in prison), and thieves’ images of the police, the law, and society at large.
Much of the book was actually written by Conwell, but Sutherland edited it for publication and wrote two interpretive chapters. His analysis concluded that professional thievery has five basic features: technical skill, status, consensus, differential association, and organization.1
Technical Skill. Professional thieves (like bricklayers, lawyers, and physicians) possess a set of talents and skills. Some combination of wits, speaking ability, manual dexterity, specialization, and contacts is needed to plan and execute crimes, dispose of stolen goods, and manipulate the criminal justice system in those cases involving arrests.
States« Like other professionals, the professional thief holds a certain status based on ability, character, lifestyle, wealth, and power. Professional thieves often show contempt for amateur, small-time, and “snatch-and-grab” thieves.
Consensus. Professional thieves share similar values and develop a philosophy or rationale regarding their activities and criminal specialty that aids them in their criminal careers.
Differential Association. They tend to associate chiefly with other professional thieves and to maintain barriers between themselves and members of “straight” society.
Organization. Professional theft is organized in the sense that technical skills, status, consensus, and differential association entail both a core of knowledge informally shared by thieves and a network of cooperation.
Sutherland further concludes that the professional thief is a graduate of a developmental process that includes the acquisition of specialized attitudes, knowledge, skills, and experience; makes a regular business of stealing—it is his occupation or a principal means of livelihood; and identifies with the world of crime. Professional thieves tend to specialize on a relatively small number of crimes that are related to one another, although they may transfer for longer or shorter periods of time from one specialty to another (emphasis added in light of our later, more detailed treatment of the specialization-generality issue in the study of criminal careers).
However, some contemporary criminologists have criticized Sutherland’s depiction of professional thieves (ca. 1900-1925). Some consider it somewhat unreal (e.g., Lemert 1958) and antiquated (Inciardi 1975). Still others contend that the typical criminal lacks self-control and cannot plan, organize, acquire skills, or delay gratification (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Organization among criminals, including organized roles and alternative status hierarchies, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) say, is more a fanciful creation of criminologists than a reality.
If Gottfredson and Hirschi are correct in stating that practitioners of crime and vice are inept, incapable of networking and organization, and so forth, then ethnographers are easily duped by their criminal subjects since (despite their intensive interviewing and close-up observations) they almost universally conclude otherwise. Even ethnographers who study street-level offenders, while they may characterize their criminal subjects as hedonistic and spur-of-the-moment, also find them to be fairly skilled or adept in their hustling or theft endeavors (Akerstrom 1985 in particular discusses this issue). Also, drawing from Sam’s narrative, Sam (who hated “dopers”) observes begradg-ingly that he “will give them credit, as far as knowing how to steal or how to hustle, they are pretty decent at that.”
Other critics note that in sociology, the concept of profession refers to occupations that entail esoteric, useful knowledge after lengthy training, a code of ethics, and a claimed service orientation for which they are granted autonomy of operation and various concomitants such as high prestige and remuneration (Hagan 1994:294). In this light the term “professional” may be inappropriately applied to criminal activities and criminals, even very skilled ones.
A final criticism is that Sutherland’s treatment restricts professional crime to thieves or hustlers who rely on wit and nonviolent techniques. It excludes criminals involved in “heavy” theft such as truck hijackers, stickup men, arsonists, and “hit” men. Excluded, too, are those practitioners of crime and vice who are involved in the “rackets” and illicit businesses such as bookmakers, dealers in stolen goods, drug traffickers, sex merchants, mafiosi, and racketeers and background operators more generally. Many of those involved in these activities fit the elements of “professionalism” enumerated by Sutherland as much or more so than did Chic Conwell.
Part of the skepticism associated with Sutherland’s treatment is a failure by some subsequent writers to adequately delineate professionals from other habitual or career criminals, even though Sutherland (1937:4) went to some length to indicate that he was discussing a more savvy or upper-level group of thieves—people little affiliated with the ordinary persistent offender. Prus and Sharper (1991:153), two veteran field observers of the criminal world, point out that very few modern criminologists have intimate familiarity with those likely to be characterized as professional thieves by Sutherland’s standards— or as described by Sam as “decent or good thieves” and as “this or that guy in the local clique.”
