Why burglars are a dying breed

NPR points out an interesting trend: For the past 30 years, home burglaries have been on a steady decline. (And the Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms it.) Why? Well, some say it's better policing, tougher locks and more home-security systems. About 25 percent of U.S. homes have a burglar alarm.

But a former burglar says that economics have changed, too.

Mathis says he stopped breaking into homes because there's just no money in it anymore.

"If you're going to do a burglary, you need to have some buyers," Mathis says. "Everybody has everything now."

Mathis says there's just too much on the street already. Everyone he knows already has a digital camera, iPod knockoffs and pirated DVDs shipped in from China.

Most people don't keep lots of money around the house, either, thanks to debit and credit cards. Diamonds are worth a lot, but it takes a lot of time to find them, NPR reports.

Comments

[Have gun, come on in!]

For every one that dies five more are born.

[The Book of Duh for Dummies]

Wow, imagine that. A deterrent without government intervention. Or has it been the govm't's plan all along...suck us into buying everything and not carrying cash so it would eventually eliminate burglars?

[Kevan]

Sounds like the crook robber is getting it dirty from the law abiding citizen. What is this country coming to when you have to actually WORK for a living & not STEAL from those who DO WORK for what they have. Another reason I think there is less robberies is that more people have a gun in the home now then before.

[Mickey Mouse]

The real truth is that crimes have gone cyber (i.e. ID theft, phishing, etc.)

No gun, no lives taken, possible less chance of getting caught. Why do physical work ripping somebody off when you can sit on your butt in front of a computer and do it. Sad, but true.

[suzanne karmin]

Didn't decline far enough to keep my door from being kicked in. Or everything I worked hard for to be stolen.

[blarney]

Actually yes it has been a plan of the government to get people off of cash. Cash costs a lot of money to produce and keep, it's also easier to track if people are leaving a paper trail. The government always wants it's piece, this is why there are laws against carrying too much money around. Yup you get caught with over 10k and the money can/will be seized and you will be arrested if for nothing else conspiracy to commit tax fraud.

These laws weren't put in place to protect people but to make sure the government can get every penny it can squeeze out of the citizendry. Why do you people think there are magnetic strips in our paper money since about 1990? So it can be tracked and it sets off metal detectors in large sums. Less B&E is partly because of this and partly because more of these guys have been winding up dead over the last decade or so.

So yes this has been being pushed by the government for a very long time.

Goverment wants you think this so you lay down youre guns. river rat.

[The DB]

Why break into a house when you can steal the catalytic converter off a car....80 bucks or more, no serial numbers, same for A/C condensers, copper pipe, all metal. No need to get inside a house when you can get more stuff (and dough for it) outside.

[babyjane]

It's sad to see the old trades dying out.

[Herbert Spencer]

I personally think that burglars should be given the death sentence when they're caught. There is simply nothing worse than breaking into someone's home and taking everything they worked for and violating their privacy.

Thieves in general are just scum. You can say that life is ore important than the property, but it's not the property in and of itself, it's the whole social fabric of a neighborhood that deteriorates when even a child's toy is stolen from the yard.

Maybe the muslims have something with cutting off the hands of a thief. If you want something, work for it.

We have more than enough people in this country that we wouldn't miss this type of scum.

[James Hart]

Are you saying that burglars are worse than rapists?

[blarney]

Good Post Herbert, I can't say I disagree though I think(some will be suprised by this)your end results may be a little harsh. I think if someone survives breaking into someones house then legally they should be incarcerated but not killed by the state.

[Nick]

Slippery slope when you do not differentiate the severity of individual crimes.

Rape is a perfect example. It already carries the same sentence as 2nd degree murder, which presents a quandary for the rapist.

Now, what do you think will happen when the burglar knows he risks execution for his crime and there just happened to be someone see him do it?

[Herbert Spencer]

I think both are similar crimes. In the case of rape you violate the person, in the case of a burglar you violate the home and a person's ability to have somewhere where they feel safe.

