Youth auto theft: a survey of a general population of Canadian youth.

• Author: Dhami, Mandeep K.

Motor vehicles continue to be increasingly crucial to daily life. Unfortunately, they are also targets of crime. The problem of theft of and from vehicles has drawn worldwide attention (e.g., for Europe, see Richards 1993). Whether measured by official statistics or surveys, auto theft is a frequent offence that is economically costly to society and harmful to both victims and offenders. For instance, police reported 160,100 motor vehicle thefts across Canada in 2005 with a rate of 496 thefts per 100,000 population (Gannon 2006: 15). Each year, more than CAN$1 billion dollars is lost to auto theft (Insurance Bureau of Canada 2004: 1). Victims are distressed and inconvenienced, while unsuspecting buyers of stolen vehicles surfer financial losses. In addition, there were 81 fatalities and 127 injuries per year in Canada, between 1999 and 2001, as a result of motor vehicle theft, and many of these involved the offenders themselves (Insurance Bureau of Canada: 4).

Although auto theft is variously motivated and committed by different groups of offenders, researchers distinguish between auto thieves who are older professionals stealing primarily for profit and younger amateurs stealing largely for recreation (Copes 2003; McCaghy, Giordano, and Henson 1977; Scott and Paxton 1997; Tremblay, Clermont, and Cusson 1994). This paper focuses on youth involvement in auto theft. In fact, auto theft is a common youth crime, and in Canada in 2005 youths were charged for motor vehicle theft at a rate of 127 per 100,000 population (Statistics Canada 2005b) compared to adults with a rate of 27 (Statistics Canada 2005a). Despite its prevalence and impact, youth auto theft has drawn relatively little research attention compared to other property offences or other youth crimes.

The small body of research on youth auto theft has examined the characteristics, experiences, and motivations of auto thieves, as well as explored the potential of deterrence and prevention, and intervention policies (e.g., Dawes 2002; Fleming 1994; 1999; Light, Nee, and Ingham 1993; McMurran and Whitman 1997; Spencer 1992). However, some of this research is now relatively outdated, and it is unclear if the phenomenon of youth auto theft has changed. Furthermore, the findings are largely based on young offenders (i.e., young auto thieves who have been caught), thus skewing our understanding of youth auto theft. Studies often involve an analysis of official statistics or criminal justice agency records, or surveys of small samples of auto thieves. Few studies have examined the issue of auto theft in a general population, and no one has directly compared the responses of a general population of youth who engage in auto theft and those who do not. Spencer's published study involved a relatively small sample of only boys from one British school, and did not compare responses of youth who did and did not engage in auto theft. Fleming's unpublished study aimed only to compare a general population of Canadian youth not old enough to legally operate a vehicle and those who were. (Both studies also included samples of young offenders). Therefore, it remains unknown what characteristics distinguish youth who engage in auto theft from those who do not. Similarly, it is unknown what factors deter or prevent a general population of youth from auto theft. Finally, it is unknown whether youth who engage in auto theft differ from their counterparts who do not in terms of their perceptions of auto theft and auto thieves. The present paper aims to contribute to the literature on youth auto theft by studying a general population of Canadian youth's experiences and perceptions of auto theft with the goal of investigating these issues.

Youth auto theft

Characteristics, experiences, and motivations of young auto thieves

The youth auto theft literature has made progress in describing the characteristics of young auto thieves, although no one has studied a large general population of young auto thieves (Dawes 2002: 200-202; Fleming 1994: 80-83, 97-100; 1999: 72-73; Higgins and Albrecht 1981: 33-37; Kellett and Gross 2006: 44; Kilpatrick 1997: 173; Light et al. 1993: 7-21; McCaghy et al. 1977: 372-376; McMurran and Whitman 1997: 193; Scott and Paxton 1997: 298; Slobodian and Browne 1997: 279-280). It has been revealed that young auto thieves tend to be teenage males, from lower socio-economic groups. A majority are white. Most live with their family members and may be expected to do household chores and be disciplined. Young auto thieves are generally uninterested or not engaged in school and are typically unemployed. They do not tend to engage in formal extra-curricular activities or active leisure pursuits, and instead tend to "hang out." Young auto thieves may have criminal friends as well as family members who engage in criminal behaviour. They may use alcohol and drugs and engage in other delinquent or criminal activities.