We learn the following from Confessions about the nature of professional crime today. First, many aspects of Sutherland’s characterization of the processes involved in becoming a professional thief, the thief’s relationship to the general society, and the larger subculture of theft are largely applicable today. As was true when Sutherland sketched it, Sam describes how one becomes an established thief today through stealing with, and tutelage by, other seasoned thieves. From them, one learns criminal techniques (physical, interpersonal, perceptual, and definitional) and how to manipulate the criminal justice system. “Moreover, in the process of learning all this he will become plugged into a network of criminal and quasi-criminal actors with whom he can establish mutually advantageous working relationships” (Shover 1972:543).
Second, Sutherland used the term to describe a small subset of thieves picked from the very large population of thieves, hustlers, and con men. But as we see from Sam’s narratives, the term applies as well, even better perhaps, to a variety of racketeers and background operators involved in activities such as official corruption, the supply of illegal goods and services, and the running of an illicit or quasi-legitimate business. Viewed this way, from the perspective of Sam’s and his associates’ experiences, even though the category of thief that he described appears even rarer today (e.g., “class cannon” or pickpocket, good burglar, con artist), Sutherland’s professional criminal is hardly a dying species.
Third, many “skilled” criminals are only slightly better than other crooks at lying, cheating, and stealing; labeling them “professionals” should be done carefully. Some criminologists who have studied career criminals suggest terms like able criminal (Mack 1975), high-level thieves (Shover 1996), or seasoned offenders for those who commit more sophisticated crimes and face a lesser chance of arrest or conviction (Steffensmeier 1986). Still others suggest the term semiprofessional (Hagan 1994).
Fourth, the term “professional thief” or “seasoned illicit entrepreneur” recognizes that offenders differ in their criminal capacities: some (perhaps most) are very limited in what they get out of their criminal behavior, whereas others are very experienced, resourceful, and successful, and still others fall somewhere in between. More so than the ordinary thief, professional or good thieves can be characterized as having a lot of criminal capital. To be a successful criminal, different forms of capital are required: physical capital (tools like guns and wire cutters, physical strength), human capital (resourcefulness, criminal insight, physical strength), social capital (reputation, networks of useful people), and cultural capital (knowledge of underworld culture, argot, meanings, etc.). Having a lot of criminal capital both reduces the risks of crime and increases the prospects for safer and more profitable crime opportunities, for example, by increasing the offender’s attractiveness to co-offenders and crime networks (see Weerman 2003; McCarthy, Hagan, and Woodward 1999; Steffensmeier 1983, 1986). In a commentary accompanying Sam’s narratives on fencing stolen goods(and throughout the book), we describe in more detail the nature and importance of criminal social capital in the field of criminal enterprise.
Differences in criminal capital across offenders or criminal entrepreneurs and across types of crime or criminal enterprise are therefore important markers of underworld stratification and career success. Furthermore, it is plausible that criminals pursuing less organized or street-level forms of illegal enterprise will need less social capital (e.g., kinship ties) but more human or personal capital (e.g., conning ability, “larceny sense,” ingenuity, violence), whereas entrepreneurs involved in illegalities that entail greater organization and longevity will have to rely more heavily on cultural and social capital resources. Our point is that the professional versus run-of-the-mill criminal distinction can be recast in terms of having a lot of versus a little criminal capital. This is a point we elucidate in our commentary accompanying Sam’s narrative on the social organization of the underworld and organized crime.
Fifth, though many writers (including Sutherland) use “professional criminal” in their discussions of crime, the term is seldom, if ever, applied by criminals themselves (for further discussion of the use of the term “professional” by criminals themselves, see The Fence:279-80). Even seasoned thieves and hustlers do not use the word professional or nonprofessional. Instead, they refer to themselves (or others) as thieves or hustlers; as good thieves, good hustlers, or good people; as aces-in-the-hole, first-class or decent thieves, wise guys, and so forth. Nevertheless, thieves (like Sam) are aware of the word’s meaning in the larger society, and may use it as a shorthand way of communicating with members of straight society. Rather than struggling to convey to a “joe blow citizen” the difference between a “common thief” and a “good thief,” it may be convenient to say: “He is an old pro,” or “He’s a real professional.” Or, amongst themselves, thieves may say “that was a professional job.”
