Home Invasion
Robberies
By: Dr. Peter A. Barone
Home-invasion robbery involves
an entry made into a person’s home and in the states that do not have a
home-invasion robbery statute, the charge applied to the individual
categorically falls under a burglary, residential robbery, or an aggravated
robbery statute. However, upon examining the crime it is apparent that a
home-invasion robbery differs from burglary or a residential robbery in that
its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself,
specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery which is
personally taking from someone by force, a charge differentiated from mere
larceny, which would be considered to be theft alone. Few statistics are available on the crime of
home-invasion as such, due to the fact that it is not defined as a crime in its
own right in most jurisdictions.
Statistics about home-invasion robbery found on the internet are often
false or misleading alike. Many times,
these types of crimes are captured in the category of burglary which is an
inaccurate depiction of the criminal actions being perpetrated by these
offenders. This inaccurate reporting
contributes to the inability of accurately obtaining the actual number of
home-invasion robberies that have taken place and allows for the escape of
critical demographic and operational information necessary for assessment and
analysis of this criminal activity.
Home Invasion Robbery in the State of
Florida
In
2003, the state legislators in Florida saw that the crime of invading the home
of a person, then confronting them in their own home and subsequently robbing
them as being so egregious that these actions warranted concentration towards
such an accentuated crime and that this type of crime carried a greater penalty
for its’ commission than just a burglary (Florida
House of Representatives HB 483 Session, 2003). Not all states have
followed suit notwithstanding the insulting and violating nature of this
criminal act and the total disregard for the sanctity of one’s home and terror
visited upon the victims of being threatened, attacked and robbed within the
sanctuary of their own homes.
Home-Invasion Robbery in the State of Florida,
F.S. 812.135. In
the State of Florida, if a person is charged with a burglary, they are facing a
second degree felony which is punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years in
state prison. If a person is charged with a strong armed robbery, without a
weapon, they are facing a second degree felony which is punishable by a maximum
penalty of 15 years in state prison. In the State of Florida, if a person
commits a home-invasion robbery they are charged with a First Degree Felony and
a level 8 which results in points on their score sheet and is greater than the
burglary or robbery if committed as separate crimes. In the State of Florida if
the person commits a home-invasion robbery and is either armed or arms
themselves during the robbery they can be sentenced to life in prison (F.S.
812.135).
Home-Invasion
Robbery in the State of Illinois. In the State of Illinois, the
legislature also decided that the act of burglarizing and then robbing the
individuals who were home at the time should be considered to be more egregious
an act than robbing someone on the street where a person does not have that
same sense and feeling of safety and security provided by being within the four
walls of their residence. Illinois also established that a home -invasion was
more of a traumatic event than a burglary as an offender proceeds to enter an
unoccupied residence to pilferage a person’s belongings without the propensity
for a person to person confrontation (720 ILCS 5/12-11) (from Ch. 38, par.
12-11).
Illinois’s
Home-Invasion Robbery Statute 720 ILCS 5/12-11. In the State of
Illinois, the legislature has also created a home-invasion statute that
provides for more serious penalties for an individual who commits and is
convicted of perpetrating a home-invasion robbery. In fact, similar to the
State of Florida, the State of Illinois has also provided for more enhanced
penalties for the commission of violent acts, being armed, or arming yourself
during the commission of a home-invasion robbery (720 ILCS 5/12-11).
In
the State of Illinois, if a person is charged with and convicted with the crime
of home-invasion robbery they can be sentenced to state prison for a term of 30
– 60 years. If it is proven that during the commission of the home-invasion
robbery the person was armed, with a firearm, and used the firearm or they
threaten to use force on any of the occupants of the residence, the perpetrator
is subject to an additional 15 years that can be added onto the sentence by the
sentencing judge. If the perpetrator used or threatened the imminent use of
force to anyone in the residence instead of the 15 years being added onto the
30 – 60 years another 20 years can be added onto the sentence. (730 ILCS
5/5-8-1(a)(3)). The State of Illinois goes even further and states that if the
perpetrators during the commission of an home-invasion robbery are armed with a
firearm and during the home-invasion robbery, personally discharges a firearm
that proximately causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or
disfigurement, or death to another person in the dwelling the person will have
25 years to life added onto the original 30-60 years in state prison (McCarthy,
2008).
