TY - JOUR
AU - Mercan, Boran, Ali
AB - Abstract Much of criminology has recently tended to replace the sociological concept of professional criminal or ‘good thief’ by the psychological concept of ‘expertise’ that draws attention to the cognitive processing of individualized offenders who automatically become aware of burglary-related cues. Setting out the experiences of a group of ex-offenders in the capital of Turkey, this article proposes the dispositional theory of action in understanding the modus operandi of burglary and further argues that professional burglary is a collective form of action made possible by the combination of bodily and mental dispositions capitalized within an internal organization of burglary. This article not only reveals the intrinsic operational logic of burglary in a non-Western context but also takes the first step in arousing scholarly interest to study the modus operandi of professional burglary specifically in Turkey. Introduction The news media regularly reports on the professionality of certain kinds of criminals and in such circumstances tends to reflect on the subtlety and dexterity of offenders in the commission of crime. In recent years, the Hatton Garden jewellery heist has been a notable example of professional burglary in Britain. Here, four older and experienced offenders planned and executed a burglary with skill and meticulous detail. The process included a number of steps: neutralizing an alarm system, disabling a lift in order to clamber down to a safe-deposit vault in the basement, drilling through a vault wall a full half metre thick, and finally taking a haul of gold, cash and 73 safe-deposit boxes containing jewellery (The Guardian, 15 January 2016). More than 40 years ago, Shover accounted for the characteristics of a good burglar and the modus operandi of professional burglary respectively in two groundbreaking articles. In the first article ‘Structures and Careers in Burglary’ (1972), inspired by Sutherland’s (1937) The Professional Thief, Shover defined good burglars as being technically competent, holding a reputation for personal integrity, specialized in burglary and having a certain degree of success determined by the amount of money stolen and the time done in prison (Shover 1972: 541). In picking up right participants for prison interviews, Shover (1972: 542) operationalized a good burglar as someone making big scores, entering a place by cutting a hole in the roof or wall and safecracking by the methods of drilling or burning. In this typology, the technical competency apparently took hold of the primary concern in operationalizing the construct of a good burglar. A year later in another article ‘The Social Organization of Burglary’ (1973), Shover this time demonstrated how the technical competency is put to work and that a successful burglary relies on a collective action by an internal and external cooperation if it is to be practiced professionally. The internal organization has to do with the division of labour within burglary crews and underlies how the crew operates while pulling off the scores, whereas the external organization refers to the interaction between burglars and a wider milieu with which they have to interact for receiving ‘tips’, fencing stolen goods and securing legal protection (Shover 1973: 501). In this line, much of criminology attempted to define burglars with regard to their level of technical competency. Many typologies were produced: the ‘organised offender’ (Irwin 1970), ‘roundman’ (Letkemann 1973), ‘able criminal’ (Mack 1975), ‘high-level’ (Maguire and Bennett 1982), ‘searcher’ (Bennett and Wright 1984) and ‘suburban burglar’ (Rengert and Wasilchick 2000). Although much of criminology has shifted from sociology of crime as work to cognitive psychology of crime as rational choice (Clarke and Cornish 1985), this has not prevented criminologists from studying professional burglary despite under different terminologies: The concept of ‘good thief’ (Shover 1973) has tended to be replaced by the term ‘expert’ (Nee 2015). Psychological studies have explored ‘expertise’ and ‘skilled offenders’ from the quasi-experimental analyses on the cognitive processing of offenders, by focusing on the phases of casing, targeting, breaking and entering, search and departure (Nee and Taylor 1988; Logie et al. 1992; Wright et al. 1995; Nee and Meenaghan 2006; Nee and Ward 2015). The Western criminology has been systematically studying the phenomenon of professional burglary for many decades, but the Turkish criminology has not properly paid attention to the subject yet. However, professional crime is a longstanding phenomenon, and professional forms of burglary are quite widespread in Turkey, too. Some recent examples would be illustrative: A mainstream newspaper report under the headline ‘Burglary Tours with Ladder, Break in 80 Houses in 9 Provinces [Merdivenle Hırsızlık Turu, 9 İlde 80 Eve Girdi]’ tells the story that a burglar breaks in houses by the help of a ladder he carries to climb up the first floors of the apartment blocks (Hürriyet Ankara, 31 December 2017). Also numerous daily reports cover the incidents of burglary crews and the police operations that reveal how organized the crews are in housebreaking: ‘Butterfly Operation on Burglary Crew [Hırsızlık Çetesine Kelebek Operasyonu]’ (Hürriyet Ankara, 28 December 2017) and ‘Eight Arrests in Goose Operation, They Break in by Breaking the [Window] Bars [Kaz Operasyonunda Sekiz Tutuklama, Demirleri Kırıp Girdiler]’ (Hürriyet Ankara, 25 April 2018). The successive police crackdowns demonstrate that burglary crews operate according to a certain division of labour and employ various methods in breaking and entering. Some time ago, a currently closed, pro-Islamist conservative newspaper published a particularly detailed story on the life of professional criminals. The story revealed the ‘Professional secrets of burglars! [Ev hırsızlarından meslek sırları!]’: Burglars always case a property before breaking and entering: throwing a ball at windows, checking the mail box and the footwear in front of the door, and pressing the bell are just a few of their techniques. They carry tools such as screw-drivers, stiff plastic cards (to force latch-type locks), crowbars, and adjustable spanners to open steel doors. Meanwhile, a plaster is taped over the security peephole of the opposite neighbour’s door. The lock mechanism, having been dismantled before entering, is replaced and then locked once the burglars are inside. Moreover, the interviewees reveal that the professional burglary is carried out by two to three individuals; one is always left as a lookout. Once entering, burglars move directly to the bedroom before ransacking the whole house. (Zaman, 11 August 2013; my translation) However, although there are countless journalistic information on burglary, there is a lack of social research to examine the modus operandi of burglary in Turkey. How do burglars organize the division of labour? What techniques do they make use of? How do they select the target? What cues do they pay attention to in the target-selection process? Is there any similarity with the findings of Western burglary studies, or can one mention a specificity of the Turkish case? If so, what are these? This article sets out to respond to such questions by examining the internal organization of a desisted burglary crew (1998–2003) through life stories and in-depth interviews in Ankara, the capital of Turkey. In doing so, the article focuses on the crew’s technique of burglary called askı [hanging] in the Turkish criminal subculture and analytically maps out their organization of everyday life, preparation, selection of neighbourhood and flat, division of labour, and the entering, breaking and departure phases of their burgling activities. However, in contrast to the recent experimental-cognitive analysis of expertise, the modus operandi of professional burglary