Nevertheless, because of its widespread usage in the literature, professional criminals or seasoned criminal entrepreneurs will be treated as a separate category in the material in Confessions. But we will use this term somewhat critically. The professional criminal is not truly a professional in the sociological sense, but the term is appropriate in referring informally to those who are skilled, have high status in the underworld, and earn a considerable portion of their livelihood in criminal pursuits. As such, the term applies not only to a small subset of thieves picked from the very large population of thieves, hustlers, and con men, but also includes some dealers in stolen goods as well as many other illicit entrepreneurs, swindlers, racketeers, and mafiosi.
Sam Goodman’s career offers a general picture of the social factors that shape the beginnings and persistence of a criminal career. It also permits us to discern the processes involved in becoming a seasoned burglar, and later a large-scale dealer in stolen goods. This process involves both being willing and being able—it hinges on whether burgling or dealing in stolen goods is subjectively acceptable as well as objectively possible to an individual.
Both are necessary conditions and may complement one another. Having the skills and available opportunities may contribute to a willingness to steal or buy stolen goods, just as the desire to steal or buy may lead to a search for opportunities. Simply put, one is more willing to do what, in fact, one is able to do.
Willingness to burgle or deal in stolen goods depends on individual perception of such activities as immoral, inexpedient, or both. For the average citizen— due to upbringing, ties to conventional society, or risks to a legitimate career or business—the attractions of theft or trading in stolen goods are offset by moral concerns about engaging in illegal behavior, worries about discovery and getting caught by the police, or fears of exploitation and violence associated with an unlawful setting. The importance of and changes in these concerns and fears are key themes in Confessions, and will be examined later (e.g., in sections on “rewards” and “rationale”).
Individual ability depends on one’s wherewithal to meet certain conditions. These conditions overlap and vary across burglary and fencing. We delineate similarities and differences in these conditions below, here for burglary and then in Chapter 7 for fencing.
The term career contingencies has been applied by some criminologists in highlighting key elements of the processes involved in becoming a persistent offender (Shover 1996). These contingencies refer to changes in offenders’ subjective schema or in objective circumstances that maintain their crime path, switch them to other crime paths, or change them to noncrime. Identifying significant contingencies in thieves’ careers helps to explain why some individuals dabble or are not very successful at theft; why involvement in crime is short term for some individuals while others devote decades to it; or why some individuals stay with a main criminal line while others switch to more lucrative, safer criminal endeavors or vacillate back and forth. Describing the contingencies for becoming a persistent offender is key to understanding variation in criminal careers. Sam’s career illustrates these contingencies.
The next narrative chapter describes the escalation of Sam’s burglary career into full bloom. Traditional common law defined burglary as the act of breaking and entering another’s house at night with the intention of committing a theft. Today, burglary is more broadly defined as illegal entry (including breaking and entering) into a building (or analogous structure) to commit a crime therein. The building or structure may be a home, apartment house, business, railroad car, truck trailer, booth, tent, or shop; the crime may occur anytime, day or night. The most common forms of burglary are entry into residences and commercial establishments, and the “hijacking” of delivery trucks. Closely aligned crimes, though they may have different legal classifications, include auto theft, breaking into autos, theft of auto parts, and theft from storage lots or open spaces.2
The criminal careers of seasoned burglars embody solutions to a number of demands and fulfill several interrelated conditions. These conditions are more easily determined and better understood following a description of the stages that typify a successful burglary (or auto theft, truck hijacking, or breaking into a car or van), each with a specific set of tasks oriented toward getting the target’s goods without discovery, selling them, and avoiding subsequent apprehension (Best and Luckenbill 1994).3
Stage 1: Planning the Burglary. This typically involves (1) selecting a target, (2) casing it, and (3) tailoring equipment and contingency plans to it.
