Armed Robbery and Criminal Behavior

Armed Robbery and Criminal Behavior Theories

There are well-documented theories in the field of criminology to help researchers understand why incidents of armed robbery take place -- but many questions remain to be answered. Indeed, why do criminals resort to robbery with the threat of force? This question will be pursued in this paper utilizing existing research literature published in scholarly journals, along with information from author Roger Matthews, the FBI, and others. The answers to that question are not direct nor exact, however the entirety of the research provides clues, data, and theories that lead to a general understanding.

Armed Robbery is the subject and the title of a book by Roger Matthews, who interviewed some 340 convicted robbers in UK prisons and researched the issue thoroughly albeit not using criminology or psychological theories. He explains that armed robbery "crosses the conventional division between violent and property crime" which means the sentencing is far more harsh (albeit the armed robbers don't seem to be deterred by the stiff sentences) than simple burglary. He adds that armed robbers appear to acting out of "desperation" as they act alone, and have a history of "failed" attempts (Matthews 2002 p. 21). "Matthews could have provided more theoretical discussion of the issues" (Porter 2005) and might have linked armed robbers with "co-offending… [and] role distribution," as well as embracing psychological discussions of armed robbery.

Literature Review

In attempting to discern and describe what brings a person to a point in his life where he feels compelled to take a weapon and through threat of force, goes about stealing items of value from another person, there are theories that need to be reviewed in that regard. Augustine Brannigan -- writing in the Canadian Journal of Criminology -- asserts that the "General Theory of Crime" that was put forward by Gottfredson and Hirschi posits that "low self-control" (the social control theory) is a "critical condition for individual choices" that are associated with criminal activity and delinquency (Brannigan, 1997 p. 403).

And how is this disposition of behavior explained by Brannigan, a professor of Sociology and author in Calgary, Canada? That low self-control results from a childhood (the first 8 years in particular) during which there were "failures in supervision, discipline, and informal control in the family" (Brannigan 403). Brannigan suggests that the social control theory in this instance is complemented by the life cycle theory (Sampson and Laub) in the sense that the processes of informal social control along with the "structures of social capital" both make a contribution toward "desistance among life long offenders" (Brannigan 403). As to why a person would take a weapon into a theft situation and raise the stakes much higher in terms of potential punishment, Brannigan posits, "all crimes occur because they are chosen" (Brannigan 406). A person committing crimes such as armed robbery are based on a "need for immediate gratification of desires"; utilization of "simple means"; preferences for "exciting, thrilling, or risky activities"; insensitivity to the pain this act may cause for others; little interest in "long-term interpersonal or economic investments"; and little interest in "skilful or sophisticated criminal planning" (Brannigan 406).

Brannigan references Desroches' (1995) study of armed robbers: "Males gain reproductive success by commanding and displaying resources that exceed their own subsistence needs" (Brannigan 422). Robbery is a way of "expressing masculinity" Brannigan continues; serious robbers often spend "half of their adult lives behind bars" and rarely get much money from their robberies (Brannigan 422).

The FBI offers that social learning theories -- related to why criminals take up arms -- help in "projecting blame" because they put a microscope on interactions in everyday life (www.FBI.gov). People are "inherently good" (FBI) but they learn values and behaviors from their social interactions and those values can involve criminality. Social control theorists, the FBI explains, posit that "all people have an innate desire to break the law" but somehow "social forces overcome" those desires. Travis Hirschi (the author of social control theories) suggests three social forces "prevent people from committing crimes" like armed robbery, the FBI essay explains: one, attachment to others who have influence and sway on their lives; two, "commitment to order" (avoiding deviant behavior); and three, "involvement" (being involved in legal activities leaves little time for illegal activities). The labeling theory (also known as the societal reaction perspective) puts forward the notion that the criminal justice system itself "produces criminal behavior"; that is, once labeled a criminal, a person begins to "act like one" (www.fbi.gov). To wit, once a criminal is called an "armed robber" that's what he will strive to be in the best possible scenario he can conjure up.

In the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (Armstrong et al. 2009) the authors suggest that there is a dearth of empirical studies of criminal theories (74). They take the Hirschi social control theory a step deeper than the FBI did; they reference attachment, involvement, commitment, and "beliefs" (Armstrong 75). Beliefs refer to the "extent to which an individual endorses conventional values and norms" (Armstrong 75). Armstrong and colleagues explain the social strain theory -- not specifically in terms of why a criminal becomes an armed robber but in general terms as to why an individual turns to lawless behaviors -- by quoting Robert Agnew: "Crime may be a method for reducing strain" (Armstrong 75). The strain theory has three categories: one, failure to achieve "positively valued goals"; two, the removal or "threatened removal" of "positively valued stimuli"; and three, the offering or threatened offering of "negatively valued stimuli" (Armstrong 75).

In the Journal of Quantitative Criminology (Hoffmann, et al. 1998) the authors argue that within the social strain theoretical approach there is a belief that a "broad range of negative social relations" can lead to the strain that transitions into criminality (including armed robbery). Peers who are antisocial and delinquent; the ability to externalize blame (push the responsibility on others); belief that robbery in this case effectively solves problems; and the "disposition" to delinquency -- all of these play into the strain theory (Hoffmann 84). However, there are constraints to criminality that could prevent a person from taking a gun into a convenience store to steal money; those constraints are "high self-esteem" and "high self-efficacy"; good temperament; solid social support; and "personal belief systems" (Hoffman 84). Moreover, "negative emotions, especially anger, increase the likelihood" of engaging in violent crime as the individual "seeks to alleviate the strain by escaping it…" (Hoffman 104).

If an alert reader -- who is seeking to understand why a person would engage in armed robbery -- believes what Karen Heimer and Ross Matsueda write in the American Sociological Review about the social disorganization theory it all goes back to families, communities, and schools (Heimer, 1994 p. 371). The rate of delinquent individuals (who could conceivably graduate from petty crime to armed robbery) is, according to this interpretation of the social disorganization theory, based not on linkage with criminally oriented peer groups, but on conventional community organizations (Heimer 371). Strong families, good schools, close supervision and socialization "to conventional values" keep individuals out of trouble, according to Heimer's interpretation.