不同主体特征的犯罪人空间出行行为分析

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.007

地理科学进展 ›› 2020, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (4): 602-613.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.007

不同主体特征的犯罪人空间出行行为分析

侯超¹, 陈鹏^1,^2,^*(), 曾昭龙¹, 石少冲¹, 原鹏辉¹, 沈兵¹

^1. 中国人民公安大学信息技术与网络安全学院,北京 102600
^2. 安全防范技术与风险评估公安部重点实验室,北京 102600

收稿日期:2019-03-13 修回日期:2019-07-26 出版日期:2020-04-28 发布日期:2020-06-28
通讯作者: 陈鹏
作者简介:侯超(1994— ),女,山西人,硕士生,主要从事犯罪地理、轨迹分析方面的研究。E-mail: sxpyhc@163.com
基金资助:
北京市自然科学基金项目(9192022);社会安全风险感知与防控大数据应用国家工程实验室主任基金项目;中国人民公安大学基本科研业务费课题(2018JKF228);中国人民公安大学2019年拔尖人才培养专项资助硕士研究生科研创新项目(2019ssky002)

Spatial travel behavior of criminals with different individual characteristics

HOU Chao¹, CHEN Peng^1,^2,^*(), ZENG Zhaolong¹, SHI Shaochong¹, YUAN Penghui¹, SHEN Bing¹

^1. Information Technology and Cyber Security Academy, People's Public Security University of China, Beijing 102600, China
^2. Key Laboratory of Security Prevention Technology and Risk Assessment of the Ministry of Public Security, Beijing 102600, China

Received:2019-03-13 Revised:2019-07-26 Online:2020-04-28 Published:2020-06-28
Contact: CHEN Peng
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of Beijing(9192022);National Engineering Laboratory Director Fund for Social Security Risk Perception and Prevention and Control of Large Data Applications;Subject of Fundamental Research Business Fees of People's Public Security University of China(2018JKF228);Top Talents Training Specialized Subsidy for Scientific Research and Innovation Projects of Master's Graduates of People's Public Security of China in 2019(2019ssky002)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

犯罪人的空间出行行为对描述和理解犯罪人的犯罪过程具有重要作用。目前已有的研究大多集中于犯罪人空间出行距离的一般性统计分析,缺少从犯罪人不同主体特征下的空间出行行为的精细化与个性化研究。论文以北京市盗窃电动自行车案件为例,对不同主体特征要素下的犯罪人空间出行距离分布差异性进行了实证研究,结果表明：具有不同性别、年龄、籍贯和犯罪经验属性的犯罪人空间出行距离分布存在明显差异,其中男性犯罪人的犯罪出行距离略高于女性犯罪人,但其空间缓冲距离却较女性犯罪人略小;中年犯罪人较青少年和老年犯罪人具有更大的犯罪出行距离和空间缓冲半径;外来犯罪人群体较本地犯罪人群体的犯罪出行距离和空间缓冲区更远;多次作案的犯罪人在出行距离和空间缓冲距离上要高于作案次数较少的犯罪人。随后,基于最小努力原则和理性抉择理论,从犯罪人主体的出行成本、邻里监护风险感知、犯罪收益等角度构建了犯罪人空间出行的决策模型,并对不同主体特征要素作用下的犯罪人空间出行行为的差异性进行了解释。研究结论可为犯罪预测及警务实践提供有效支撑。

关键词: 犯罪出行, 犯罪人, 个体特征, 理性选择理论

Abstract:

The spatial travel behavior of criminals plays an important role in describing and understanding the journey to crime process of criminals. Current studies focus on the statistics of travel distance of criminals, lacking studies on refined individualization of spatial travel behavior under different individual characteristics of criminals. Using theft cases of electric bicycles in Beijing region, an empirical analysis was conducted in this study to explore the spatial distribution of the criminals' travel distance under different individual characteristics. The results show that individual differences that affect travel distance distribution primarily concern gender, age, origin, and frequency of crimes attributes. Among them, the crime travel distance of male criminals is higher than that of female criminals, but their spatial buffer radius is closer than that of female criminals. Middle-aged criminals have larger crime travel distance and spatial buffer radius than juvenile and elderly criminals. The crime travel distance and spatial buffer zone of alien criminals are farther than that of local criminals. The crime offenders who commit multiple crimes have higher travel distance and spatial buffer distance than those who commit fewer crimes. Finally, this study constructed a decision model of spatial travel of criminals from travel cost, risk perception of neighborhood guardianship, and profit on the basis of the least effort principle and rational choice theory, and explained the difference of spatial travel behavior of criminals under the influence of different individual characteristics. The conclusions can provide effective support for crime prediction and policing practice.