Where they're not similar is in the motivation. A rapist is on a power trip, wanting to dominate another human being, a thief is motivated by laziness and greed.

Another difference is that while rape is certainly more horrifying for the victim, societally speaking, burglary may be more devastating for a neighborhood since everyone in the neighborhood, regardless of race, gender, etc must now fear for the loss of their most cherished possessions.

The magnitude of the offenses may also be greater for a burglar. A rapist, in part because of the horrific nature of the crime, etc will have far fewer victims than a burglar.

One burglar may hit several houses, in several neighborhoods in one day and then repeat his crimes each and every day, destroying an entire community's ability to feel secure in their property.

So, from a societal standpoint, I think burglars have had a more widespread impact on society and our feelings of security than rapists. How many of us lock our homes when we leave because we fear a rapist?

Of course, I say this as a male who wants to protect all of his toys. My wife is very conscious even of how we park our cars in the driveway lest they give sanctuary to an attacker. So perhaps she would have a different take on the issue.

I would still spend more resources bringing the rapist to justice, but I do think we need to treat property crimes more severely than we do and stop viewing them simply from the standpoint of the value of the property itself.

[blarney]

Nick which means there is good reason for people to own guns and execute justice on the spot. then the state is not invovled.

[Nick]

Don't get me wrong, Burglary is WAY under sentenced. It is most certainly a violent crime due to the potential for a confrontation, but, you still have to keep things in perspective.

[Nick]

Of curse there is Blarney. There has never been a valid reason to disarm a law abiding citizen.

[Herbert Spencer]

I know of a retail business that was teetering on the brink of success when it got hit by a gang from KCK that specializes in shoplifting and bad checks. The amounts taken were enough that the corporation that owned the business decided to close the store. Several honest people were put out of work and the cost of that theft became a tax on other consumers who had to make up the loss of the stolen items and the bad checks.

In addition, the store's consumers lost a place to shop and were inconvenienced by having to go elsewhere to shop.

Since this was in a neighboring community and the thieves were black, it was also a scar on KCK's image and did nothing to deter negative racial stereotypes. All of this because a hand full of thieves choose not to work. So should they only be held accountable for the value of the bad check, or the value of the merchandise. The damage here is much broader.

[blarney]

"Of curse there is Blarney. There has never been a valid reason to disarm a law abiding citizen."

Yea, tell that to the pinko commie lefties who are interested in taking away the one right that guarantees the guv'ment doesn't infringe on the rest of them.

[Herbert Spencer]

Someone mentioned copper pipe, etc. The thief gets a couple of bucks, but how much does it cost to re-plumb a house, or put a new converter on a car?

We've gotten to the point where deviant behavior is so widespread that breaking into someone's home, or car, aren't worth a police effort unless they stumble over them accidentally. That's why one burglar may have thousands of victims and why when you actually do catch them they should be treated severely.

We need to start sending out the message that no, you're not entitled to anything you don't work for. Not food, not shelter, nothing unless you contribute positively to society in some way. We simply sent out the message that just because you can suck in air, you're entitled to have all the things in life that those who work for them have.

The entitlement mentality has gone so far that we have a presidential race in which one candidate feels she should be president simply because she's a female, and another who feels that she should back off because he's black and he's more entitled to it than she is. Dueling victimhoods as it were.

Time to tell people that you're entitled to nothing you don't earn by your own honest efforts.

There's nothing like one or two viscious gaurd dogs that'll surprise them and tear that azz up once they enter your property.

There's nothing like one or two viscious gaurd dogs that'll surprise them and tear that azz up once they enter your property.

[common sense]

Simple- the Castle Doctrine!

Yet harsher sentencing for yet more criminals... really? We really aren't overcrowded in jails and overtaxed to pay for those prisions already?

Everyone wishes for harsher punishments for an individual offense. It makes sense when considering only that one person. But when you consider the populace, it becomes obvious that Diminishing Returns hits with a vengance.

