Discussion 2

Rewards vs Insight Interviewing active offenders presents several issues to both the safety and welfare of the interviewer and the public, as well as moral and ethical dilemmas regarding knowingly rewarding criminal behavior. Criminologists need to study offenders so that the system and law enforcement can better understand offenders' decision-making process and then use that information to deter future criminal behavior. Also, paying a criminal a fee and saying it is for research, is paying a known criminal to commit a crime against a member of society, that could turn violent, that they may not have been committed if not offered the "research" fee. The safety of the public as well as that of the researcher, is always a variable that cannot be guaranteed under any circumstance. The researchers themselves spoke of their numerous life- threatening moments including interviewees carrying firearms, a machine gun, challenged because they were believed to be cops, caught in the middle of a fight over $1.00 and almost witnessing a homicide in progress (Wright, Richard, et al., 2015). Not only is it dangerous to the researcher, but what about the unknowing public that is being preyed upon in the name of research. Would they agree to be the victim of a robbery or carjacking in the name of research? What happens when the victim is armed as a concealed carry holder and resists? Where do those stray bullets go? While it is believed that for an offender and their actions to be understood, it must be free of police stations, courts and prisons, or else the information received will not be honest or accurate (Wright, Richard, et al., 2015). It is also noted as recent as 2020 that "Active offender research relies on the collection of data from noninstitutionalized criminals and has made significant contributions to our understanding of the etiology of serious crime ( Topalli, Volkan, et al., 2020)." While research in the field does play a part, I don't believe the information gained outweighs societies right to be safe and not be used as lab rats. While I do believe that some information could be learned from the street criminal as opposed to the institutionalized criminal, I do not believe that it is anything that will change the way law enforcement already attempts to combat crime. The criminal is constantly adapting to the individual situation at hand, and not to research statistics. Overall, preying on and unknowing society and innocent people, in the name of research, should never be conducted. Field worker participation While research methods and tactics are different for every field of study, criminology deals with real people, put in real situations, where adrenaline, family members, fight or flight and even deadly force come into play. Building rapport with a subject that is recently institutionalized, using the same methods of "research fees" paid to their commissary, or thoroughly reviewing all police reports and eyewitness accounts, can also be productive while minimizing the risk to the public. The researchers were aware that they may be confronted by police patrols, and they pre-negotiated an agreement with police not to interfere with the research (Wright, Richard, et al., 2015). While this is beneficial to the researcher, could this not also be beneficial to the criminal? We are aware that

criminals by their very nature are not trustworthy, and as such could they not of also used this time of police free roaming time to stake out future sites to burglarize? In general, I do not believe that police should be making deals that allows known criminals to roam residential neighborhoods unimpeded. When involved in any crime, the potential for confrontation by the public, property owner or police is always an issue. While a researcher is committing the minor crime of graffiti, while minor on the crime scale, still carries the possibility of a confrontation. If confronted by the police, would it lead to a foot and or subsequent vehicle pursuit? How many officers have been injured or killed in the line of duty in a simple foot pursuit. What if the suspects entered a vehicle and it transitioned to a vehicle pursuit? For those that are not from Texas, our Penal Code, 9.42, outlines deadly force to protect property. Simply put, a person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect their land or tangible, movable property. This is to include graffiti and even simple criminal mischief. The what ifs are the problem, and as long as there is the unknown civilian element, the risk of breaking the law, damaging property or injuring a citizen in the name of research is never worth it. Necessary Conditions for Retaliation Stealth retaliation as a key concept in violent and non-violent forms in the drug market, does not seem like the type of retaliation suited to the high profile, fear based and violent nature of the drug world. I would actually think that stealth retaliation should not be considered as retaliation, as most in the drug and gang type lifestyle, make it a point to let the receiver know where the retaliation is coming from. This let's not only the offender, but anyone else know, the consequence of crossing the said person or group so that others do not commit the same wrong in the future. As the story of Dave, a drug dealer victimized by fraudulent predation, uses stealth retaliation to recover his $300.00 by stealing a TV from his (offender's) car, that was actually stolen from someone else. As this item of wealth did not actually belong to the original party but was actually stolen property, Dave could not have committed retaliation in the true meaning of the word. Retaliation is acting or committing a harm on someone, because of actions or harms against you. Since the TV was stolen and never purchased with anything of value, there is no real loss of wealth for the offender. The four propositions outlined by Jacques for stealth retaliation are; • Stealth retaliation is only possible when a wrongdoer owns wealth. • Stealth retaliation is only possible when a wrongdoer physically separates from their wealth. • Stealth retaliation is only possible when a wrongdoer physically separates from a retaliator. • Stealth retaliation is only possible when a retaliator comes into contact with a wrongdoer's wealth. Together, these propositions suggest that stealth retaliation is possible only when wrongdoers' own wealth, physically separate from their wealth and retaliators, and retaliators come into contact with wrongdoers' wealth (Jacques, 2009). As outlined in Dave's story, the offender stole the TV, so if we use point 1, when a wrongdoer owns wealth, and use wealth literally, since it was stolen property, the offender never owned it. The 4 th point outlines, comes into contact with a wrongdoer's wealth, and since Dave never acquired his wealth, this

could also be seen as not the offender's true wealth. If the true point of retaliation is to have the other party have a physical or monetary loss, when used this way, it is not a true retaliatory action as the offender only lost something that was not his to begin with. Stealth retaliation could be improved upon by changing the meaning of retaliation, to include damage to the offender's personal property or taking items that are actually purchased by or have sentimental or personal meaning to the offender. This way the offender has experienced a true loss, and not an unknown petty theft performed by another criminal. In this way, the offender knows he was targeted for a wrongdoing, and not simply the victim himself of a petty theft. Point of Interest I found the research into the amount of thought and planning that actually went into the process prior to first contact more than I expected. I believed that most carjackings were just rushed or blitz encounters with violence or threat of violence, leaving little to no time for the victim to reset their decision process. Usually when speaking about or researching carjackings, vehicles taken at gun point and shootings tend to come to mind. Despite all of the threats of violence and displaying of weapons during the commission of the crime, only 1 percent of all carjacking victims suffer injuries requiring hospitalization (Jacobs, 2012). This research shows that despite the threat of violence and either threatening serious bodily injury and even death by displaying a firearm, the carjackers primary goal is to distract. This distraction through planning, trickery, and misdirection allows the offender to close the distance and not only surprise the victim physically, but mentally as well. Critical Thinking Question: Jacobs research states that only 1 percent of all carjacking victims suffer injuries requiring hospitalization. Do you think that most victims do not resist for fear of serious injury or death over mostly insured property, or that they are so overwhelmed that they do not have time to resist? References Wright, Richard, et al. "A Snowball's Chance in Hell: Doing Fieldwork with Active Residential Burglars." Arizona State University , SAGE Publications Inc., 19 June 2015, https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/a-snowballs-chance-in-hell-doing-fieldwork-with- active-residentia.

Topalli, Volkan, et al. "Learning from Criminals: Active Offender Research for Criminology." ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University , June 2020, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cj_facpub/6/ . Jacques, S. (2009, April 30). The necessary conditions for retaliation: Toward a theory of non- violent and violent forms in drug markets . Scott Jacques. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://scottjacques.pubpub.org/pub/thenecessaryconditionsforretaliation Jacobs, Bruce. Carjacking and Copresence - Bruce A. Jacobs, 2012 - Sage Journals . 2012, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427811408434.