Retaliatory Auto Theft
Drawing from a qualitative sample of active auto thieves, this article examines the moralistic underpinnings of auto theft. Our findings indicate that retaliatory auto theft is either direct or indirect. In direct forms of payback, auto theft reprises a specific violator for a specific affront, and the theft serves as that reprisal. In indirect payback, the target’s culpability is lacking: Auto theft either removes some generalized loss or facilitates a broader retributive objective secondary to the theft target. Discussion focuses on the distinction between revenge and retribution and how auto theft emerges as a feasible choice given the universe of available retaliatory options, and despite the longstanding preference among street offenders for violence.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Cherbonneau, & Jacobs, B. A. (2015). Retaliatory Auto Theft. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(4), 468–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986215608533