Fiscal Conservativism, folks. Every decision, you oughta think to yourself, how many *other* important things need to be done with this money? And which is *really* the most important? Fiscal Conservatism could still save the world.

the B Guy

[Herbert Spencer]

The problem with the vicious guard dogs is that you'll be sued when the little girl next door wis out playing and they jump the fence and kill her. Another problem is that the same morons who infest the Kansas Supreme Court have ruled that if you own a gun you can be held liable for almost anything. In one ruling they held a gun owner liable when a crime was committed using a gun that was stolen from him that he had locked up in one case and bullets he had locked up in another.

We're going to have to change the culture that allows these idiots to even be on a court much less inflict this kind of nonsense on the public.

The real issue is that this whole mentality needs to be addressed before they enter your house, or crawl over your fence. Right now these thugs have been told that they're entitled to all that life has to offer, and if they don't have it they think they should be able to take yours.

After all, isn't that just what the government is doing, one step removed? They're just eliminating the middle man and expediting the process.

Until you change that mentality guns and dogs will not help you that much. Indeed, they'll probably steal both and use them on some other poor schmuck.

[Herbert Spencer]

Fiscal conservatism indeed. that's why we need to have the death penalty implemented far more often and shortly after the trial is over.

You may think that's horrible, but we ask fine young men to die for our way of life everyday in Iraq. Why couldn't we have asked the Carr brothers to do something for their country earlier in their careers before they took the lives of 5 others?

The real crime is that these two parasitical products of the great Society are still being housed and fed and lawyered by the American taxpayer. They should have been dead within 30 days of the end of their trial.

If jails are overcrowded perhaps we should institute a lottery wherein the winner would be executed to make room for someone else. If there was a probability that you would lose your life for stealing, fraud, etc. YOu might think a little harder before you did it. Certainly we'd have to prove that we were serious, but once the idea took hold I think it would have an impact.

[Herbert Spencer]

Incidentally, for you pro-choice libs, if you can kill 50 million *innocent* babies as your form of welfare reform and consumer advocacy, why can't we kill off a few thousand *guilty* monsters like the Carr brothers as a means of criminal justice reform?

[blarney]

Herbert, the guns argument is solid but the dogs one I am not really in accordance with.

Guns don't go off by themselves, they dont' chase people by themselves and they kill without input. Dogs do. I hate pit's(I have shot a few of them I have seen roaming around where I live because they were loose and nobody in my neighborhood owns pits). The issue here is if you raise a dog that cannot be controlled then you are responsible for it. I have three dogs two of them are well over a hundred pounds and one is about 50lbs. They have never attacked someone outside of my yard, they don't take off and maul other peoples dogs and they are not strung out like a piano wire waiting to cut loose on something. I also know for a fact(I have seen them do it) that if someone comes into my home uninvited or when I am not home they need to give their souls to god because their asses are now owned by those dogs.

[blarney]

I would like to say that Herbert is dead on with his basic assesment of what is wrong with our criminal justice system. Criminals don't fear it this is why they don't worry about committing crimes. We reduce sentences, plea bargain, let people out due to over crowding etc.

The overcrowding is the funniest because WGARA if these people are overcrowded? They are not there to be comfortable they are there to pay a pentance for crimes they committed against our society. If you quit making prison a place to be cool, hook up with the good drugs, get on the inside for real gangs etc. and actually make it a place people don't want to be, crime just might go down in other areas also.

[KC news Hound]

Can anybody say home owners with dogs and guns!

I do actually support the reduction of legal cost to put to death violent and repeat offenders. Shocking to some who debate me, I know. Those cases and appeals cost good money, after all.

But your assumption that overcrowded jails are caused by a comfortable system is not particularly accurate. The cause is the constant increase in punishments, the ramping up of strike-policies and no-tollerance ordinances, and the complete unwillingness of politicians to say something courageous, such as... certain laws shouldn't be laws, or as harshly punished.

Becuase they are immediately painted as soft on crime.

It's so much easier to bang the chains, hurl yet more (taxpayer) money into the system, and clamp down another notch, pulling another fraction of a percentage of our adults into incarceration.