In
fact, the State of Illinois deems a home-invasion robbery to be such a serious
offense that it has classified it as a Class X Felony along with such crimes as
Aggravated Kidnapping, Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault, and Aggravated
Vehicular Hijacking. In the State of Illinois, a Class X felony is, short of first degree
murder, the most serious felony offense on the books in Illinois. Upon a finding
of guilt, the court cannot sentence the defendant to probation. The offense has
a mandatory minimum sentence of 6-30 years in the Department of Corrections.
Even a first-time offender who has no criminal background is subject to a
mandatory prison sentence. It is not a matter of the judge’s discretion in
sentencing (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3)). In
addition to the aforementioned, in the State of Illinois a person charged and
convicted of a class X felony does not have
probation as an option under Illinois law for a Class X felony offense
(730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(2)(C)).
Applicable
Theories of Crime
People learn behavior via observation, acting out
the behavior, and then being rewarded by successfully accomplishing the
reenactment of the behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001). When learned behavior
is positively reinforced, whether it is socially acceptable or unacceptable, it
is something that will continue until the individual feels it is no longer a
benefit to them or it stops being reinforced by those around them who value
their recognition. The more value a person places on the approval of their
actions the more solidified the learning becomes and the stronger the desire
and need becomes to perform that learned behavior. Learning theories tend to
follow the lead of Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association,
developed in 1947, although ideas about imitation or modeling go back to
1890. Often oversimplified as "peer group" theories, learning
is much more than that, and involves the analysis of what is positively and
negatively rewarding (reinforcing) for individuals (Williams & McShane,
1998).
Differential
Association Theory
When
examining Edwin H. Sutherland's theory of Differential Association it
becomes evident that it can be
categorized as a learning theory. The basic premise of this theory is that
criminal behavior is acquired through the learning process, just as is lawful
behavior. The theory demonstrates that the socialization process is essentially
the same, regardless of whether the messages being transmitted are conventional
or deviant. It is through the interaction with others that people learn
attitudes which are both favorable and unfavorable as relates to the violation
of laws. Sutherland claims that a person turns to criminal behavior when there
is an excess of attitudes and values favoring law violation as opposed to
adherence to the law (Sutherland, 1947).
In
theory, and as a learning theory, Differential Association is one of the most
logical explanations of criminal behavior. When using differential association
to explain criminal behavior the researcher must look at criminal behavior
after it has taken place with the goal of reconstructing the reality of the
criminal's world (Lilly, Cullen &
Ball, 1995). The actions demonstrated by the majority of the individuals involved
in home-invasion robberies from both cities are directly in line with what
Sutherland’s belief that criminal behavior developed from associating
with those individuals who commit crimes and that commission of crimes was more likely to result from learned
behaviors. Motivations and technical knowledge, according to Sutherland, were
likely to be learned from those who commit crimes.
The principle of
Differential Association asserts that a person becomes delinquent because they
are constantly exposed to a surplus of definitions favorable to violation(s) of
law over definitions unfavorable to the violation(s) of law. In other words,
criminal behavior emerges when a person is exposed to more social messages from
those around them favoring conduct that is anti-social rather than pro-social
(Sutherland, 1947). According to Tittle (1986, p. 429), "despite some
important anomalies, our findings support the major theme of Sutherland's
thinking. Association with criminal definitions does seem to be a generator of crime,
and it appears to exercise its influence indirectly through its effects on a
learned symbolic construct-motivation to engage in criminal behavior."
The learning
process posited in Differential Association involves the same mechanisms
whether a person is learning criminal behavior or learning conformity to social
norms and laws. The data collected from both law enforcement agencies
demonstrate that the majority of the home-invasion robberies were committed by
more than two perpetrators. These groups can provide the social messages from
those around them favoring conduct that is anti-social rather than pro-social
as discussed by Sutherland (1947) in his explanation of the foundational tenet
in Differential Association.