In selecting a target the burglar typically seeks a location that (1) contains enough cash or valuable goods to make the theft worthwhile and (2) does not pose unmanageable risks of discovery and apprehension. The importance of these conditions varies by type of burglar and level of risk. Seasoned burglars tend to bypass even lucrative targets if the risks are substantial.
Targets are selected on the basis of personal assessments and tips. An offender may “happen upon” or spot a target that may yield a good take; more likely, he discovers targets by scouting or canvassing an area for places that are both lucrative and vulnerable. Seasoned thieves, at least occasionally, also rely on tipsters for information on targets.
Once the target has been selected, the offender is likely to assess risk or “case” the place. In casing the burglar surveys regular and routine features of the social setting with an eye for those that might hinder or facilitate the bur-glary. These features include the location of the place in relation to other buildings and traffic, the type of alarm system used, and the time when the cash or the goods are both abundant and vulnerable (Best and Luckenbill 1994:175). Casing can range from a few observations made while walking or driving around the place to careful inspections over a period of days or weeks. The offender may watch the place from a distance or enter it (or send in a girlfriend or another accomplice) to observe. Casing skills involve reinterpreting conventional features of social settings in the framework of the problems of burglary, such as observing various aspects of architecture and patterns of social action that either hinder or facilitate the completion of a burglary.
Planning also involves preparing for the burglary by selecting equipment, positioning the dropoff driver, and developing contingency plans such as the best vantage point for a lookout, the alternative routes if discovered, and arranging for the sale of the stolen merchandise to a “fence.” Veteran thieves maintain that planning for “what to do afterwards” is typically more important and difficult than “doing” the actual burglary. The types of tools may include a crowbar or big screwdriver (e.g., to pry open doors or windows), Stillson wrench, pipe cutter, hacksaw, tinsmith shears, chisels, steel punches, small sledgehammer, drill, saw, flashlight, and canvas or cloth gloves to protect hands from injury and avoid leaving fingerprints. Additional tools, especially useful for bypassing alarm systems, may include a voltage meter, wire snips, alligator clips, and a battery-operated soldering iron. Also, a police scanner, walkie-talkie radios, and cell phones may be used for communication within the burglary crew. These and similar tools can be purchased (mostly) in any hardware store.
Stage 2: Entering the Place. There are several techniques for entering a closed place that is secured and possibly equipped with an alarm. Where there is no alarm, the offender may simply kick in the door or pry open a locked window. Places with alarms are more troublesome. In some cases, the offender neutralizes the alarm so it will not go off. In other cases, he might bypass the alarm or enter by an alternative route, such as a hole cut in the roof. Dogs, fences, and security gates may also present additional obstacles
When entering or approaching a closed place, the less suspicion the better. The offender seeks to appear as a person who belongs in the setting at that time. Usually the burglary is carried out during the late night or early morning hours. When the offender works in the daytime or in a busy or heavily populated area, the illegal entry itself also must not arouse suspicion. For example, a burglar can reduce neighbors’ suspicions by appearing as a repairman (e.g., plumber) or an employee of a moving company who has been sent to a residence. Vans are favorite sources of transportation for burglars.
Stage 3: Stealing. A number of tasks may be performed once inside the place. The burglar may establish lookout points, locate escape routes to be used if the operation is interrupted, or rig the entrances to prevent intruders from entering. He then locates the goods to be stolen. Whereas large and openly displayed items are easy to spot, some skill for “searching” is required if the offender intends to steal cash or small valuables that may be hidden or kept in an unpredictable place. As Sam notes, sometimes a burglary crew designates one member as a searcher, who locates items of value to steal.
Once the goods are located, the offender must take them. This is a relatively simple matter when the offender intends to steal easily accessible items. They can be taken and carried away in comparatively little time, but they must be removed from the place without observation and later converted into cash, typically by selling them to a fence. Acquisition is more difficult when the offender wants to take money or small valuables from a secure location, such as a cash register or safe. This may call for special skills, special tools, and considerable time.