Key words: journey to crime, criminal, individual characteristics, rational choice theory

侯超, 陈鹏, 曾昭龙, 石少冲, 原鹏辉, 沈兵. 不同主体特征的犯罪人空间出行行为分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(4): 602-613.

HOU Chao, CHEN Peng, ZENG Zhaolong, SHI Shaochong, YUAN Penghui, SHEN Bing. Spatial travel behavior of criminals with different individual characteristics[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(4): 602-613.

图/表 9

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

图4

图5

图6

图7

参考文献 30

[1]	龙冬平, 柳林, 周素红等. 地理学视角下犯罪者行为研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017,36(7):886-902. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.07.010
	[ Long Dongping, Liu Lin, Zhou Suhong , et al. Research progress of criminal behavior from the perspective of geography. Progress in Geography, 2017,36(7):886-902. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.07.010
[2]	Koppen P J V, Jansen R W J . The road to the robbery: Travel patterns in commercial robberies[J]. British Journal of Criminology, 1998,38(2):230-246. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014233
[3]	Ackerman J M, Rossmo D K . How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance[J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2015,31(2):237-262. doi: 10.1177/135581969900400304 pmid: 10538878
[4]	Lammers M, Menting B, Ruiter S , et al. Biting once, twice: The influence of prior on subsequent crime location choice[J]. Criminology, 2015,53(3):309-329. doi: 10.1111/crim.2015.53.issue-3
[5]	Van Daele S, Beken T V . Outbound offending: The journey to crime and crime sprees[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2011,31(1):70-78. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.09.002
[6]	Rengert G F, Piquero A R, Jones P R . Distance decay reexamined[J]. Criminology, 1999,37(2):427-446. doi: 10.1111/crim.1999.37.issue-2
[7]	Smith W, Bond J W, Townsley M . 2009. Determining how journeys-to-crime vary: Measuring inter- and intra-offender crime trip distributions[M]// Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G J N. Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in geographic criminology. New York, USA: Springer: 217-236.
[8]	Gabor T, Gottheil E . Offender characteristics and spatial mobility: An empirical study and some policy implications[J]. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 1984,26(3):267-281. doi: 10.3138/cjcrim.26.3.267
[9]	Phillips P D. Characteristics and typology of the journey to crime [M]// Georges-Abeyie D E, Harries K D. Crime: A spatial perspective. New York, USA: Columbia University Press, 1980: 167-180.
[10]	Levine N, Lee P . Journey-to-crime by gender and age group in Manchester, England[M]// Leitner M. Crime modeling and mapping using geospatial technologies. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013: 145-173.
[11]	Bernasco W, Block R . Where offenders choose to attack: A discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago[J]. Criminology, 2010,47(1):93-130. doi: 10.1111/crim.2009.47.issue-1
[12]	Bernasco W, Block R, Ruiter S . Go where the money is: Modeling street robbers' location choices[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2012,13(1):119-143. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbs005
[13]	Johnson S, Summers L . Testing ecological theories of offender spatial decision making using a discrete choice model[J]. Crime & Delinquency, 2015,61(3):454-480. doi: 10.1177/0011128714540276 pmid: 25866412
[14]	Deakin J, Smithson H, Spencer J , et al. Taxing on the streets: Understanding the methods and process of street Robbery[J]. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 2007,9(1):52-67.
[15]	Menting B, Lammers M, Ruiter S , et al. Family matters: Effects of family members's residential areas on crime location choice[J]. Criminology, 2016,54(3):413-433. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12109
[16]	赵勇, 刘民, 柏书华 , 等. 系列入室盗窃案件的犯罪距离研究[J]. 中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版), 2010(2):143-149.
	[ Zhao Yong, Liu Min, Bai Shuhua , et al. A study on the distance of series of burglary cases. Journal of People's Public Security University of China (Social Sciences Edition), 2010(2):143-149. ]
[17]	徐永胜 . 系列入室盗窃犯罪距离个体差异影响因素分析[J]. 中国刑警学院学报, 2014(2):3-8.
	[ Xu Yongsheng . Analysis of the influencing factors of individual differences in crime distance on the serial burglary. Journal of Criminal Investigation Police University of China, 2014(2):3-8. ]
[18]	侯超, 陈鹏 . 基于不同个体要素的犯罪人出行距离统计特征分析[J]. 犯罪研究, 2018(1):37-43.
	[ Hou Chao, Chen Peng . Analysis of the distance statistics of criminal travel based on offender characteristics. Chinese Criminology Review, 2018(1):37-43. ]
[19]	Chainey S, Austin B, Holland F . London borough of harrow: Insights into the analysis and patterns of offender journeys to crime[M]. London, UK: InfoTech Enterprises Europe, 2001.
[20]	Andresen M A, Frank R, Felson M . Age and the distance to crime[J]. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2014,14(3):314-333. doi: 10.1177/1748895813494870
[21]	George K, George K. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology [M]. Boston, USA: Addison-Wesley Press, 1949.
[22]	Cornish D B, Clarke R V . The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending[M]. New York, USA: Springer, 1986.
[23]	Wiles P, Costello A . The 'road to nowhere': The evidence for travelling criminals[M]. London, UK: Home Office, 2000.
[24]	常超凡 . 城市居民短距离出行行为研究[D]. 北京: 北京交通大学, 2007.
	[ Chang Chaofan . Study on short-distance travel behavior of urban resident. Beijing, China: Beijing Jiaotong University, 2007. ]
[25]	潘婷 . 西宁市居民通勤特征研究[D]. 西宁: 青海师范大学, 2015.
	[ Pan Ting . Study on characteristics of Xining residents commute. Xining, China: Qinghai Normal University, 2015. ]
[26]	申悦, 柴彦威 . 基于性别比较的北京城市居民活动的时空弹性研究[J]. 地理学报, 2017,72(12):2214-2225. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201712007
	[ Shen Yue, Chai Yanwei . Space-time flexibility of daily activities and gender differences: A case study of Beijing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(12):2214-2225. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201712007
[27]	Cohen L E, Felson M . Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach[J]. American Sociological Review, 1979,44(4):588-608. doi: 10.2307/2094589
[28]	West P A, Norris T E, Gore E J , et al. The geographic and temporal patterns of residency-trained family physicians: University of Washington Family Practice Residency Network[J]. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 1996,9(2):100-108. pmid: 8659258
[29]	张真理 . 流动人口犯罪及其预防研究[J]. 现代商业, 2013(2):259-261.
	[ Zhang Zhenli . Analysis of the prevention on crimes committed by floating population. Modern Business, 2013(2):259-261. ]
[30]	楼伯坤, 满涛 . 我国流动人口犯罪的防控策略: 基于“破窗理论”的本土化思考[J]. 犯罪研究, 2013(6):42-48.
	[ Lou Bokun, Man Tao . Prevention and control strategies on crimes committed by floating population in our country. Chinese Criminology Review, 2013(6):42-48. ]

