By Morgyn Young

Recently, Louisiana classified Simple Burglary of an Inhabited Dwelling, when a person is present during the commission of the crime, as a crime of violence. The overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate voted to deem the crime a crime of violence. Yet, LA. REV. STAT. § 14:60 (Simple Burglary of an Inhabited Dwelling) does not contain an inherently violent element. In this note, the Author takes a deep dive into the Louisiana Code to uncover the foundation needed to classify a crime as a crime of violence. In doing so, it becomes apparent that Louisiana has begun to stray away from a traditional notion of violence. Many of the amendments, including La. Rev. Stat. § 14:60, do not follow conventional notions of violence in that they do not have a nexus to physical injury. This expansion has reached the point where there is no longer a list of attributes that can be used to determine a crime of violence.

Throughout the article, the Author uses Simple Burglary of an Inhabited Dwelling when a person is present as an example to further portray the idea that the Legislature does not follow the crime of violence definition listed in the code, nor is there a readily apparent framework utilized when deeming crimes "violent." To begin, the Author explores how the definition of a crime of violence has grown outside the bounds of the traditional definition of violence by comparing differing "violence" definitions, both past and present. The Author notes that the definition of violence is constantly evolving. However, the Legislature has expanded far past the modern definition. The Author furthers the analysis by examining the different crimes the Legislature has deemed violent compared to La. Rev. Stat. 14:40. Through the study, it becomes clear that the Legislature, as a whole, cannot define violence effectively, nor does the enumerated list under a crime of violence reveal a consistent determination. As in, the Legislature has not plausibly categorized violent crimes. In further explanation, when singling out just the property crimes listed as a crime of violence, there is not a consistent attribute between the crimes listed to determine what escalated each crime to a crime of violence. The Author ends the analysis by attempting to define the elements of La. Rev. Stat. § 14:2, which proves to be quite challenging as the Louisiana Supreme Court has not provided much insight into the framework of classifying a crime. The elements of importance consist of physical force, substantial risk, and the ordinary case of an offense. The Author continues by comparing Louisiana's definition of a crime of violence to the United States Code's definition. The Author points out the resemblance between the two statutes, yet verbiage contained in 18 U.S.C § 16 was deemed unconstitutional. Using both statutes, multiple cases, and burglary statistics the Author further proves the idea that simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, when a person is present, should not be classified as a crime of violence. As the crime does not entail physical force to the victim, an intent to harm a person, nor is the risk of harm to the victim substantial. Additionally, the offense cannot be correlated with the existing property crimes labeled a crime of violence, and the offense cannot be classified a crime of violence under the definition provided in La. Rev. Stat. § 14:2. Ultimately, this demonstrates the Legislature's sway from a traditional definition of violence and the legislature acting without limitation in classifying crimes as violent. This never-ending expansion or overreaching fuels an ineffective judicial system, ultimately affecting every citizen in some shape or form.

Unpublished paper, 2024. 27p.

By Michael J. Frith  , Kate J. Bowers  , Shane D. Johnson 

Introduction: In response to COVID-19, governments imposed various restrictions on movement and activities. According to the routine activity perspective, these should alter where crime occurs. For burglary, greater household occupancy should increase guardianship against residential burglaries, particularly during the day considering factors such as working from home. Conversely, there should be less eyes on the street to protect against non-residential burglaries. Methods: In this paper, we test these expectations using a spatio-temporal model with crime and Google Community Mobility data. Results: As expected, burglary declined during the pandemic and restrictions. Different types of burglary were, however, affected differently but largely consistent with theoretical expectation. Residential and attempted residential burglaries both decreased significantly. This was particularly the case during the day for completed residential burglaries. Moreover, while changes were coincident with the timing and relaxation of restrictions, they were better explained by fluctuations in household occupancy. However, while there were significant decreases in non-residential and attempted non-residential burglary, these did not appear to be related to changes to activity patterns, but rather the lockdown phase. Conclusions: From a theoretical perspective, the results generally provide further support for routine activity perspective. From a practical perspective, they suggest considerations for anticipating future burglary trends 

Journal of Criminal Justice, v. 82, 2022

By David W.M. Sorensen

During the 18-year period 1990 to 2007, the number of reported residential burglaries (indbrud i beboelse) was very stable. This changed in 2008 to 2010, when burglary increased by 30% (averaged over these three years) as compared to the previous 18-year average. Seen in its most extreme light, the number of reported burglaries in 2009 was 65.3% higher than in 2005. Little solid evidence exists as to why residential burglary increased so dramatically in 2008 and 2009. The current report examines this question using POLSAS data on 234,745 residential burglaries reported in Denmark during the six-year period 2005-2010, plus data on long term crime trends (1990-2010) and other social indicators. The report begins with a comparison of the rise in burglary to trends in overall Danish property crime. This reveals that the increase in burglary is far greater than that for any other major crime category. Burglary is therefore unique in this regard. Trends in Danish burglary are then compared to burglary trends in the EU and other Nordic countries to see if Denmark’s increase is part of a wider EU/Nordic phenomenon. The EU countries worst hit by the economic recession of 2008 experienced the sharpest increases in burglary. Denmark shares little in common with these countries, but shares much in common with Sweden, which also experienced a (far more modest) rise in burglary. In sum, domestic and international trend analyses reveal that the increase in Danish burglary probably has multiple causes emanating from both within and outside Denmark.