Perpetrators of
home-invasion robberies commit these crimes and there exists a very good
possibility that they are aware that these are considered to be very serious
offenses with very serious consequences attached to them if they are caught,
prosecuted and convicted. However, the value they place on committing these
acts with their peers outweighs the rational thought process or decision making
process that someone about to engage in any activity with a gain and loss ratio
would see as very costly and reconsider engaging in, once the situation was
evaluated. The more often these activities are performed, the more times a
benefit is gained, and the more acceptance by the group and peers, the more
reinforced the learned behavior is solidified as being acceptable
notwithstanding the critically devastating consequences. This was supported in
as far back as 1968 in a study by Matthews.
In 1968, Victor Matthews conducted a study among a group of high school students (boys) in the mid-west. He utilized two instruments, a personal data sheet and a delinquency scale similar to the one used by Short. The emphasis was on the degree of delinquent involvement by an individual as compared to that of his peers. Matthews found that uniformity in behavior was greatest between best friends. He concluded that the greater the degree of identification between individuals, the greater will be the degree of uniformity of their self-reported behaviors. Again, the theory of Differential Association was supported (Mathews, 1968). The data from the Chicago and Miami-Dade Police Departments home-invasion robbery reports appear to support the gender and age findings provided by the theory.
Social Learning Theory
Social learning
theory (Bandura, 1963, 2011), Rotter (1982, 1990), and Differential Association
created by Sutherland (1947) were created and geared toward the explanation of
the commission of crimes by youth which supports what is posited by Blumstein,
Cohen, Roth, and Visher (1986) and Baker (1998). These theorists advised that males are more
likely to commit crime than females and this is especially true when discussing
serious crimes. These authors also advised that the commission of crimes is
pre-eminently a preoccupation of the young, whether male or female, which is
also borne out by the findings of the two studies conducted for this research
from both law enforcement agencies.
Hirschi (1969)
advised that crime is overwhelmingly committed by people in the age range 15-24
and with this information we would expect crime to increase with the number of
people in this population age range. Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, and Visher (1986)
and Baker (1998) also advised that financial gain is a strong driving force
behind the commission of the home-invasion robberies. The studies show that the
perpetration of home-invasion robberies, are committed by males in groups on
Friday nights between midnight and 5:00 AM with the motive being financial and
the age of the males being 20 to 33 years.
In addition to
all of the aforementioned information being borne out by data from both police
agencies, there is another issue that needs to be discussed which relates to
the possible understanding of why the individuals who perpetrate these
home-invasion robberies still perform these actions with the existence of such
severe penalties for the crime of home-invasion and for the lesser included
crimes. An issue that is relevant in the attempt to understand the actions of
the perpetrators of the home-invasion robberies examined in this paper involves
the brain and its physiology.
Lack of
Deterrence in the Face of Severe Punishment
This
action directly in contradiction to the existing consequences are vividly
addressed in the writings of Fletcher (1978) where he echoes the extremely
well-recognized and accepted ideas of the diverse rationale regarding
punishment falling into two valid classifications pertaining to the
justification of criminal sanctions. In
the predicted consequences of condemning the particular defendant as a criminal
and depriving him or her of their liberty, the rationale of both general and
specific deterrence is applicable. He further addresses the concepts of general
deterrence being the punishment visited upon a specific defendant serving as a
deterrence of those observing to be influenced to not commit such crimes and
specific deterrence which has its’ value in the desire to prevent the specific
individual being charged, convicted and sentenced to not be of the mind to
commit these types of crimes in the future. In his writings, Fletcher (1978 p.
414) astutely posits that “All of these predicted goods are highly
speculative.” As he is referring to the issue of attempting to predict what
amount of punishment will be sufficient to deter a person that is highly
determined on committing such an egregious act against a fellow member of
society.