will be constructed within the frame of dispositional theory of action (Bourdieu 1977; 1990; Wacquant 2016). The logic behind the dispositional examination rests on the observation that a successful internal organization of burglary is not only something embedded in the habitual, gratuitous and everyday life practices of a group of offenders but also carried out in putting collective criminal capital to work. Thus, this article intends to make three contributions to the literature of burglary: First, a professional form of burglary does not have to necessarily include a rational deliberation in deciding moves and actions at the scene of crime; instead, much of practice thrives unconsciously and as part of everyday life habits. Second, a successful burglary needs a cooperation and coordination as the literature emphasizes but also it requires a collective configuration of different skills performed by each member of the crew. Finally, the findings of this article not only reveal the operational logic of burglary in a non-Western context but also take the first step in arousing scholarly interest to study the modus operandi of professional burglary specifically in Turkey. In what follows, the importance of the dispositional theory of action will be explained in relation to the cognitive psychology’s approach to the mental script of offenders, then the method and sampling clarified and finally data analysed. Dispositional Theory of Burglary Burglars are often argued to display a bounded rationality in criminal decision-making as the researchers charted out the patterns in which offenders attend to some cues and prioritize some of them in offending (Cromwell et al. 1991; Shover and Honaker 1992; Tunnell 1992; Wright and Decker 1994). The recent cognitive psychological studies have claimed that continuous performances of burglary produce technical expertise, depending on the formation of long-term schemata that generate competence and skills in target selection, entry and crime commission (Clare 2011). Expert offenders decide to offend within a cognitive script by which to pre-consciously scan and interpret the environmental offence-related cues and act automatically, ensuing from the swift cognitive evaluation process (Nee and Ward 2015). For instance, offenders tend to act rationally with a certain deliberation in the target-selection process and are able to find cues that precipitate whether to decide break in or not. In this regard, expertise in crime is no way different from any expertise in any other legitimate fields (Nee and Meenaghan 2006; Nee 2015). The cognitive approach doubtlessly makes a significant contribution to the literature because situational crime prevention strategies depart from the results of cognitive psychological experiments that focus on much of rational aspects of offenders’ decisions in casing and target selecting (Brantingham and Brantingham 1993; 2004; Bernasco and Nieuwbeerta 2005; Clare 2011; Nee et al. 2015). Nee and Ward, however, state that ‘the act of offending seems strongly governed by habitual, gratuitous and largely unconscious decision-making’ (2015: 5). Stressing the unconscious nature of offending practice, this declaration of cognitive psychologists refers us back to the role of social practices, unconsciously mediated between the conduit of habitus and a given capital endowment of the agent (Bourdieu 1977; 1990; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Underlying Bourdieu’s theory of social practice within a more systematic ground, the dispositional theory of action introduces the tripartite conceptual tools of habitus, capital and field (Wacquant 2016). These then guide an exploration of the socially individuated nature of human practice and helps us chart how bodily and mental dispositions are sedimented (habitus) and how individuals are equipped with certain dispositions as an embodied asset (capital) and ranked amongst one another in order to form a structured conflict (field) (Wacquant 2004; 2011). From within the frame of the dispositional theory of criminal action, becoming a professional criminal or expert refers to the formation of criminal habitus in which the subject acquires criminal dispositions and transforms into an adept agent of criminal fields, endowed with criminal capital. I elsewhere discussed the formation of burglary-related dispositions out of a group of offenders’ unconscious, game-like activities (Mercan 2018). Wacquant’s (2014) dissection of habitus into cognitive (the categories of perception), conative (proprioceptive capacities, sensorimotor skills and kinesthetic dexterities) and affective (libidinal and cathectic) components helped us map out how each offender gained the bodily and mental dispositions to select an appropriate flat and burgle it successfully. However, in that analysis, the operational principles of criminal habitus were out of the discussion. Here two points can be made about the way in which bodily and mental dispositions are put to work and operationalized, or come to be capital asset over the entire course of burglary. First, the criminal habituation process, by repeated exposure to the same experience, covers many dimensions of everyday life. It comprises what time the crew should depart, where they should go to ‘work’ and finally how they should break and enter. Deliberating on the wealth of the target neighbourhood, deciding which flat should be hit and instant recognition of burglary-related cues seem to be an accumulated result of whole-life experiences, ranging from unconsciously witnessing the middle-class lifestyle in apartment buildings to various encounters with upper class people at work and school (Mercan 2018: 4–9). Insofar as the criminal habitus feeds from all-encompassing life experiences, criminal practices are by and large determined by the routine activities of residents (Cohen and Felson 1979). Professionalism thus occurs through the organization of everyday life of the crews and comes to do with how they prepare themselves in relation to the routine activities of neighbourhood inhabitants. Second, the most important part of criminal habitus formation is that it has a collective character, which reflects on the way that the dispositions are put into practice. The cognitive, conative and affective parts of criminal habitus are all the product of collective training. [E]very component involved in the forging of habitus is quintessentially collective: the categories of perception are discerned and taught through joint activities; the skills are learned by observing and honed by acting in concert with members; the desires are aroused and channelled toward their proper objects in repeated interaction with other participants sharing the illusio specific to the universe studied. And the welding of perceptual, kinematic, and cathectic components of habitus into a coherent working ensemble is also carried out collectively in practice through mimesis and osmosis. (Wacquant 2014: 126) As such, the practice of burglary-related dispositions is also a collective activity in which all crew members come from the same socio-class background, habituate the same practices and desire the same monetary rewards. In this study, the modus operandi of burglary appears professionalized insofar as it requires a collective organization and overcomes deterrents due to a systematic division of labour. The Western literature of burglary has stressed the working patterns of burglars as an individual or, at least, dual enterprise in the form of crews (see Letkemann 1973; Rengert and Wasilchick 2000; Mawby 2001). In Turkey, apart from journalistic accounts portraying burglary as a collective activity as demonstrated earlier, there has not been any criminological research that reveals whether burglars work individually or in crew. However, our study shows that the crew enjoyed the turning of their collective force into economic capital. Different