Safecracking is the most challenging method of stealing cash or small valuables in a burglary. It generally is restricted to seasoned thieves working in crews of two to four persons who use special techniques. Some writings still persist in showing the safe burglar skillfully fingering a combination or listen-ing to the tumblers through a stethoscope; other writings describe the famous nitroglycerine gangs who, with a well-placed charge of “soup,” could unhinge the door of the strongest safe. The combination job has always been very rare (even more so today since most safes now have manipulation-proof locks), and the explosives job has almost never been used in this country. In those instances where it is used, it is likely to involve dynamite (a relatively safe explosive) rather than nitroglycerine.
The safecracker’s techniques are often more roughhouse than light-fingered. High-speed drills or acetylene torches are used to rip the bottom or back out of a safe. Small sledgehammers may be used to bludgeon the dials on the front of a “square box” or a safe of older build, to punch out the combination (modern safes are punch-proof), and to open the doors. The major techniques today are:
1. “Chopping” or “Ripping”: Tearing a hole through a part of the safe other than the door such as the top, side, or bottom. Often the saf ecracker turns the safe upside down to expose its bottom, usually its weakest part. A hole is bored or punched or “pick axed” with a reasonable amount of force. A jimmy also may be used. This method is crude but effective. Many imported safes today, more aptly called “containers,” have a sort of plastic alloy material that is light and easily ripped or peeled or sawed.
2. “Peeling”: The thief may “peel” or pry a poorly constructed safe. A small chisel is used to sheer rivets and make a hole in the safe. Or an electric drill or a hand-held brace is used to make a hole in a corner of the safe. Larger chisels or a steel bar are inserted to enlarge the opening and peel away the outside wall panel. An axe or other sharp instrument is then used to break through the safe’s weak inner wall. A lot of cheaply made safes today are easy prey for peeling, although they may require persistence and a fair amount of physical effort on the part of the safeman.
3. “Punching”: The safecracker knocks off the combination dial (usually with a ten-pound hammer), revealing a steel spindle that holds the tumblers of the locking mechanism in place. He then uses a hammer and a long steel punch or drift pin, and punches the spindle into the safe. The tumblers fall, and the safe door opens. One disadvantage of the punch is noise. A key advantage for those more adept is that the punch is the quickest method of attack. Newer safes typically have punch-proof spindles or relocking devices that are automatically implemented when the dial is hit or possibly when the safe is pounded on.
4. “Drilling^ A time-consuming technique, in which the safecracker uses high-speed battery- or electric-powered drills to drill a hole near the combination dial and then manipulates the tumblers until the lock opens. To penetrate “burglar-resistant” safes typically requires high-torque drills and carbide- or diamond-tipped drill bits of high quality. To prevent movement of the drill and bending or breaking of the bit against the safe’s steel plate, safemen may use a “jig” fastened to the safe. The jig helps to locate the bit over the target area (e.g., combination lock) and provides an anchor for the drill (small holes may be drilled for anchor bolts).
5. “Burning”: The safecracker may use the bum or torch technique. He applies his oxygen-acetylene torch to the central area of the safe, burning a circle around the dial, which is then removed to permit the opening of the door.
Burglars may use a combination of several methods to overcome the various types of obstacles in modern safes. Also, many burglars prefer removing the safe, often transporting it on a dolly cart to a truck or van, because it allows them to open the safe leisurely at their hideaway. The practical problem here is removal of a safe can be difficult or impossible due to its weight or because it is bolted to the floor or wall or is embedded in concrete. However, some older safes and many newer fire-resistant safes (“containers”) are fairly light (75-150 pounds) and can be carried or carted off easily. These lighter safes today are mostly foreign made, relatively expensive, and typically purchased by residential occupants rather than commercial establishments. A skilled safecracker, once the safe is carted out, can also be called upon to open safes that are more burglary-proof. A hernia is one risk of carrying out a safe.
Stage 4: Departing. Once the theft is completed, the offender checks to ensure that no incriminating evidence is left behind and that there are no witnesses to the departure. Additional precautions may be taken to avoid identification. The stolen getaway car may be abandoned, burglary tools thrown away, and clothing worn during the burglary disposed of—since carpet fibers and other particles from the burglary scene or the safe may have impregnated the offender’s clothing and would link him to the crime.
