Solving Residential Burglaries in the United States: The Impact of Forensic Evidence on Case Outcomes
| DOI | 10.1350/ijps.2011.13.1.224 |
| Published date | 01 March 2011 |
| Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Solving residential burglaries in the United
States: the impact of forensic evidence on
case outcomes
Deborah Baskin‡and Ira Sommers†
‡(Corresponding author) California State University, School of Criminal Justice and
Criminalistics, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032. Tel: 011 323 806 6562;
email: drdeborahbaskin@gmail.com
†California State University, School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics, 5151 State
University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032.
Submitted 28 August 2010; revision submitted 7 December 2010;
accepted 7 January 2011
Keywords: burglary, forensic evidence, arrest, prosecution
Deborah Baskin
received her doctorate in
sociology in 1984 from the University of Pennsyl-
vania. For eleven years, she was the Director of
the School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics
at California State University, Los Angeles, and
currently is a professor in this School. She has
published on a variety of topics, including female
offending, substance abuse and violence, foren-
sic mental health, and community mediation.
Ira Sommers
received his doctorate in social
work in 1983 from the University of Pennsylvania.
He was a NIMH post-doctoral research fellow at
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst,
Department of Sociology. Currently, he is a pro-
fessor in the School of Criminal Justice and
Criminalistics at California State University, Los
Angeles. Over the course of his academic career,
he has published research on a wide range of
topics, including female offending, substance
abuse and violence, forensic mental health, and
domestic violence.
A
BSTRACT
Despite recent developments and the growth of
forensic science services in the United States, little
published research exists on the impact of forensic
evidence on criminal case outcomes. The present
study focused on the influence of forensic evidence
on the case processing of residential burglary
incidents in the United States. The study utilised
a prospective analysis of official record data that
followed cases in five jurisdictions from the time
of police incident report to final criminal disposi-
tion. The study results showed that most resi-
dential burglaries went unsolved. Only 8.2 per
cent of the 1,263 burglary incidents resulted in
arrest and only 3.2 per cent of all incidents had a
conviction. Cases were more likely to have arrests
and referrals to the district attorney when wit-
nesses and victims provided information to the
police and forensic evidence was collected at crime
scenes. The only significant predictor of case
charges was witness reports. Forensic evidence
variables did not influence case charges or convic-
tions significantly. The study results suggest that
forensic evidence was auxiliary and non-
determinative for residential burglary incidents.
Research for this article was supported through
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) research grant
# 2006-DN-BX-0094. Points of view ex-
pressed in this article are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the views of the
NIJ.
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
Vol. 13 No. 1, 2011, pp. 70–86.
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2011.13.1.224
Page 70
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 13 Number 1
The authors wish to acknowledge the partici-
pation of Joseph Peterson and Donald Johnson
on the NIJ project.
INTRODUCTION
Burglary is one of the most pervasive yet
least solved crimes. In 2008, there were
approximately 2.2 million reported burg-
laries in the United States but only 12.5 per
cent were cleared by arrest (Federal Bureau
of Investigation [FBI], 2009). There are
some who suggest that scientific techno-
logy, especially DNA analysis, will trans-
form the criminal investigation and
adjudication of burglary, increasing the
chances of identifying and convicting
offenders (Roman et al., 2008). However,
despite significant scientific advancements,
as well as a sizeable growth of forensic
services (Durose, 2008), little published
research exists on the actual utility of foren-
sic evidence for the processing of burglary
cases. Therefore, the intrinsic value of
forensic evidence for improving case out-
comes remains an assumption that needs to
be assessed (Pratt, Gaffney, Lovrich, &
Johnson, 2006).
To date, research on the processing of
burglary incidents has focused mainly on
the characteristics of burglary targets or
offenders (Bernasco, 2007; Bernasco &
Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Clare, Fernandez, &
Morgan, 2009; Clare & Ferrante, 2007;
Cromwell, Olson, & Avary, 1993; Farring-
ton & Lambert, 1994; Mawby, 2001;
Shover, 1991; Wright & Decker, 1994).
Using geographic offender profiling
(Rossmo, 2000), research has demonstrated
that residential burglars tend to offend in
neighbourhoods in close proximity to their
own residences, in areas in which their
routine activities take place, and/or along
travel lines they use routinely (Bernasco;
Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta; Clare et al.;
Clare & Ferrante).
Other research indicated that burglars
tended to be persistent offenders (Blumstein
& Cohen, 1987; Petersilia, Greenwood, &
Lavin, 1978) each of whom may have com-
mitted upwards of 100 burglaries a year
(Chaiken & Chaiken, 1982; Chaiken &
Rolph & Chaiken, 1984). Thus, the attri-
tion of burglary cases as they move from
commission to conviction is of grave con-
cern (Webb, Smith, Brock, & Townsley,
2005; Williams, 2004). However, much
hope has been pinned on the use of forensic
evidence to bring these cases to a successful
conclusion. The current study explores
whether this optimism is warranted and
provides a detailed examination of the
impact of forensic evidence on the process-
ing of residential burglary cases in five
jurisdictions within the United States.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Forensic evidence and burglary case
outcomes
Despite the lure of forensic evidence across
many domains of society and the criminal
justice system, very little published research
assesses its impact across the various stages
of the criminal justice process. Unfortu-
nately, of the research that is available,
forensic evidence was found to have only a
minimal impact on case outcomes. For
instance, Parker observed that in only 1 per
cent of all crimes was scientific evidence
used despite being present in almost 90 per
cent of cases (Parker & Peterson, 1972).
Similarly, a Rand Corporation study
showed that forensic evidence played an
insignificant role in criminal cases, and
again, notwithstanding its availability in the
majority of cases (Greenwood, Chaiken,
Petersilia, & Prusoff, 1975). Feeney, Dill,
and Weir (1983) determined that non-
scientific evidence, specifically eyewitness
identification of the suspect, best predicted
conviction. Results regarding the negligible
Baskin and Sommers
Page 71
To continue reading
Request your trial