physiques and different skills in different parts of the criminal division of labour constitute a transcendental force that goes beyond skills unique to each individual. The collective criminal capital of the crews appears to be easily converted into economic gain as long as the crew overcome deterrents—such as window bars and upper floors—by utilizing a combination of unique individual skills. To this perspective, before I explain the modus operandi of burglary conducted by the crew, I will clarify methodological issues. Methods Data for this study were drawn out of field notes and unstructured interviews with a group of desisted offenders called the crew. The acquaintance with the crew dates back to my early street socialization in the neighbourhood once we used to live in. Despite holding a quite flexible membership structure at earlier times, the crew consisted of five stable members when it became professionalized. These were Muzo, Reddy, Maddy, Lordy and Alex who have mostly a lower-class, rural migrant background, whose parents (except Lordy and Alex’s) used to work as a doorkeeper in a middle-class, affluent neighbourhood of Ankara. They were all male, dropped out the school at very early ages, went in prison more than once (except Alex) and specialized in burglary. Their age varies from 35 to 40. The members of the crew were actively involved in burglary in 1998–2003 but then terminated their criminal career. For more than the 17 years of contact with the crew (1998–2015) despite some intervals, I was able to meet and talk with the crew members. Relying on the already-established rapport, each did not hesitate to participate in a criminological study. The interviews with the crew members were conducted in a one-to-one conversation and all of them allowed me to record the conversations. Although the participants were allowed to talk freely using their own concepts and terminology, a semi-structured method was also put into practice with regard to recording the technical part of crime commission. Some questions were submitted in advance for this: (1) How is burglary organized? (2) What kind of division of labour occurs? (3) What are the techniques of breaking and entering? (4) Which flats are targeted? However, direct participant observation and interview methods pose ethical and, more importantly, legal problems in the exploration of the modus operandi of burglary. To overcome this problem, ‘staged activity analysis’ was employed as an alternative strategy in which the offenders ‘are asked to reconstruct and simulate their past burglaries as nearly as possible in the same manner in which they were originally committed’ (Cromwell et al. 1991: 15–16). By virtue of using this method in interviews, the major legal and ethical problems were overcome. In this technique, ‘extensive interviews’ and ‘ride alongs’ were carried out with informants asked to recall and evaluate motivations and strategies, skills and techniques necessary to burglarize a residential site, as well as the drama of previous burglaries (p. 16). All interviews took place over a 7-month period in 2014–2015. The length of these interviews varied from 12 minutes to 5 hours. Recorded conversations were later transcribed in Turkish verbatim. Transcripts were coded and translated into English where necessary. The Modus Operandi of ‘Hanging’ The crew developed and applied the technique called as askı [hanging] or closed door [kapalı] in the Turkish criminal subculture. The crew members were young men in their mid of 20s in the late 1990s, but each had already known how to break in well by the early 2000s. In this process, the phenomenon of burglary appears in their narrative directly to do with the everyday life practices, which comprises not only the specific course of time allocated to housebreaking but also before and after burgling activities, and even the organization of whole day. Given the fact that the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of burglary have not been investigated enough regarding offenders’ perspective and behaviour (Nee 2015), the crew’s before and after activities appear very important to organize their criminal activities. As of 1998, the crew regulated and organized its daily activities regarding their ‘crimetime’ (Rengert and Wasilchick 2000). Our normal meeting was about 12–1 in the afternoon. We used to hang out about 12pm to 1pm. Well, we were going to eat something if people were up to it. Well, we’re eating the cheapest or the most expensive things [depending on the money in their pockets]. After that, women was a big reason [to go hanging out]. Q: When did you go out in the evening? About 5 to 7pm. In the meantime, around 5 to 7pm, everything used to stop! Everything used to stop and in that time, we’re going to work. (Maddy) In 1998, the crew was acting collectively. Muzo was a fan of football games and used to play matches almost all day at the park in the neighbourhood, where he also worked as a gardener for a short while. The members of the crew thus frequented Muzo’s lodge and grouped around there until he finished for the day. In 1998–1999, the daily hang-outs of the crew spatially revolved around Commercial High School and Lower Park in the neighbourhood, and later the bachelor pad rented in for sexual advantages and socialization purposes. The crew would be either around the stone benches near the school or playing billiards at the café, or staying at the pad until the light turned to dusk at 5 pm during the winter. In the years 2000–2003, however, the daily hang-outs gave away to meeting up only before nightly ‘work’ due to their various convictions and aging. During the day, Muzo pretended to be working in jobs if asked. Muzo was lying to his family that he was distributing newspapers in the morning; therefore, every morning he used to get up very early and leave the house. He was driving far away to the outskirts of the city, parking his car and sleeping in it. In fact, he spent the day playing football at various parks. Alex often joined these matches after school or when truanting, the latter of which was more common. An interim member Atom said he was running errands for his father’s painting job. Lordy was killing time around the parks with peers in the neighbourhood by boozing or going to nightclubs if he had money. Reddy was always at home by the time he was due to go to ‘work’ as he enjoyed a regular nightlife, often with Lordy, until the morning. The crew came together for work and split up after the job. The organization of daily life regarding specific burglary time, 5–8 pm during winter, did not vary for 5 years and would hold a central status for each member’s time schedule despite the crew members going in and out of prison. The crew time to ‘work’ can never be considered as independent from the routine activities of the capital’s population (Cohen and Felson 1979; Felson and Boba 2010). For all members living in the middle class, bureaucratic neighbourhood, individual accounts suggest that the best possible time for breaking was just after sunset at 5 pm until 8 pm during the winter. The reason behind this timing was due to the fact that Ankara is the capital of Turkey whose population mostly works in the state institutions and service sector. Thus, the interval between 5 pm and 8 pm is a time where civil servants and public officials are on their way back home while all the houses and flats are vacant. The crew’s choice of time was the result of witnessing to such a bureaucratic, middle-class lifestyle as the most members of the crew were from doorkeeper families. In the summer, the working time was postponed until sunset at 8:30 pm and went on until 11:30 pm because they waited for the sunset. The shift in the crew’s timing in the summer depends on their preference of ‘working’ in the darkness and detecting which/whether or not flat is empty according to the lights switched on/off. The crew’s temporal