Precautions taken both during and after the burglary will depend on the target’s defenses—alarms, locks, fences, dogs, safes, lighting, or other security measures—aimed at keeping offenders from gaining access to valuable property. The greater the precautions, the more the burglar will need special knowledge, skill, and equipment to circumvent special monitoring systems and penetrate secure locations to steal the target’s property.
Stage 5: Converting Stolen Property into Cash. Most burglars steal both cash and property. Even those burglars who go “strictly for cash” will pick up, at least occasionally, jewelry or other small valuables. The offender therefore needs to convert the stolen property into cash. Seasoned thieves may have a temporary storage place (a “drop”) or they may go directly to a fence not only to convert the stolen property into cash but to dispose of additional incriminating evidence. In this sense, the thief’s best protection against arrest is the services of a reliable fence or “offman”—someone by whom the thief is able to unload or “get off the stolen goods in his possession.
The work of the thief and/or burglar requires that he complete one and sometimes two tasks without getting caught by the police. He must steal property, and if the property is not money, he must sell the property (Gibbs and Shelly 1982; Shover 1972, 1991; Steffensmeier 1986). To accomplish these tasks with at least some success entails solutions to a number of work demands.
Coping with the technical and legal realities of long-term burglary requires building a personal network with those kinds of people who can support and sustain the burglar by teaching and assisting him in various ways. To he successful, a burglar must meet five conditions:
1. First, the prospective professional burglar must learn the many skills needed to commit lucrative burglaries. Since this knowledge is at least somewhat esoteric and generally only known by other seasoned burglars, the would-be burglar must leam the craft at the side of an experienced burglar. This may include learning such techniques as entering homes, commercial establishments, or truck trailers, selecting targets with high payoffs, properly opening safes without damaging their contents, and using the proper equipment, including chisels, cutting torches, electric saws, and pry bars.
2. A second contingency is his ability to team up with or to form a criminal crew. Connecting with trustworthy associates is essential if the obstacles to completing a successful job—police, alarms, watchdogs, secure safes—are to be overcome. Sophisticated burglary usually requires at least two men working in concert. Although one finds a number of unattached burglars who prefer to work alone, the significance of hooking up with a reliable and capable partner is the typical career pattern for most successful burglars. However, even unattached burglars must build a network of contacts with tipsters and others who can assist them in their work.
Burglars usually work in groups or crews of two to four, although some larger projects may include as many as six or more burglars. The typical three-four person crew is differentiated by fairly distinct roles or activities that each burglar performs, pragmatically described as: “safeman” (if cracking a safe is part of the burglary), “lookout” or “watcher,” searcher(s); and dropoff. The watcher role may be furthered distinguished by “inside watcher” and “outside watcher.” Whereas the safeman is typically the more skilled and prestigious position, the dropoff driver is considered the least skilled and is often viewed as less of a “real partner” or crew member than the other roles.
Crew members may sometimes change from job to job, but members are typically selected from a small group of people. Larger-scale or project burglaries, in particular, are likely to require more participants who are brought together to pull off a specific burglary but may not work together again. However, usually a core member or members are likely to be involved in organizing, planning, and going out on these project burglaries. Most crews divide the score money equally among members but this can vary depending on their work and risk taking. Notably, dropoff drivers often receive a smaller percentage of the score money as compared to “close” or “longtime” partners who may divide the money in their favor. The dropoff driver and “fill-in” crew members often receive less than the safeman, lookout, or close or longtime partners.
People who connect with seasoned crews or with better burglars (thieves) are also “learning the ropes” in ways that supplement or add to the learning of skills referred to in contingency 1 above. Drawing from related research on veteran card and dice hustlers (see Prus and Sharper 1977), this learning includes the sharpening of one’s larceny sense or “eye for clipping,” in Sam’s words—i.e., attitudes and techniques conducive to burglary or to theft and hustling more generally. Second, there is learning to get along with fellow thieves—”learning to deal with them as equals and learning how to avoid being exploited by one’s co-workers” (ibid.:48). Third, there is role-specific learning in which one acquires skills for particular burglary roles such as dropoff, lookout, searcher, or safecracker.
