During the researched conducted for his PhD by Professor Rudolph Zinn, senior lecturer in Forensic and Crime investigation at the University of South Africa (Unisa), he made some startling findings.
Read more: Little girl threatened with gun in fourth armed robbery
Zinn’s research was based on in-depth interviews with 30 criminals convicted for aggravated robbery. Some of the key findings are quoted here verbatim:
The 30 research subjects interviewed conformed to the following broad profile:
• All were males except for two females who were convicted as being accessories to the crime rather than the primary instigators
• They were representative of South Africa’s racial demographic profile
• 83 per cent were South African citizens with the remaining 17 per cent holding the citizenship of other African countries
• The subjects were between the ages of 19 and 26 years
• On average, they would form a group of four people when attacking a household
• Only 20 per cent had completed high school to Grade 12 and none had further tertiary education
• 76 per cent were unemployed, but a number of these had left employment to make money solely from robbery
• 80 per cent had not received any type of military or security related training. The remaining 20 per cent that had received such training had either been employed as security guards or were foreign nationals who had worked in the police or military of their home countries
• All were experienced criminals and had committed a number of other crimes before deciding to target households for robbery
• On average, each perpetrator admitted to having committed 103 crimes (including crimes other than robberies) over a seven-year period before being arrested for the first time
• 70 per cent came from what was described as dysfunctional or “broken” homes
• Given the nature of the crime, a distinctive characteristic of house robbers is the willingness to use lethal violence against victims. Most people who fit the same general profile (e.g. young, unemployed, from dysfunctional families), do not commit violent crime.
Motivation for Involvement in Residential Robberies
• 97 per cent of the perpetrators in the study stated that the primary motivating factor for becoming involved in this type of crime was “economic gain”
• 22 per cent of the perpetrators had also committed “farm attacks” (which are considered no different to robberies of other types of residences by the perpetrators)
• 65 per cent of what was stolen was spent on “cars, clothes, drugs, and alcohol”
• 35 per cent of what was stolen was spent on “survival” (i.e. food and rent)
• The victims were targeted because of their wealth. Other demographic factors such as race played no part in perpetrators’ decisions to target specific households
• A contributory factor was the existence of role-models in their communities who were criminals and were wealthy because of criminal activities. These individuals are well-known and generally respected in their communities
• 80 per cent of the perpetrators in the study stated that their families, friends and acquaintances in their communities knew that they were involved in crime to make a living. This indicates a high tolerance for criminality in the communities they came from
• Residential robbery was chosen as a particular crime to become involved in because it resulted in more money, more quickly than other types of crime, and the chances of being caught were seen as very low
• All the perpetrators started with non-violent property crimes (i.e. theft) before progressing to violent crimes
Choosing a Target
• 63 per cent of the perpetrators in the study would prefer to travel between 10 and 30 minutes by vehicle from where they lived to commit a residential robbery. However, most would travel for much longer time periods if the target was deemed lucrative enough
• 77 per cent of the perpetrators stated that they chose targets about which they had some “inside information”. For example, they would be able to get information about a particular house from domestic workers, gardeners or other service providers including security guards (or from the relatives or acquaintances of these people)
• Some perpetrators know people who make a living through burglary and will get information on specific houses from them
• Generally, perpetrators would prefer to choose targets in neighbourhoods that had many entrance and exit points with easy access to main roads and where street security was low or non-existent
• However, only 25 per cent of the perpetrators in the study stated that they deliberately chose a house because it had low security. Rather, targets were chosen because they had reasonable information or a suspicion that there would be much of value to steal once they had gained access to the property
• The perpetrators in this study stated that they would tend to focus on what they termed as the “middle class”. However, this term was used quite broadly to talk about anyone who had relative wealth. Sometimes people with expensive jewellery, clothes or other visible signs of affluence would be followed home on the assumption that they would have expensive possessions in their residences.
Planning and Executing a Residential Robbery
• All perpetrators stated that they would spend some time prior to the attack doing surveillance on the targeted residence. In some cases this could be as little as 30 minutes prior to the attack and in other cases up to two weeks. The purpose of the surveillance is to orientate the perpetrators to the layout and types of neighbourhood and household security measures, and the habits and patterns of the residents
• A majority of the perpetrators (57 per cent) stated that they preferred to carry out residential robberies between 7pm and midnight. This was when most people are at home, have disabled alarm systems and opened doors and windows. Also, it is a time when there is noise from televisions and radios which will provide the perpetrators with some level of cover, allowing them to take the victims by surprise
• 14 per cent of the perpetrators also attacked houses between 3am and 7am in the morning as it was quiet, the neighbours would be asleep or not paying particular attention and they would not be disturbed by visitors to the house.
• 7 per cent stated that they also attacked houses between 10am and midday. This was when domestic workers would be in the house, doors would be open, alarms would also be turned off and there would be the relative cover of noise
• The most common way to access a property was to “break-in” by forcing locks on gates or doors, breaking windows or disabling electric fences and climbing over the walls.
• Some of the perpetrators used exceptions to this by attacking houses where there were social functions as they could simply walk through gates or doors that were left open. In some cases, the perpetrators would wait for the residents to leave or arrive home and attack them in the driveway before forcing them inside the house.
• Before breaking into the house, the perpetrators stated that they would try to identify the numbers and locations of everyone who was in the house. They would typically do this during the pre-attack surveillance and once they were in the property, by peering through windows, preferably under the cover of darkness.
Do you perhaps have more information pertaining to this story? Email us at roodepoortrecord@caxton.co.za (remember to include your contact details) or phone us on 011 955 1130.
For free daily local news on the West Rand, also visit our sister newspaper websites
Remember to visit our Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages to let your voice be heard!