People may suggest I'd turn loose the true evils back into society's streets. I contest that their perception of evil needs to be reserved for the truly deplorable, those who have genuinely harmed another. If every situation is considered high-offense, then the term ceases to have any application, because in comparison nothing is any more heinous than anything else.

I digress... back to original point. Less money should go to courts... well, government in general. Let's hit it from both sides. Let's reduce paperwork in waxing murderers, and let's *also* have one less press conference (pre election week) with a politician claiming they know what the streets of their city are really like.

And let's really cut down the process by letting homeowners take care of bid'ness if they catch an invasion. I kinda thought they could legally, but if I understand other posts, I'm wrong about that. What are the actuall laws regarding defending your property?

the B Guy

[Mat]

Break ins are still common in my area and if you don't have a gun, dog or alarm system then you are waiting to be had.I had two breakins the first two years I lived here. I now have a ninty pound doberman and I have had no problem for the past five years.My dog is my roomate he lives inside.

[Big John]

Less money for the courts? The population of the U.S. has increased from 200M to 300M in the last 30 years. That's a 1/3 increase, so naturally there is a 1/3 increase in the prison population. However, have we built 1/3 more jails? I'm not arguing for more jails -- I agree that it should be VERY unpleasant for inmates, and it's not "cruel and unusual" if the punishment is the decision of the majority of people in this country. However, you have to adequately fund the legal system and police. If we spent half the $$$ we spent on Iraq on police, courts, and prison, we'd have a crime free society today.

[Mickey Mouse]

"There's nothing like one or two viscious gaurd dogs that'll surprise them and tear that azz up once they enter your property."

Yep, that's why I have four of them. Two outside and two inside. Rottweiler, Pittbull, Chow, and German Shepard!

Big John: in that the american treasure being spent in Iraq could be better spent, I agree.

In that we must adequately fund the legal system, which includes the judicial, I agree.

However, in that our population increase is the cause of our problems, I disagree. We now have 1 adult male in 100 in incarceration in this country. Were the funds needed only because of population increase in the US, we'd have a bigger net to the Judicial, but the same percentage ithas always been.

The *proportionately* increased costs are due exclusively to...

1) excessive cost in incarcerating long term "residents". This could be aleviated by reduction of costs to convict, reduction of costs to execute, and less ardent requirements for whom may be executed.

2) excessive numbers of persons being sent through the system. This could be aleviated by families teaching their GD kids some values, and also by ceasing to demonize every crime as political hyperbolie to be punished without mercy, and instead addressing the core facts of a situation exclusively.

the B Guy

[blarney]

"But your assumption that overcrowded jails are caused by a comfortable system is not particularly accurate. The cause is the constant increase in punishments, the ramping up of strike-policies and no-tollerance ordinances, and the complete unwillingness of politicians to say something courageous, such as... certain laws shouldn't be laws, or as harshly punished."

yea right it's the punishments not the repeat offenders. LOLOLOL!

"It's so much easier to bang the chains, hurl yet more (taxpayer) money into the system, and clamp down another notch, pulling another fraction of a percentage of our adults into incarceration."

I love it, it's not the criminals fault it's the systems. LOL!

"People may suggest I'd turn loose the true evils back into society's streets. I contest that their perception of evil needs to be reserved for the truly deplorable, those who have genuinely harmed another. If every situation is considered high-offense, then the term ceases to have any application, because in comparison nothing is any more heinous than anything else."

Sorry B, but if people fear our criminal justice system they will be less apt to committ crimes. Common sense says "hey that hurts I should not do it again". Only the most sadistic would appreciate the system and well they would be incarcerated.

"I digress... back to original point. Less money should go to courts... well, government in general. Let's hit it from both sides. Let's reduce paperwork in waxing murderers, and let's *also* have one less press conference (pre election week) with a politician claiming they know what the streets of their city are really like."

Great statement. I'm not sure of your stance though but I like the death penalty...I just think we don't use it enough.