decision to offend was affected by the darkness as they believed it covered them effectively and the lights give clue about occupancy. Preparation The crew set out to move when darkness fell. The crew was usually ready with four to five members around locations either in the park or bachelor pad when the hour came. At the time they had no car, a possible vehicle might be a taxi or dolmuş [bus] to the preferred burglary area. Once Muzo had his own car, it served as the crew’s crime transport around the city and facilitated moving into different neighbourhoods. Muzo used to take the car and pick up the rest of the crew. In earlier times, the crew did not take on any extra equipment, neither did they wear gloves. In the first instance, the only person who had criminal record was Maddy: He had not known at the time how to prevent fingerprints when touching a flat surface by wrapping his hand up in his shirt or tucking his hands into his jacket pocket while holding something. Once most of the members gained experience in criminal justice procedure, the crew subsequently began carrying gloves, having become aware of crime scene techniques. Criminal justice and prison experiences reinforced the crew’s habitus, cognitively directing them to attend to the immediate environment and take necessary precautions. For instance, where they were without gloves, the crew used socks to cover their hands. The sock method was particularly useful in the spring and summer as wearing gloves would draw suspicion. These socks were hidden in the car’s glove box in the central console next to the driver’s seat. The other complementary equipment was a long metal screwdriver and a sort of crowbar the brand of which is İzeltaş (a Turkish brand). The screwdriver was often placed together with the socks in the partition of the driver door, more usually, it was buried in the boot of the car just under the spare tyre. Frustrated with past experiences and giving direction to the future, criminal habitus as a generative capacity produced many different methods and techniques to secure themselves for work; this doubtlessly rendered their actions more professional. Selection of target neighbourhood Once everyone got in the car and all the equipment was ready, Muzo used to decide where to go, with some other crew members only occasionally joining the conversation: We get in the car, where are we going to go tonight? I say ‘let’s go there’.… We get in the car and go there. (Muzo) Muzo decides where to go as the leader of the crew. Where they go appears to be an arbitrary decision taken on the spur of the moment. The only factor considered is not going to the same neighbourhood on successive days. Their favourite places were the upper-middle class neighbourhoods in Çankaya province where they mostly landed big scores of cash and gold. Therefore, the crew mainly moved around these areas and safeguarded themselves by changing their route frequently. What is crucial is that the crew travelled by car and could therefore access entirely new and different areas, and were not confined to their neighbourhood where they know almost all the inhabitants—and where the inhabitants knew them. Deciding which street to target was as arbitrary as the choice of area. Muzo pulled over wherever he felt was appropriate. Each took up his gloves or socks as well as the screwdriver before leaving. All identity cards and phones were left in the vehicle. Usually, the screwdriver was carried by the youngest person present, tasked to perform lookout duties, but this responsibility varied as Muzo sometimes undertook it. Once getting out of the car, each attempted to act quite normally as if residents of the destined neighbourhood. This stage is where social skills are put into drama (Letkemann 1973; Åkerström 1985). Relaxed, calm, unsuspicious behaviours were performed; tough accents and postures were muted. The crew’s capacity to be socially adaptable is an example of ‘code-switching’ depending on circumstances (Anderson 1999), which is a critical part of their criminal capital. The crew would move a few streets away from the car. The more they distanced themselves from the car, the safer it became for them, as the contents of the vehicle—and the car itself—might reveal both their connection with one another and true identities. Selection of target flat Casing the target domicile begins with a short walk past it on the pavement, but it never took longer than 5 minutes. The aim is to plunge into one of the backyards as soon as possible. Once pulling over and diving into the street, the biggest failure of people is walking in the open. We never walk down the street but, if any, make it on the pavement. Why? If a patrol car appears far ahead, then we get down behind a car. If you walk in the open, the patrol can see you from miles away. Never appearing in the street, we immediately dash into the backyards. Then we explore a flat. (Muzo) The form of multistorey houses [apartman] appears to be a unique product of the urbanization process in Turkey. The architectural type of apartment buildings are exemplified by four to five storeys with back gardens without ornamental and decorative design. Multistorey buildings are built to a regular pattern in orderly rows with a certain distance between each other and have often green spaces and gateways. The crew used narrow alleys between buildings as a route into back gardens. Here which alley or gateway is appropriate is determined by instantaneous reasoning (Nee and Meenaghan 2006; Nee and Ward 2015) as to ease of transition and the topographical conditions at which the apartment building is located. Regarding the narratives of participants, it seems not to have taken much time to decide which route should be taken. The experiences of numerous past break-ins have already provided the crew with a mental schema (Bourdieu 1990), which are called ‘automatic scripts’ (Cromwell et al. 1991; Wright and Decker 1994; Nee and Meenaghan 2006), wherein they can measure danger, relevancy and ease. The crew’ script of burglary was developed in experiencing the same type of building but only different regarding the topographical conditions (Mercan 2018). The aim of the crew was to reach backyards at which point they begin to select a target. Mental criminal schema guides the crew to make appropriate moves depending on the degree of difficulty in reaching the backyard. Gaining access to the back of the apartment buildings could take place in various ways: simply walking through the front doorway if and when possible, quickly jumping into the front garden and running into the back, or climbing a wall and creeping through shrubbery. Briefly, the topographical conditions resolve which move is to be made. The crucial point in making any move is just to remain invisible and silent. Once the crew reached the backyard, the target search was launched; this stage is where the ‘commando moves’ begin. Shover notes that burglars likened the offence to ‘military commando operations’ (1991: 91–2). More than being metaphorical, the crew’s behaviour comes to resemble a military operation. Under Muzo’s guidance, the rest of the crew used to jump walls, leap over barbed wire and pass through shrubs and hedges, if necessary. There are two rationales for using commando moves. First, without going out into the open, the crew intended to remain undetected throughout the target-selection process. Second, the searching process often took place in the hilly, fenced, rugged terrain of the backyards. To exemplify, while the crew was casing an empty flat, one member might see a more appropriate target in the next garden. If there were no direct entrance but a long private fence enclosing the backyard, then they would have to jump over it. The same applies to another form of barrier, such as locked gates or barbed wire atop fences, which entail them to either creep or pass through. Mostly, the crew members preferred to