Why are the ram raid criminals so cocky?

In the second article in a series of three, FIRST Security’s Scott La Franchie writes that the brazen nature of recent ram raids suggest that perpetrators act with a high degree of confidence. Why is this the case, and what can retailers do about it?

?

Security is often thought of in terms of ‘risk’. The aim of security is to minimise exposure to the risks of loss, damage, disruption, and injury so that people and organisations can go about their lives and work free from the fear of these risks materialising.

A key role of the security practitioner is to identify, analyse, and assess the security risks to which their client is exposed in accordance with such standards as AS/NZS HB 167 , and to recommend (and potentially implement) a range of security controls to manage and mitigate the risks.

For their part, the client will have their own perception of the risks (which may differ from the actual risks they face; and they will also have their own risk appetite – the extent to which they are prepared to accept, or ‘wear’ certain risks. For example, a retail client might be prepared to accept the risk of theft up to a certain percentage of revenue yet at the same time not accept the risk of injury to staff due to assault.

Risk assessment ultimately boils down to a calculus of likelihood and consequence, or, in other words, the probability of the risk multiplied by the potential severity of the risk (Risk = Likelihood x Consequence). An unlikely risk of little consequence will score low in a risk assessment, whereas an almost certain risk of significant consequence will score highly and require a proportionate mitigation.

The recent spate of ram raids tells us that this type of retail theft has become a lot more frequent lately and that therefore the likelihood of a retailer falling victim to a ram raid incident is comparatively higher than previously. While the consequence of a ram raid in terms of stolen goods may be limited, the consequence in terms of the damage bill can be massive.

So, that’s the risk picture In terms of a retailer. But what if we reorientate the risk calculation entirely and see it from the perspective of the perpetrators? After all, the decision to carry out an act of vehicle-borne retail theft must itself be the result of a weighing up of the risks involved.

In the context of conducting a criminal act, the risk borne by the perpetrator is the likelihood of failure times the potential consequences of failure (e.g. walking away with nothing, gaining a criminal record, or serving a custodial sentence).

Widely regarded ‘deterrence theories’ in criminology are based on the idea that attempts to deter crime rely on an increase in either the severity of penalties or the certainty of their imposition”. According to these theories, criminals indeed make decisions based on risk, although as US National Institute of Justice research shows “the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.”

If a perpetrator considers the likelihood of failure in relation to a potential job to be high (due to strong and visible security measures, fast police response times, etc) then they might scratch it and consider an alternative plan. If the likelihood of failure is low but the potential consequences are big, the perpetrator may also consider the job too risky.

But, if a potential job is calculated as involving a low likelihood and low consequence of failure, then it’s game on.

It’s a stark equation for retailers. As the criminal justice system is solely responsible for the penalty levers that dictate the ‘consequence’ side of the equation, this leaves retailers to attempt tweaking the ‘likelihood’ side.

But such is the nature of risk that – just like anybody else – perpetrators’ thinking about risk is influenced by their perception of the risks involved and their appetite for it. Several studies have shown, for example (such as this one in relation to shoplifters), that ‘novice’ thieves have a lower appetite for risk than their ‘expert’ counterparts. Additionally, seasoned thieves tend to perceive less risk of failure due to their confidence in being able to thwart the security measures put in place by store owners.

“The determined burglar fears little and assesses the security risks as part of the job,” writes UK academic Gavin Butler in his paper Commercial burglary: what offenders say . “Thus, for some, commercial burglary is a profitable career.” The brazen nature of recent ram raids suggests that perpetrator confidence is currently soaring sky high and that they perceive their likelihood of failure to negligible.

So, what can retailers do to increase a shoplifter’s likelihood of failure? The answer lies in considering a mix of security measures that not only actually increases a perpetrator’s likelihood of failure but also convinces them of this! More on this in my next post.

If you’re interested in reading more on this topic, take a look at my previous post on this topic.

If you’re a retailer and would like to know more about how you can mitigate the risks posed by theft to your business, get in touch with FIRST Security.