Copenhagen: Danish Crime Prevention Council, 2011. 64p.

By Amy Randall and Martin Gill

In a study commissioned by Churchill Home Insurance, Perpetuity Research interviewed 15 convicted burglars to help understand what factors motivate burglary. The report considers various aspects such as how targets are selected, the level of planning and the equipment used, the significance of security measures, and how stolen goods are sold on. It also covers how the interviewees perceived the legal change made in 2013 that clarified the rights of householders to use force to protect themselves or others in their homes. The report provides a fascinating insight in to the thought process of a small sample of those who have committed burglary

Tunbridge Wells, UK: Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International, 2014. 48p.

By Richard F. Culp, Phillip M. Kopp and Candace McCoy

Traditionally considered an offense committed against the property of another, burglary is nevertheless often regarded as a violent crime. For purposes of statistical description, both the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) list it as a property crime. But burglary is prosecuted as a violent crime under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, is sentenced in accord with violent crimes under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and is regarded as violent in state law depending on varied circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has treated burglary as either violent or non-violent in different cases. This study explored the circumstances of crimes of burglary and matched them to state and federal laws. Analyzing UCR, NCVS, and the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data collections for the ten year period 1998-2007, it became clear that the majority of burglaries do not involve physical violence and scarcely even present the possibility of physical violence. Overall, the incidence of actual violence or threats of violence during burglary ranged from a low of .9% in rural areas based upon NIBRS data, to a high of 7.6% in highly urban areas based upon NCVS data. At most, 2.7% involved actual acts of violence. A comprehensive content analysis of the provisions of state burglary and habitual offender statutes showed that burglary is often treated as a violent crime instead of prosecuting and punishing it as a property crime while separately charging and punishing for any violent acts that occasionally co-occur with it. Legislative reform of current statutes that do not comport with empirical descriptions of the characteristics of burglaries is contemplated, primarily by requiring at the minimum that the burglary involved an occupied building if it is to be regarded as a serious crime, and preferably requiring that an actual act of violence or threatened violence occurred in order for a burglary to be prosecuted as a violent crime.

New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2015. 97p.

By Paul F. Cromwell, James N. Olson and Di Aunn W. Avary

Information from 30 active burglars in an urban Texas metropolitan area of 250,000 population formed the basis of an analysis of the extent to which residential burglars use rational processes to choose burglary targets and the environmental factors that affect their choices.

The analysis also focused on the role of drug use, marketing strategies for stolen property, and the deterrence provided by the criminal justice system. The burglars were recruited by three informants referred from local criminal justice agencies. A researcher drove with each burglar to residential sites previously burglarized, and the burglar discussed and evaluated each site. Findings showed that burglars are opportunistic and that burglaries can be reduced by increasing the difficulty of committing the burglary, reducing the potential gain, and providing the illusion that the residence is occupied.

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 1990. 236p.

By Trevor Bennett and Linda Durie

The report describes the work of the Domestic Burglary Task Force (DBTF) in Cambridge, which was established in July 1994 to examine the nature of residential burglary in Cambridge and to design and implement initiatives to prevent it. The group devised an overall strategy which was to divide the work into two stages: (1) a data-gathering stage, during which information about burglary in Cambridge was collected, and (2) a programme implementation stage, during which various projects were designed and implemented. The main findings of the data-gathering stage were that residential burglary in Cambridge was concentrated within specific wards to the north of the city and within specific ‘hot spots’ within these wards. The ‘hot spots’ and the ‘hot wards’ were characterised by high levels of repeat victimisation. There was some evidence that residential burglaries in the area were committed by local youths who lived in the same or adjacent wards and who selected the target areas as a result of convenience, easy access through footpaths and alleyways, and the perceived abundance of suitable targets. As a result of these findings, the DBTF identified the largest ‘hot spot’ in the north of the City, and the two wards which contained the ‘hot spot’, as the targeted area. One of the key principles of the overall programme strategy was that the nature of the solution to burglary in Cambridge should be based on sound knowledge of the nature of the problem. A number of seminars were organised for representatives of local agencies in order to identify burglary prevention strategies which would best match the nature of the problems identified. As a result of these seminars, a number of burglary prevention strategies were identified and implemented.

London: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999. 61p.

By Richard T. Wright, Scott H. Decker and Gilbert Geis

Through extensive and candid interviews, the authors of this ground-breaking work have studied burglars' decision-making processes within the context of their streetlife culture. In this volume they present their findings in the areas of motivation, target selection, methods of entering and searching a residence, and methods of selling stolen goods, concluding with a discussion of the theoretical implications of their research.

Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1996. 248p.