wear tracksuits and trainers, which allow them to act comfortably and to escape at speed in the event of danger. As a result, commando operations indicate to a necessary capital of burglary: physical criminal capital (Steffensmeier and Ulmer 2005). All the crew members had athletic bodily traits: slim and muscled enough to pass through narrow fences and run away quickly and strong enough to lift anything heavy such as a safe. A fit body is a sine qua non for ‘commando moves’ in the backyards until a proper target is selected. The actual target-selection process of the crew can be explained using three risk cues: ‘surveillability’, which refers to the visibility of the target to neighbours or passers-by; ‘occupancy’, which indicates whether or not residents are present in the target home and ‘accessibility’, which denotes how easily the home can be broken into and whether or not the home includes locks, burglar alarms, bars and dogs (Cromwell et al. 1991: 35–7; Wright and Decker 1994: 85–99). As the crew worked in the backyards of buildings, the crew attended to whether: (1) the light is switched on or off, indicating whether or not the residents are at home—occupancy; (2) flat is on the ground floor or upper floors—accessibility and observability; (3) there are bars protecting the windows and doors or not—accessibility. Exploring a suitable flat thus depends on some criteria: In the closed-system, you break in all together. You can stroll in gardens and explore. You reason: five windows is one flat. Kitchen, lounge and three rooms. You identify it first. Then you check if the light is switched on. (Lordy) Well, [it] depends on what the facade of the flat looks [out onto]. It depends on if it’s empty. We often prefer flats facing the backyard, or garden-floor flats [ground floor], or upper flats just above the garden floors. Or if you can climb or can easily run away, the second floors might be done as well, but it is quite rare because you can’t make it easily from the second, because you have to make it down to the first floor, only then jump over the soil. Of course, difficult. That’s why you prefer flats you can quickly hit and run away. (Alex) Those flats that were vacant and facing the backyard preferably at the garden (ground) floor seem to have been the crew’s predominant choice of target as those flats remain directly unobservable due to their location. The crew used to hit the ground floor targets in its early years. However, in time, the crew began hitting the upper floors; this was due the growing courage and self-confidence of its members as well as their physical criminal capital (see Steffensmeier and Ulmer 2005: 129). Their encroachment to the upper floors also stemmed from the crew’s preference of stealing cash and jewellery. They disregarded goods and items such as TV, stereo and furniture; the aim was only on extracting cash and gold. With this aim, climbing up and down became easier for the intruders searching of things light in weight but heavy in value. Thus, increasing criminal insight and self-confidence professionalized the crew in a way that allowed them to target upper floors, taking more risks. Division of labour The crew placed and organized themselves once the preferable target had been selected. Muzo tasked each member with a strategic position depending on the physical conditions of the backyard: I leave two or three lookouts. The other two are getting in. I sometimes go in as a third. But I often used to stay on the outside. I used to go on entering in later periods. But I usually didn’t enter. I’m telling my bro’; there was no mobile. One whistle is ‘watch out’, two whistles ‘someone coming up’, three whistles ‘run away’. That was the code. We attended to it very much, regardless of whatever happens. Then I left one at one corner, the other for another corner, me strolling around the building … Alex was a lookout, Lordy and Reddy intruders, Maddy sometimes intruder, but often on the outside. (Muzo) In the organization of division of labour, Muzo played a coordinating role between the lookouts and intruders, moving in and out of the house. Maddy also occupied the same position playing a combined role inside and out but mainly staying outside with Alex, who was specifically tasked as lookout. The crew members started carrying two mobile phones as of 2002–2003. One would be in the intruder’s pocket while the other was ready in the lookout’s hand who called the intruder in the event of danger. The deployment of the crew was strategically organized: Dangerous spots are obvious. As you’re in the rear of the building, there is always a gate straight down to the garden, always a doorkeeper flat [looking out or opening onto the garden]. You put the men called ‘lookout’ at these dangerous spots. There might be experts among them. You put them [there] to watch more dangerous spots where someone may just walk in. (Lordy) In this organization, the position of lookouts becomes quite important. Alex, the lookout of the crew, mentions a specific mental schema that a lookout should have, which ‘other’ people cannot simply possess: When you’re at it, you choose places people don’t prefer to look at. Some people wouldn’t prefer to look at some places [that are ugly, smelly or dirty]. For instance, while walking down the street, you look right or left but never see some spots. There are some blind spots; after walking past before those spots twice or three times, you never look at them. A good lookout is the one who knows those places well and stands there. To do his job well, he has to know them. Where are those places? So simple. Where do people dislike glancing at subconsciously? One never wants to look at a dump, or dirty spot, let’s say a ‘someone-coming-for-a-pee’ spot. That’s why you can wait in a dark corner, or obscure nooks and crannies. People never [do more than] glance at them while going past. Those who will look at these nooks and crannies are mostly the ones whose mentality is different from that of others. Well, mostly ones who did burglary before looking at these spots. I mean those having done lookout. (Alex) Alex’s comment on the necessary capacity of a lookout demonstrates one subtlety of being a professional burglar: being mentally selective in perceiving and selecting crucial spots. The intuition of ‘where to look and how to hide’, as Alex’s account suggests, is a result of a trained capacity, practiced over and over, directed by Muzo’s instruction of ‘seeing without being seen’. It designates an intrinsic capital of the lookout and starkly divides the perspective of a professional burglar/lookout from that of an amateur or ‘ordinary’ person. The importance of this trained skill functions to protect the whole crew and prevents ‘blowing the score’, while the intruder is inside the residence calmly searching for booty. Breaking Once the position of lookouts is strategically defined, the phase of breaking and entering starts. In the case of the crew, the methods do not involve sophisticated forms such as deactivating alarm systems and neutralizing dogs as the Western literature on burglary has observed (Scarr 1973; Bennet and Wright 1984; Åkerström 1985; Cromwell, et al. 1991; Wright and Decker 1994, Rengert and Wasilchick 2000; Nee 2015). The architectural and spatial design of buildings, however, has far-reaching impacts on the perceptions and decisions of the crew to offend (Brantingham and Brantingham 2004; Bernasco and Nieuwbeerta 2005). The break-in method of askı depends on the architectural style and form of deterrents of the multistorey apartment buildings. The form of entry and necessary capital depends sequentially on whether: (1) the flat is at ground level or on an upper floor; (2) there are window/door bars or not; (3) the window/door is wooden or PVC. First, if the flat targeted is located on the first or upper floor, the crew would look for a natural route using drainpipes, balcony railings and