"And let's really cut down the process by letting homeowners take care of bid'ness if they catch an invasion. I kinda thought they could legally, but if I understand other posts, I'm wrong about that. What are the actuall laws regarding defending your property?

the B Guy"

If you are in your home and someone breaks in and you are in danger you have a legal right to protect yourself by any means necessary. This is a fact. The castle law isn't in affect here so we can't pop people in our yards fleeing our yards and things like that though. I think people get confused on it.

Funny because we can also protect ourselves and others outside of our property now. It's legal to carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle now and with the $150 course you can carry one on your person. It's almost like the Mo. legislature wanted to pass a castle law but stopped short for some reason.

[blarney]

Big John, Iraq and the Prison systems are two totally different subject. The money spent on one would not be automatically shared to the other for any reason. The money for Iraq is proposed legislation for the war itself, they aren't using money already in the system they are raising this money seperately. Hence the Iraq situation is not changing the finances of our government they are taxing us for the war on it's own. Hence the war goes away and that taxation should go away and that money would not be in the governments hands. This comparison is moot because of that.

[blarney]

Last post by B guy is spot on.

re: "I love it, it's not the criminals fault it's the systems. LOL!" *blarney*

It isn't a binary issue with a single fault, else, it would be simple to forge a solution. But in that a law can be made regarding nigh anything save constitutional violations (and those are arguable), one most certanly *can* be made the victim.

Not the robber, he chose his fate.

But that kid in the news a few months back who was going to be a track star till he (age 18) got oral from a 16yo girl.

In this case, the so-called "criminal", is indeed the victim of the system.

I could wax parabolic regarding certain other laws that (thank God) have been overrulled by more rational minds in this country. Simply put, laws *ought* exactly parallel morality.

But laws simply *don't* always parallel morality.

re: "Last post by B guy is spot on."

Thank you. I had a hunch we could find some common ground if I focused on finances, we seemed to share starting points in our thinking.

the B guy

[Kevan]

I dont know why this is going away. My friend & his wifes house was broken into by a @sshole but he fell through a skylight trying to break in it...but get this...he gets arrested for attempted robbery & SUES my friends homeowners Insurance for medical expense & pain & suffering AND WON!! Im surprised more of these lazy lowlifes dont try this!

[blarney]

Here is my issue Bguy I remember the kid story. He was not some innocent kid. He and his buddies filmed underage girls giving oral to guys. Multiple laws broken there. He received the oral along with others which means laws broken there. He supplied alcohol and drugs were also present and found in the room. More laws broken.

Do I agree with these laws? No, in fact hell no but it's not the laws fault if I don't know them and therefore break them and get in trouble. That is purely my fault. Ignorance is never an excuse to break the law just like disagreeing with a law is not reason to break it. I had/have no sympathy for this kid. They got younger girls drunk and high then played sex games with them, they are nothing more than sexual predators and deserve their fate.

Now if the law's then fine this stuff wouldn't be illegal but this in no way redeems him from breaking the law.

I hate how intrusive our government is and many laws are stupid and over the top but they are still laws. We have to abide by them until they are changed, this kid deserved to be in jail.

[blarney]

I agree, I think we agree on many topics to begin with, it's just the means and whom is the cause where we differ I would say.

He and his buddies filmed underage girls giving oral to guys. Multiple laws broken there. He received the oral along with others which means laws broken there. He supplied alcohol and drugs were also present and found in the room. More laws broken."

But none of those are what he was actually incarcerated for; the worst of the lot, drugs to a minor, would be a triviality relative to the sexual offender status he was at one point going to receive. Do you really equate this kid with an actual rapist or molester? He's lewd, at worst.

"it's not the laws fault if I don't know them and therefore break them and get in trouble. That is purely my fault."

I don't think he was ignorant any of those things were criminal lol.

No, the point is not ignorance, the point is if a law has roots in validity in the fist place. If it does not, a citizen has a civic *duty* to oppose it. I mean, what's the other option? Trust that my elected officials will establish reasonable and fair rules for all? *snorts* Now that's just silly. 8)

"They got younger girls drunk and high then played sex games with them, they are nothing more than sexual predators and deserve their fate."