Two added points are worth noting. One is that these types of learning occur more or less concurrently and more or less continuously throughout one’s career. The other concerns the advantages in connecting with more skilled burglars or crew. While burglars or thieves may acquire these same qualities bouncing around in roughhouse burglaries and thefts, the extent and intensity of the learning experiences available in more experienced crews are likely to be so much greater than what otherwise is likely to be encountered. Prus and Sharper write: “Within a single professional crew, one is able to experience a much more diversified, concentrated, and refined set of operations than one might while working with a variety of non-professional crews”(ibid.). (We can see this, for example, in how hooking up with Jesse’s crew boosted Sam’s know-how and sharpened his larceny sense.)
3. The good burglar (usually) must have advance information about the place he plans to burglarize and what awaits him inside, including whether it will contain something worth stealing and perhaps its whereabouts. Without such knowledge, the burglar can spend considerable time and effort on empty safes and jewelry boxes. Because it may include intelligence about alarm sys-tems or watchdogs, the advance information also may greatly lessen the risk of apprehension. Thus, along with casing and scouting, the professional burglar may employ finders to locate jobs or tipsters to furnish information.
4. Fourth, the burglar must gain access to fences or buyers for stolen wares, and then learn how to sell products for a satisfactory price. Surmounting these economic realities—of cultivating access to a select group of dependable “dealers” who do not openly advertise their trade in stolen goods, and acquiring the wherewithal to negotiate effectively with them—may be even harder than the prior mastery of burgling skills.
5. Fifth, the burglar must leam to thwart the criminal justice system. Because even the good burglar is likely to be arrested at some time during his activities, he must acquire the knowledge and connections to manage the legal realities of a burglary career. Thus, his network must include “resourceful” individuals he can turn to in case of misfortune. Access to a “good” criminal lawyer is a must but the list of helpful contacts also may include a reliable bondsman or loan shark, as well as a corrupt police officer, prosecutor, or judge. The loyalty of a friend or a “good woman” also may be useful, for example, as an information channel during periods of incarceration.
Thus, whether in teams or alone, professional burglars (and thieves) are usually connected with a loosely organized support system of other people. Key “connections” include finding a “good partner”—probably the most cru-cial contact. Other helpful contacts are fingermen or tipsters, who provide information on lucrative targets. They do not have to be criminals themselves; all that is required is the right information and the willingness to share it with a burglar. Delivery people, service repair people, bartenders, hairdressers, prostitutes, police, attorneys, security-industry personnel, insurance agents, antique or estate appraisers, jewelers, shady businesspeople, local racketeers, and fences, as well as other thieves or ex-thieves, may for a fee or a percentage of the profits pass along tips on possible scores. A third important connection is access to the services of a competent attorney, since a burglar cannot steal repeatedly without at some time being arrested. Some attorneys have better connections and are comparatively more skillful at thwarting the criminal justice system to gain release or light sentences for their clients. To free his client or get a “good deal,” the attorney may rely on cash payoffs or political favors, skillful backroom bargaining, or both. Finally, the burglar must know one or more fences who trade regularly in stolen goods.
The significance of connecting with a reliable fence goes beyond the mere buying of stolen wares. Because he often is an underworld veteran and both knowledgeable and well-connected, the fence is in a unique position to provide other support services to the fledgling burglar. These include educating him on how to distinguish valuable merchandise, coaching him on theft techniques and ways to thwart the criminal justice system, providing him with information on potential scores, giving monetary assistance or a loan during periods of inactivity, and putting him in contact with other burglars as well as people in the legal system such as other fences, bondsmen, and attorneys. Coaching by the fence, as well as concluding successful transactions with him, are likely to be important reinforcers to the escalating career of the fledgling thief.