The
results of the assessment of the data collected in these studies supports the
discussion and conclusions of Fletcher (1978) and presents a need for the
assessment and classification of these perpetrators into typologies of offenders
for a better understanding and more feasible method of dealing with these types
of perpetrators by those commissioned to investigate, arrest, charge, try, and
sentence these perpetrators of home-invasion robberies. There is also a need
for a theoretical explanation of such contraindicated behavior(s) when elements
of sentencing for the additional actions of violence, threats, arming with a
firearm and discharging of firearms during the commission of home-invasion
robberies subsist. Any of these charges could also be used in a plea bargain
between the state and the defense.
Lesser Included
Charges for Home-Invasion Robberies
Lesser
Included Charges in the State of Florida
In the State of
Florida, the crimes listed below would be applicable if the person had a weapon
and if someone was threatened or actually struck with or without the weapon.
The category one charges must be listed on the verdict form, and the category
two offenses are discussed and then can be agreed upon by the prosecution and
the defense. All of the charges for the lesser have to be approved by the trial
judge (Beckstrum, 2012).
Lesser
Included Offenses in Florida
Table 1
HOME-INVASION
ROBBERY — 812.135
|
|||
CATEGORY
ONE
|
CATEGORY
TWO
|
FLA.
STAT.
|
INS.
NO.
|
Robbery with a weapon
|
812.13(2)(b)
|
||
Robbery
|
812.13(2)(c)
|
15.1
|
|
Burglary
|
810.02(4)
|
13.1
|
|
Aggravated battery
|
784.045
|
8.4
|
|
Battery
|
784.03
|
8.3
|
|
Aggravated assault
|
784.021
|
8.2
|
|
Assault
|
784.011
|
8.1
|
|
Attempt
|
777.04(1)
|
5.1
|
|
Burglary
|
810.02(3)
|
13.1
|
|
Trespass
|
810.08
|
13.3
|
|
Petit theft
|
812.014(3)(a)
|
14.1
|
|
Petit theft
|
812.014(2)(e)
|
14.1
|
|
Lesser Included Charges in Illinois
In Illinois,
courts have identified three possible methods for determining whether a certain
offense is a lesser included offense of another: (1) the "charging
instruments" approach; (2) the "abstract elements" approach; and
(3) the "factual" or "evidence" adduced at trial approach (People v. Novak, 1994). In People v. Miller (2010), the Supreme
Court of Illinois held that “the abstract elements approach governs whether a charged offense is a lesser
included offense of another charged offense”
(Miller, 2010 p.166). Under the
abstract elements approach, if all the elements of one offense are included in
a second offense and the first offense contains no element not included in the
second offense, the first offense is a lesser included offense of the second (Miller, 2010 p. 166). This test,
while easy to apply, is more rigid than the charging instrument approach and it
basically advises that it must be impossible to commit the greater offense
without necessarily committing the lesser offense (People v. Novak, 2010 at 106; People v. Nunez 2010). In Illinois,
when a defendant perpetrates a home-invasion robbery the lesser included crimes
would be burglary, robbery or petit theft which are similar to the lesser
included crimes in the State of Florida.
The lesser included crimes for home-invasion robbery in both states are
serious offenses and carry serious sentences, except for the petit theft
charges, and notwithstanding the sentences for these offenses the crimes are
still committed.
The Neurological Perspective of Home
Invaders Behaviors
In
studies conducted by Bjork, Smith, Danube, and Hommer (2007) and Nelson, McClure, Monk, Leibenluft, and Pine (2000),
proved that by
employing brain imaging technology, adolescents have a heightened propensity
for risk-taking and poor decision-making correlates with immature cortical
brain function, juvenile offending is less blameworthy by virtue of having some
type of a biological basis to it. In addition, it is also asserted upon that
young teens are neurologically and emotionally hard-wired for seeking out
sensation-seeking, impulsive activity. In addition, juveniles and young adults
can also demonstrate very poor foresight, bad judgment, and a failure to
control their action(s) which can result in a skewed, non-realistic,
self-serving and instantaneous gratification, decision-making thought process.