bars installed on ground-floor windows. The crew confirm that these bars or grilles are intended to protect the flat but often offer a path to the upper floors. If these bars allow them to climb to the first- and second-floor balconies, then they could readily reach the upper floors. However, varying degrees of physical and cultural criminal capital individually determine who of the members would be the climber and therefore intruder. Atom (the interim member) and Lordy come forward as the usual intruders leading the way and having higher levels of criminal capital. ‘Heart’, or courage, is the primary determiner (see also Steffensmeier and Ulmer 2005: 129). Without courage, entering a flat is not possible as Atom and Lordy indicate. However, as their accounts suggest, there is more to being an intruder than courage. Here pulling one’s body weight up using the window grilles and balcony railings is another critical part of physical criminal capital that allows the intruders to overcome any of these physical deterrents. Nonetheless, as with the commando moves, not everyone can do it easily. It requires one to be able to pull all bodily weight up, hold on to the bars and, when necessary, pass through window transoms. Due to their physical capability, Atom and Lordy, and much later, when the former two were in prison, to some extent Reddy and Muzo, undertook the intruder position. Differences in individual physical traits seem to have played a decisive role in the division of labour of the crew. However, the internal organization is not simply determined by individual capitals. To exemplify, should the flat selected be above 2.5 m above the ground without any ‘natural passageway’, then Atom or Lordy, whose bodies were slim and flexible enough, tried to reach the upper floors. By mounting the shoulders or leaning on the backs of physically more solid members, Muzo and Alex, the intruders try to climb the balcony. They used to forge a body escalator so that the intruders could grab the window poles or balcony bars to climb up to the flat. The crew were able to form a human scaffold using various acrobatic moves, if and where necessary. Here, collective criminal capital was put into practice by all the members together. Second, Lordy, Atom and later Muzo, as an intruder, took over the break-in process and used a screwdriver. Although it seems a quite individual operation, the type of deterrents faced requires the collective force of the crew members: Look! You know what we’re doing? We’re breaking [in]! Q: Alright, but how did you break in? We’re pulling the iron bars like that. We’re going out to work three to four guys. Pulling the window bars [high pitch]! Pull and leave it! Pull and leave it! (Maddy) If the flat was at the ground level in the backyard and the window was secured by an iron frame installed into the concrete surface of the building, all members would come together, brace their feet against the wall and dislodge the whole frame by pulling from the middle lower part of it. However, as they explain, the iron frame needs not be removed completely, because dismantling it fully is often very noisy. If some bars are twisted enough, then the intruders, Atom and Lordy, could go through the space opened. If not, it can be pulled off entirely, as getting rid of it completely would make the escape easier. This was the other moment when the individual strengths of the crew members turned into collective capital. After this operation, the lookouts Alex and Maddy return to their positions. Third, the final deterrent is whether or not there is a padlock on the window and what type of window it is they encounter. The intruder might come across a vault lock on both door and window bars. He gets through this security measure using a long İzeltaş-brand screwdriver, inserting it through the shackle and applying strong pressure diagonally until the metals break loose from the core. Muzo could easily and quickly tackle these locks due to his bodily power and also help Lordy or Atom to split them. Windows usually have a lock in the middle, right? I mean wooden windows. You can open it through prying up the one lock in the middle … PVC windows contain three to four round locks. All of them are embedded in the opening side of the window. Because PVC is very flexible plastic stuff, it is enough to displace them by slightly prying them up with a screwdriver. That’s assuming that the PVC window opens the moment you’ve pushed it by inserting the screwdriver through either above, or below, or middle of the window and its frame. The same goes for PVC doors, whereas wooden doors give you difficulty as it takes longer. If there is a key back on the inside facade of the door and if it’s locked, you can reach to the key and open it by breaking the corner of the window as little as you could stick your hand in. If it’s not locked well, then you can already open [it] and enter. (Alex) Prying or jimmying open the door and window appear to be the same technique of breaking long observed by the Western literature of criminology (Shover 1973; Repetto 1974; Walsh 1980; Bennet and Wight 1984; Cromwell et al. 1991; Wright and Decker 1994; Nee and Taylor 2000; Nee 2015). With PVC, a window and door can be opened simply by prying the screwdriver between the window/door and its frame, whereas a wooden window can be opened by crudely pushing on its frame. However, wooden doors are not simply opened by a crude kick-in method. Instead, it requires the intruder to cut the glass. In this technique, first, part of the window glass close to the key is inscribed using the tip of the screwdriver, drawing an arc from edge to edge of the frame. Second, the intruder strikes on the portion of the glass enclosed within the arc and frame, cleanly breaking this portion of glass away from the main body of the pane. The partially broken glass creates an opening large enough for a hand to reach in and remove the key. Doubtless, this method is trickier and needs some extra time to complete successfully and quietly. Entering Having removed all deterrents and opened the window or door, Atom (1999–2001) and Lordy (1998–2002), later Reddy (2001–2003), used to enter the flat as the primary intruder. The number of intruders inside would usually be limited to one or two, and would never go beyond three, because Muzo also sometimes accompanied them as a coordinator between inside and outside. Immediately before searching for booty, the intruders would silently investigate the house to ensure no one is at home and lock the front door by securing the hasp over the loop of the fastening: You have entered and started checking out rooms. If nobody is inside, then first lock the exit door to prevent the family from entering the home and to be able to hear that sound when they attempt to open the door. Well, you ransack the home then. (Lordy) The priority was to find cash and jewellery, and the search starts in the master bedroom: First, the master bedroom will be usually ransacked because the head of home is staying there. Jewellery is often in there. You give a look at the lounge and kitchen as well, but it is often less preferred. Kids’ rooms are usually not searched. Once realising it is an adolescent room, you do it then because a girl might have jewellery as well … you ransack every bedroom in the house. You search everywhere. You look at the lounge too. You can search in anywhere you feel you will find something valuable. There are ones having extracted money out of a freezer in the fridge. Just have a think. I took it out of a shirt from a wardrobe. The guy had hidden it by giving it the shape of a gift. It even comes out from under beds. (Alex) The master bedroom is the primary location of search in relevance to the finding of Western literature (Bennet and Wright 1984; Cromwell et al. 1991; Wright and Decker 1994; Clare 2011; Nee 2015). The crew realized big scores so often from the master bedroom, as