A girl 2 years their junior is probably superior to them in terms of mentality and maturity. Predators my patootie, you really equate them to someone who put their hands on a small child?

"Now if the law's then fine this stuff wouldn't be illegal but this in no way redeems him from breaking the law."

The extance of a law does not equate to a correlative action. Abortion is legal; but I see you rail againsed it allthefreaking time. 8P Similarly, if someone finally banned private gun ownership, *you* would be considered criminal. The law the transient creation of transient politicians.

"I hate how intrusive our government is and many laws are stupid and over the top but they are still laws. We have to abide by them until they are changed, this kid deserved to be in jail."

See above; I'm curious if you got canned for gun ownership (after a theoretical ban by leftists) if you'd still see the law as the only consideration.

the B Guy

[blarney]

"But none of those are what he was actually incarcerated for; the worst of the lot, drugs to a minor, would be a triviality relative to the sexual offender status he was at one point going to receive. Do you really equate this kid with an actual rapist or molester? He's lewd, at worst."

Yea I do. Anytime someone uses these methods to get sex from someone else this is what they are. A non-sicko pervert would try to get sex without drugging up someone.

"No, the point is not ignorance, the point is if a law has roots in validity in the fist place. If it does not, a citizen has a civic *duty* to oppose it. I mean, what's the other option? Trust that my elected officials will establish reasonable and fair rules for all? *snorts* Now that's just silly. 8)"

He can oppose it all he wants but that doesn't mean you break the law. thinking the way to change a law is to break it is silly.

"A girl 2 years their junior is probably superior to them in terms of mentality and maturity. Predators my patootie, you really equate them to someone who put their hands on a small child?"

I equate them to someone who got someone younnger than them trashed in order to get sex. I say they are sexual predators and proof is in the pudding. Do you dispute the news story about the drugs, alcohol and sex while videotaping it? If not then what other choice is there?

"The extance of a law does not equate to a correlative action. Abortion is legal; but I see you rail againsed it allthefreaking time. 8P Similarly, if someone finally banned private gun ownership, *you* would be considered criminal. The law the transient creation of transient politicians."

Uh, no you don't see me rail against it all the time. You are making that up. I say I don't approve of it but it's the law. I don't rail against it. Gun ownership is a "right" getting young girls drunk and high for sex isn't. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you could back it up.

"See above; I'm curious if you got canned for gun ownership (after a theoretical ban by leftists) if you'd still see the law as the only consideration."

See above. Gun ownership is a right plain and simple. It's not a disputable fact. It won't be banned and is considered a taboo topic for the left anymore on a national stage because they have seen how much it hurts them to try to step on our rights. You feel free to let me know when getting young girls drunk and high is a right granted upon us by our forefathers. Until then there is no argument here.

The boys should have been arrested for all those infractions but shoddy police and shoddy DA screwed it up and in turn made it a lost cause. It's as silly to compare this to guns as it is to say Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob.

[O. bin Laden]

"Maybe the muslims have something with cutting off the hands of a thief. If you want something, work for it."

Good idea and if you join us in our world struggle, we will not have to cut your heads off. I am glad to see that our so called "antique beliefs" are becoming popular in mainstream America.

Thank you for your support Herbert. May Allah bless and keep you safe.

Come on in you ignorant sombichez. Meet Mr. .357!!!

[Mickey Mouse]

"The problem with the vicious guard dogs is that you'll be sued when the little girl next door wis out playing and they jump the fence and kill her."

Not if your dogs won't jump the fense, you have your property posted "no trespassing," and if you keep your dogs inside most of the time.

[D]

Mickey Mouse,

Your first post was on the money. No pun intended. You don't hear about burglaries much anymore, but you're always hearing about ID theft and scams online.

The online scams grow quick. The FBI and most local police departments at least for larger ciries have divisions strictly for computer related crime/scams.