This could result in the dismissal of the severe sentencing sanctions which are
connected to the conviction for perpetrating a home-invasion robbery and the
use of a firearm or implementation of force on the victims during the
perpetration of this crime.
The Brain and
Physiology
Differences in
cognition, behavior, and emotions between children, adolescents, and adults
have been noted as being in existence for millennia. The temporal lobes,
amygdala, and hippocampus sub-serve emotion, language, and memory, and these
are in control of functions that change markedly between the ages of 4 and 18
years (Jerslid, 1963; Wechsler, 1974; Diener et al., 1985). Scientific research
has demonstrated that the full development of the brain does not manifest until
the age of 25.
When aligning
this information with the data collected from both law enforcement agencies
used for this research it is feasible that the aforementioned factors can
assist in the explaining of the actions of the perpetrators of home-invasion
robberies from both states. This is especially true in relation to the age and
number of defendants, the possession and use of weapons to include firearms,
and the aggressiveness demonstrated by the perpetrators of these crimes. All of
these physiological factors appear to be in conformity with and would assist in
explaining the reasons why the individuals perpetrating these crimes would take
the chances they do, knowing the penalties they are facing if arrested and
convicted.
In addition, the
violent acts of kicking in the front door, possessing a firearm and then
discharging that firearm, at and upon the victims of home-invasion robberies,
when facing these same stiff penalties would be additionally explained via a
physiological approach and perspective. In addition to physiological aspects of
the brain there is the issue involving responses by individuals involving
pattern recognition. Gobet and Simon (1996) concluded that chess skill, for
world-class players at least, does not deteriorate much when thinking time is
substantially reduced. Advocates of this fairly extreme view have proposed that
“recognition, by allowing knowledge to be accessed rapidly, allows the slower
look-ahead search to be greatly abridged or even dispensed with entirely
without much loss in quality of play” (Gobet & Simon, 1996 p. 53).
Pattern Recognition
Traditionally,
scientists have treated patternicity as an error in a person’s cognition
(Shermer, 2008). Scientists describe different types of errors such as a type I
error, or a false positive which is described as believing something is real
when it is not, which is like finding a nonexistent pattern. Scientists
describe a type II error, or what is called a false negative, as actually not
believing something is real when it is recognizing a real pattern; this is
referred to as a phenomenon entitled “apatternicity”. In Shermer’s book How We Believe (Times Books,
2000), he posits that our brains are actual belief engines and they evolve to
be pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of
the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes when we see A, the
letter A is really connected to the letter B; however, sometimes this is not
the actual case. When it is, the person may have learned something valuable
regarding the environment and the experience from which they can make
predictions that aid in both survival and reproduction. We are the ancestors of
those people who were most successful at finding patterns with this process
being called association learning. Scientists posit that this is also
fundamental to all animal behavior which ranges from the little earth worm to Homosapiens.
It
can be argued
that what is happening here is called pattern recognition which is discussed
by Bishop (1995). When examining the activities of individuals, it is
understood that people are classifier systems that process and store patterns
of concepts and experiences they encounter for future recognition of these
patterns and things previously observed and processed (Rosenberg, 2005). The
pattern recognition process is one of the distinguishing features of neural
network (NN) systems that people use to classify patterns in life. This process
is accomplished in an interesting fashion in that rather than being cued by
theory or explanatory goals, NNs are cued by what are called stereotypical
training sets. In effect, in order to see patterns, you need to have prior
patterns to train your NN (Bishop. 1995).
The issue here
is that if the individual’s brain, or if the NN recognizes a pattern, or
believes it recognizes it and applies that pattern to what the person is experiencing,
then the brain can be convinced that certain actions or responses are
warranted; however, it may not actually be the proper response to what is
actually transpiring at the time. Furthermore, the pattern recognition process
could also explain why the perpetrators of these home invasion robberies take
the aggressive and violent actions notwithstanding the severe sanctions they
are facing. Combining all of these factors and theories together can provide a
feasible explanation for the criminal actions involved in home-invasion
robberies. This does not however relieve the perpetrators of responsibilities;
but it could provide an understanding of the perpetrators’ actions especially
if all of the perpetrators who are acting together happen to have similar
experiences in regards to their subjective neural networks.