个体要素		N	均值	中位数	标准差	极小值	极大值	空间缓冲半径
性别	男性	1475	15.43	9.81	16.25	0	131.23	5
	女性	185	14.29	11.23	11.33	0	66.91	10
年龄	25岁以下	311	12.08	5.06	16.74	0	77.70	<5
	25~44岁	1049	16.32	12.05	15.17	0	131.63	7
	45岁以上	300	15.08	7.34	16.45	0	101.63	<5
籍贯	北京	362	11.78	7.08	15.89	0	131.63	5
	河北	178	10.63	7.12	13.55	0	69.81	不明显
	河南	476	22.34	21.15	15.06	0.20	86.93	15~20
	湖北	121	17.58	14.24	8.94	0.80	42.48	15~20
作案频次	作案1次	202	12.18	7.33	14.83	0	101.63	<5
	作案2~8次	583	14.00	8.29	16.51	0	131.63	<5
	作案9~22次	434	13.06	8.44	14.31	0.06	71.3	<5
	作案22次以上	441	20.67	17.81	15.36	1.22	80.33	10
全部		1660	15.30	10.37	15.78	0	131.63	7

非参数检验要素	检验统计	自由度	显著性
年龄要素	69.174	2	<0.001
25岁以下与25~44岁	-251.901		<0.001
25岁以下与45岁以上	-143.159		<0.001
25~44岁与45岁以上	108.743		0.001
籍贯(省份)要素	232.305	3	<0.001
北京与河北	32.976		0.273
北京与河南	-293.204		<0.001
北京与湖北	-250.408		<0.001
河北与河南	-326.180		<0.001
河北与湖北	-283.384		<0.001
河南与湖北	42.796		0.201
作案频次要素	8.505	3	0.037
作案1次与2~8次	-19.082		0.111
作案1次与9~22次	-26.610		0.198
作案1次与22次以上	-78.315		0.009
作案2~8次与9~22次	-7.527		0.716
作案2~8次与22次以上	-59.233		0.050
作案9~22次与22次以上	-51.706		0.135

不同主体特征的犯罪人空间出行行为分析

Spatial travel behavior of criminals with different individual characteristics

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 30

相关文章 1

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0