Studies have also recorded youths' experiences of auto theft (Dawes 2002: 202-204; Fleming 1994: 83-88, 97-100; 1999: 74; Kilpatrick 1997: 175-177; Light et al. 1993: 7-13; McMurran and Whitman 1997: 192; Slobodian and Browne 1997: 279-280; Spencer 1992: 8-9, 13-19). It is suggested that youths are often passengers in stolen cars before they begin stealing them. Young auto thieves often have been found to be repeat offenders, and most offences are not planned in advance. They often commit auto theft in groups, and after school. Although young auto thieves may use alcohol, drugs, or solvents, auto theft does not necessarily coincide with the use of such substances. Similarly, although some young auto thieves may engage in other criminal activities, a significant proportion describe themselves as specializing in auto theft.

Some researchers have developed and applied typologies when describing the experiences of young auto thieves and explaining their motivations (Briggs 1991, cited in McMurran and Whitman, 1997: 193; Challinger 1987, cited in Clarke and Harris 1992: 5-6; Clarke and Harris 1992: 6; Fleming 1994: 86; 1999: 74-75; McCaghy et al. 1977: 378-383). Auto theft may be for recreation (e.g., entertainment, fun, power, status, recognition, masculinity, sex, challenge meeting), transport (e.g., utilitarian, short-term personal use, long-term personal use, for commission of another crime), and profit (e.g., car strippers, sale of parts, resale, fraudulent insurance claims). The term joyrider is commonly used to describe youth who commit auto theft for recreation (Tremblay et al. 1994: 307). It is important to recognize that auto thieves may have multiple motivations and these may change over time (Copes 2003: 327). Thus, the categories are not mutually exclusive, and offenders may shift from one type to another.

Studies have explored the factors that motivate youth to initiate, sustain, and desist in auto theft (Dawes 2002: 202-204; Fleming 1994: 87, 100-103; Kellett and Gross 2006: 46-51; Kilpatrick 1997: 173-174; Light et al. 1993: 22-45; McMurran and Whitman 1997: 192; Spencer 1992: 9, 22). Here, the peer group emerges as a key factor influencing youth to engage in auto theft. For instance, McMurran and Whitman (192) found that the majority of youth auto thieves in their sample said they started to steal cars because their friends were already involved in the activity, while other reasons included wanting to drive (including learning how to) (see also Light et al.). Additionally, others have found that reasons for initial involvement in auto theft include boredom, need for excitement/fun, need for money, wish to impress friends, and a desire to wreck vehicles (Fleming 1994: 87, 100-103; Light et al.: 25; Kilpatrick: 173-174; Spencer: 19-22).

In terms of continuing to steal cars, McMurran and Whitman (1997: 192) found that the reasons given were for fun, going fast, convenience, freedom, excitement, feeling of power, boredom, trying different models of cars, challenge, status, and to sell the vehicle (see also Fleming 1994). Light et al. (1993: 28-41) noted that as their involvement in auto theft continued, youth reported becoming more skilled in technique and speed. Peers who were teachers became co-offenders, and offenders increased their rate of theft from cars or theft for profit, as well as use of cars for commission of other crimes such as "ramraiding." Indeed, the motivations for persisting in auto theft changed to focus more on money than the "buzz" or boredom (see also Spencer 1992).

Finally, there is some evidence that as youth become young adults they desist from auto theft (Dawes 2002: 202; Light et al. 1993: 42). McMurran and Whitman (1997: 193) reported that the reasons provided for ceasing auto theft included taking up other activities, finding other modes of transport, wanting to avoid the adverse consequences of offending, deciding to obey the law, no longer feeling tempted, and changing friends. Additionally, Light et al. (1993: 43) noted that desistance was associated with the threat of prison, "growing out of it," and having a girlfriend.

Deterring and preventing youth auto theft

Studies reveal that young auto thieves do not consider auto theft a serious problem (Light et al. 1993: 69) or view joyriding as a serious crime compared to other crimes (Dawes 2002: 205). Furthermore, 14% of Spencer's (1992: 9) sample of boys from one school did not believe it was wrong to steal a car or steal from it. Against this backdrop, there has been some discussion about the most effective strategies for deterring and preventing youth auto theft.

Deterrence may be achieved via sentencing policy, and some researchers have promoted the use of increased punishment (Fleming 1994; 1999; Light et al. 1993). The most common penalties for auto theft are fines and community sentences or probation (Slobodian and Browne 2001: 471). However, only a small proportion of youth actually come to police attention (Light et al.: 58)...