Alex says, either from the dressing table or wardrobe. While looting the house, the intruders switched the light on to give the appearance that the occupants were inside. As the accounts put it, the intruders expedited the search process inside the dwelling, taking no longer than necessary. Their priority was cash and jewellery—except for mobile phones, laptops, televisions and other electronic devices were not what they were looking for. During 1998–2000, very often cash was found, so the crew didn’t need to look for gold and jewellery. Between 2000 and 2003, they stress that their attention turned to finding jewellery as the cash scores declined. Departure After comprehensively ransacking the home, the entry point was often used for departure. If a good deal of cash and jewellery had been extracted, the crew ended the night’s work. However, if the quantity of score was lower than expected, such as a single fine necklace or gold rings or a small amount of cash, then the crew continued to search for another target using the same method and techniques illustrated earlier. The average number of flats the crew ‘hit’ might amount to a succession of five to six per night. The collective division of labour provided the crew with ‘social facilitation’ reducing perceived risk and hitting the appropriate targets successively (Cromwell et al. 1991: 70). As long as the intruders returned empty handed from the flats, the crew kept going, but as a rule this would not often go beyond 9:30–10 pm. The accounts suggest that the crew often continued burgling in the same neighbourhood originally targeted as long as the neighbourhood stayed calm and no job was blown. If homeowners returned and neighbours became aware of the thefts, the crew quickly changed their location by car. Once finished, Muzo took everyone home, or they all would go back to the bachelor pad. The open-door method In the summer, the break-in method differs from that used in winter. The open-door [açık kapı] is put into practice during the summer months when the temperature is quite hot, and people leave their doors and windows open during the night. The technique rests on the ability to sneak through open windows or doors and creep into rooms without awakening sleepers. The intruder collects purses and wallets while the household is in a deep sleep. The schedule can start at 11 pm, but it is preferably carried out when all people are heavily asleep around 3–4 am. For this reason, on some nights during many summers the crew did not sleep. The modus operandi of open door resembles the method used by ‘cat burglars’ who are called ‘climbing thieves’, targeting windows on upper storeys left open at night (Walsh 1980: 31). The job carried much ‘prestige’ as it requires a higher criminal capital to climb up the pipes, pillars and balconies of multistorey buildings, wearing black clothes and appropriate shoes for slippery surfaces in pp. 31–3. Similarly, the open-door method was undertaken by only Atom and Lordy. They normally went out to work after dark at 8.30–9 pm in the summer; using the askı or closed-door [kapalı] method, it was not uncommon for Lordy or Atom—once realizing somebody was inside asleep—converted from the askı to the açık kapı method, while the others were waiting for them outside. As the closed-door work would typically extend late into the night, Atom or Lordy began looking for doors left open. They then targeted first and second storeys whose balcony doors were left open and to which they could climb. The open door was much more profitable than the closed system but also riskier as it might place the intruder in confrontation with the resident. However, it provides the opportunity for accessing cash directly. A lookout might be useful but is not necessary as most people are asleep after midnight: You should be calm at that moment. Well as if being quite normal, climbing like it’s your home, going past rooms to the saloon. Act as if it was your home! The logic is the same. Climb, enter the room; this is the bedroom, creep out; opposite is the bathroom, next to it, another room facing the kitchen, and there is a door opening out of the building.… It depends on a person’s character; you’ve got to be like that it’s usual. Easy and relaxed. While confronting a problem, you must be relaxed, you’re able to deal with it easily. This is not something like you can teach – like do this, hold that, or enter the door; like if you do that, they never hear you. There is not something like that! Well, you can develop by yourself.… Always the same logic. Enter, be quiet, athletic, be all ears, then do it, and achieve your goal! It all depends on that outright. (Lordy) Lordy was the most experienced and daring intruder of the crew. Beyond physical abilities such as climbing and pulling his body weight up, Lordy also points out a mental capacity having developed over time: being relaxed and acting as if the flat entered was the intruder’s home. It seems that such a perception, rather than being a trait of personality as Lordy emphasizes, ensues from the sedimentation and naturalization of certain dispositions after having been practiced numerous times. Countless repetition of criminal practice, the open-door, normalizes an extraordinary state of feeling in a way as to make it a rare asset in the subfield of burglary. Given the fact that habitus is the naturalization of social conditions and conditionings in practice, the internalization of burglary-related dispositions seems to neutralize not only guilt (Sykes and Matza 1957) but also fear and anxiety emanating from criminal action (Tunnell 1992: 82). Thus, the other necessary part of criminal capital is the skill of how to handle emotions (Wright and Decker 1994: 110). That refers to the higher criminal capital of some crew members and the higher level of professionalism of the crew in the burglary. Concluding Remarks: The Collective Professionalism of the Crew Apparently, the crew as a homogeneous unit practiced a specific burglary technique continuously and systematically with a certain division of labour and under the coordination of a leader, travelling far afield and combining individual physical capitals in a collective manner. During operations, their bodily and mental dispositions acquired early on first turn into collective criminal capital at work, and then economic capital, should a score be made. It is demonstrated earlier that when the crew were offending, they systematically and instantly carried out the stages of burglary in a collective division of labour. The lookouts and intruders automatically recognize the offence-related cues about the tasks each fulfils in the division of labour. Deterrents such as window bars and reaching upper floors are overcome by collective bodily capital. Here individual cognitive expertise, acquired by repeated exposure to the same practice, thereby inscribed in criminal habitus, turns into collective professionalism in action: Were we professional? Yes, very professional. We did this job for more than four, five years. Four to five years is not a little time, bro’! To be professional, you start a job, work for a year, and learn every minute detail or any shit to do with that, let’s say, in a private sector. In the second year, you’re getting to be a master. When it comes to the third year, you’re much better, that is, you start thinking you’re better than anyone else. But fourth and fifth is the thing for you. That work has got routine then. It comes to you so simple. You try something different, taking different scores. This [burglary] was like that. In the fifth [year], we used to go every evening like going out to buy some bread! (Alex) Trained break-in practices of the crew created a disciplined division of labour that prevented them from being caught. Countless break-ins for 5 years made burglary an ordinary practice in their everyday life. Burglary thus became an alternative source of income