References
"A
Review of State Home Invasion Laws in the U.S.". Home invasion news. (July,
2011). Retrieved from, http://www.homeinvasionnews.com/a-review-of-home-invasion-laws-in-the-u-s/.
Baker, J. 1998, Juveniles in
crime - Part 1: Participation rates and risk factors, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research,
Sydney.
Bandura, A.
(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H.
Freeman.Bandura, A. (1986). Social
Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social
foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beckstrom, G.,
(2012). Florida Criminal Jury Instruction Handbook, 2012 – 2013 Edition. Lexis
Nexis.
Bishop, Christopher M. 1995. Neural networks for pattern
recognition. Oxford, New York: Clarendon
Press; Oxford University Press.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A.
& Visher, C.A. 1986, ‘Criminal Careers and
Career
Criminals,’ vol. 1, National Academy Press, p. 40.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Larsen, R.F.,
1985. Age and sex effects for affect intensity. Developmental Psychology 21,
542–546.
Fletcher, G. (1778). Rethinking
criminal law. Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company.
Florida
House of Representatives HB 483 Session. (2003). Retrieved from,
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=10067
Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996).
The roles of recognition processes and look-ahead search in time-constrained
expert problem solving: Evidence from grand-master-level chess. Psychological
Science, 7, 52–55.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency,
University of California Press, California.
Hunter, N., & Marshall, J. (2000). Robbery
in a dwelling or home invasion? Analysis of 1998 police incident reports.
Office of Crime Statistics for South Australia. Retrieved from, http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB12.pdf.
Hutton, E. (2012). Investigating the
criminality of home-invasion robbery: Establishing baseline offender
typologies. Capella University.
Illinois Complied Statutes (720 ILCS
5/12-11) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-11) Retrieved from,
http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/12-11.html.
Jernigan, T.L., Tallal, P. (1990). Late
childhood changes in brain morphology observable with MRI. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology 32, 379–385.
Lilly, J., Cullen, F., & .Ball, R (1995). Criminological theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matthews,
V. (1968). Differential identification: An empirical note, Social Problems, 1, 383.
Matsueda, R. L,
(1988). The current state of differential
association theory. Crime and Delinquency, Sage Publication
McCarthy, K.E.
(2008). Research report: Burglary;
Felonies; Legislation; Sentencing; Persistent Offenders; Trespassing. Retrieved
from, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0088.htm
Illinois
Complied Statutes 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(2)(C) (2013).
Illinois
Complied Statutes 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3) (2013).
People v. Miller, 238 Ill. 2d
161 (2010),
People v. Nunez, 236 Ill. 2d
488 (2010).
People v. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d 93
(1994).
Rosenberg,
A. (2005). Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. (2nd
ed.), Routledge contemporary introductions to philosophy. New York; London:
Routledge.
Rotter, J. B.
(1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psychologist,
45, 489-493.
Rotter, J. B.
(1982). The development and applications
of social learning theory. New York: Praeger.
Shermer, M. B., (2008). Patternicity:
Finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise why the brain believes
something is real when it is not. Scientific
American Magazine, November Issue, Retrieved from, http://jotamac.typepad.com/files/patternicity_-finding-meaningful-patterns-in-meaningless-noise_-scientific-american.pdf
Shermer, M. B., (2000). How we believe. The search for God in an age
of science. New York, NY: Times
Books.
Sutherland, E. H., (1947). Principles of criminology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.
Voss,
H.L. (1968). Differential association and reported delinquent behavior: A replication,
Social Problems, 964, p. 85, col. 2.
63 20
Williams, F. & McShane, M. (1998). Criminological theory. Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson.
Wechsler, D., 1974. Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised.The Psychological Corporation, New
York.