Thus, the process of becoming an established burglar is contingent on acquiring trusted relationships with members of deviant social circles who are careful about whom they allow in. Jesse, a long-term burglar and one-time partner of Sam’s, characterizes the important connections as follows:
To make it, really make it, now, as a burglar—not this penny-ante shit. . . you need someone on the inside to give you information, say, a lawyer, or have a contact with somebody that works in a security agency or a place that sells burglar alarms. . . . Need a good partner unless you can hack working alone, which freaking few can do; a lawyer to get you off and help line you up with the right people; the right kind of fence unless you’re going strictly after cash, which is getting harder and harder to do; and a good woman to stand by you but not get in your way.
The objective circumstances of getting “connected,” of benefiting from assistance rendered by a network of contacts, and of “being able” in other ways are likely to have important subjective effects as well. The perceived risks of stealing lessen and its rewards simultaneously rise, further drawing the burglar into his criminal activities and strengthening his commitments to them. As success at burglary becomes more objectively possible, it also becomes more subjectively acceptable. How key opportunity and subjective elements are played out in burglary involvement and careers is better understood in the context of (1) categories of burglars and (2) stages of career development that burglars go through—distinctions that some prior writings and Confessions help to provide.
Four basic categories of burglars are found in Confessions. These categories also inform us about, or coincide with, key stages of development that burglars typically go through. The typology also may apply to thieves and hustlers more generally. The basic distinctions are: greenies or rookies (stage 1), in-between or roughhouse burglars (stage 2), decent or good burglars (stage 3), and semiretired or moonlighters (stage 4). Absent the latter, these distinctions roughly correspond to Maguire’s (1982) classifying of burglars into low-level, middle-range, and high-level; or to Cromwell, Olson, and Avary’s (1991) threefold grouping of burglars into novices, journeymen, and professional burglars.
Stage 1 : “Greenies. “ These leam theft and burglary from older more experienced burglars, frequently relatives, neighbors, or coworkers; or learn “hands on” by relying on their own or peers’ initiative and ideas in order to scout targets, think up better methods, and make contacts. Their burglaries (or thefts) tend to be somewhat “spur of the moment” and their rewards as much or more excitement and being part of the group than money or financial gain. Many will desist from burglary as they get older and as they feel the pull of conventional relationships and the fear of more severe adult sanctions. Members of this group do not develop connections that allow them to select good targets or move large volumes of stolen goods.
Stage 2: “In-betweeners. “ (Sam also refers to them as “half-assed”). These graduate to searching for more lucrative targets and careful planning, are more likely to develop their own markets (fences) for stolen goods, and to develop reputations as experienced criminals. They are generally a bit older (than juveniles) and may go back and forth between legitimate pursuits and crime. Their take may at times be fairly substantial but they still may lack the connections for partners, stolen goods outlets, or facilitati ve others (e.g., tipsters, good lawyers) for practicing burglary or theft safely and profitably.
Stage 3: “Decent or good thieves. “ These work in more organized crews, have the skill-level to scout or are connected with reliable sources of information about targets, have reliable stolen goods outlets, and are aided by other outside sources. They tend to carefully plan their crimes, and they can earn a good living from the proceeds of their crimes. They also have high esteem among their peers.
Stage 4: “Semiretired” or “moonlighters. “ These are burglars or thieves who are in the process of “packing it in,” or are moving to background roles, though they may engage in burglaries or theft sporadically.
All these themes (e.g., know-how, larceny sense, contacts, rewards, career contingencies) are illustrated partly in the previous narrative chapter and later in Chapter 18 on criminal “pathways,” but more particularly in the next narrative chapter, as Sam’s burglary career gets into full swing.
1. The description of these skills is adapted from Beime and Messerschmidt (1995:387).
2. In strict legal terms, breaking into or stealing from a motor vehicle like a car or track is classified as a larceny-theft for crime-reporting purposes. But many police agencies count theft from a motor vehicle as a burglary, particularly if the modus operandi involved “breaking and entering.”
3. Our discussion here builds on Best and Luckenbill’s (1994) treatment of burglary stages, along with several key analyses of burglary by Curtis (1971), Gibbs and Shelly (1982), Wright and Decker (1994), Shover (1996), Steffensmeier (1986), and Steffensmeier and Terry (1986).