and thus an occupational activity. The unconsciously evolved practices turned out to be a deliberate professionalized performance. On the other hand, the findings have also demonstrated that the topographical structure of neighbourhoods and multistorey apartment buildings influence the way of organizing burglary, target-selecting process and the types of deterrents in the metropolitan cities of Turkey. The intrinsic architecture of apartment buildings and environmental conditions also seems to overdetermine the modus operandi of housebreaking in a non-Western context. However, it has appeared that there are many similarities between the Western context and the non-Western Turkey in terms of the risk cues considered in the target selection, the use of screwdriver and the primary location of search. The author completed MSc Social and Political Theory in Birkbeck, University of London, then received PhD in Sociology from University of Kent at Canterbury. He is currently Research Fellow in the Faculty of Political Science in Ankara University. References Åkerström , M . ( 1985 ), Crooks and Squares: Lifestyles of Thieves and Addicts in Comparison to Conventional People . Transaction . Anderson , E . ( 1999 ), Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City . W. W. Norton & Company . Bennett , T. and Wright , R. T . ( 1984 ), Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender . Ashgate Publishing . Bernasco W. and Nieuwbeerta P . ( 2005 ), ‘ How Do Residential Burglars Select Target Areas ?’, British Journal of Criminology , 45 : 295 – 315 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Bourdieu , P . ( 1977 ), Outline of a Theory of Practice . Cambridge University Press . —— ( 1990 ), The Logic of Practice . Stanford University Press . Bourdieu , P. and Wacquant , L. J . ( 1992 ), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology . University of Chicago Press . Brantingham , P. L. and Brantingham , P. J . ( 1993 ), ‘ Nodes, Paths and Edges: Considerations on the Complexity of Crime and the Physical Environment ’, Journal of Environmental Psychology , 13 : 3 – 28 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS —— ( 2004 ), ‘ Computer Simulation as a Tool for Environmental Criminologists ’, Security Journal , 17 : 21 – 30 . Clare , J . ( 2011 ), ‘ Examination of Systematic Variations in Burglars’ Domain-Specific Perceptual and Procedural Skills ’, Psychology, Crime & Law , 17 : 199 – 214 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Clarke , R. V. G. and Cornish , D. B . ( 1985 ), ‘ Modelling Offenders’ Decisions: A Framework for Policy and Research’ , in M. Tonry and N. Morris , eds, Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research , 147 – 85 . University of Chicago Press . Cohen , L. E. and Felson , M . ( 1979 ), ‘ Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A routine Activity Approach ’, American Sociological Review , 44 : 588 – 608 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Cromwell , P. , Olson , J. and Avary , D . ( 1991 ), Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary . SAGE . Felson , M. and Boba , R. L . ( 2010 ), Crime and Everyday Life , 4 th edn. SAGE . Irwin , J . ( 1970 ), The Felon . Prentice Hall . Letkemann , P . ( 1973 ), Crime as Work . Prentice-Hall . Logie , R. , Wright , R. and Decker , S . ( 1992 ), ‘ Recognition Memory Performance and Residential Burglary ’, Applied Cognitive Psychology , 6 : 109 – 23 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Mack , J . ( 1975 ), The Crime Industry . Saxon House . Maguire , M. and Bennett , T . ( 1982 ), Burglary in a Dwelling: The Offence, the Offender and the Victim . Heinemann . Mawby , R. I . ( 2001 ), Burglary . Willan Publishing . Mercan , B. A . ( 2018 ), ‘ The Making of Professional Criminal in Turkey ’, Ethnography , doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138118779604 . Nee , C . ( 2015 ), ‘ Understanding Expertise in Burglars: From Pre-Conscious Scanning to Action and Beyond ’, Aggression and Violent Behavior , 20 : 53 – 61 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Nee , C. and Meenaghan , A . ( 2006 ), ‘ Expert Decision Making in Burglars ’, British Journal of Criminology , 46 : 935 – 49 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Nee , C. and Taylor , M . ( 1988 ), ‘ Residential Burglary in the Republic of Ireland: A Situational Perspective ’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 27 : 105 – 16 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Nee , C. and Ward , T . ( 2015 ), ‘ Expertise and Offending: Themes for Future Research ’, Aggression and Violent Behavior , 20 : 92 – 3 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Nee , C. , White , M. , Woolford , K. , Pascu , T. , Barker , L. and Wainwright , L . ( 2015 ), ‘ New Methods for Examining Expertise in Burglars in Natural and Simulated Environments: Preliminary Findings ’, Psychology, Crime & Law , 21 : 507 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Nee , C. and Taylor , M . ( 2000 ), ‘ Examining Burglars’ Target Selection: Interview, Experiment or Ethnomethodology ?’, Psychology, Crime & Law , 6 : 45 – 60 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Rengert , G. and Wasilchick , J . ( 2000 ), Suburban Burglary: A Tale of Two Suburbs . Charles Thomas . Repetto , T. A . ( 1974 ), Residential Crime . Ballinger Press . Scarr , H. A . ( 1973 ), Patterns of Burglary . Government Printing Office . Shover , N . ( 1972 ), ‘ Structures and Careers in Burglary ’, The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science , 63 : 540 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS —— ( 1973 ), ‘ The Social Organization of Burglary ’, Social Problems , 20 : 499 – 514 . Crossref Search ADS —— ( 1991 ), ‘ Burglary ’, Crime and Justice , 14 : 73 – 113 . Crossref Search ADS Shover , N. and Honaker , D . ( 1992 ), ‘ The Socially Bounded Decision Making of Persistent Property Offenders ’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 31 : 276 – 93 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Steffensmeier , D. J. and Ulmer , J. T . ( 2005 ), Confessions of a Dying Thief: Understanding Criminal Careers and Illegal Enterprise . Aldine Transaction, a Division of Transaction Publishers . Sutherland , E. H . ( 1937 ), The Professional Thief . University of Chicago Press . Sykes , G. M. and Matza , D . ( 1957 ), ‘ Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency ’, American Sociological Review , 22 : 664 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Tunnell , K. D . ( 1992 ), Choosing Crime: The Criminal Calculus of Property Offenders . Nelson-Hall Publishers . Wacquant , L. J . ( 2004 ), Body & Soul . Oxford University Press . —— ( 2011 ), ‘ Habitus as Topic and Tool: Reflections on Becoming a Prizefighter ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology , 8 : 81 – 92 . Crossref Search ADS —— ( 2014 ), ‘ Putting Habitus in its place: Rejoinder to the symposium ’, Body & Society , 20 : 118 – 39 . Crossref Search ADS —— ( 2016 ), ‘ A Concise Genealogy and Anatomy of Habitus ’, The Sociological Review , 64 : 64 – 72 . Crossref Search ADS Walsh , D . ( 1980 ), Break-Ins: Burglary from Private Houses . Constable . Wright , R. and Decker , S . ( 1994 ), Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Breakins . Northeastern University Press . Wright , R. , Logie , R. H. and Decker , S. H . ( 1995 ), ‘ Criminal Expertise and Offender Decision Making: An Experimental Study of the Target Selection Process in Residential Burglary ’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 32 : 39 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - The Modus Operandi of Burglary in Turkey
JF - The British Journal of Criminology
DO - 10.1093/bjc/azy028
DA - 2019-01-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-modus-operandi-of-burglary-in-turkey-1N04DNPW0v
SP - 45
VL - 59
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -