After reviewing nine years of national data, the authors of this federally funded study conclude that there is significant inconsistency in almost every aspect of burglary – except that the burglars most often seek to avoid confrontation with the property owners. For statistical purposes, it is classified as a property crime, but for sentencing purposes it is considered a violent crime under both the federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Armed Career Criminal Act. Inconsistency is even more apparent when comparing state and federal laws. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that burglary can be both a violent and non-violent crime. Oddly, public perception indicates that burglary is rather a less severe crime than more obvious violent crimes.
It is interesting to note that when violence does occur during a burglary, the defendant is charged with whatever violent crime is appropriate as well as burglary. The authors of the study posit that this may be why a crime that by definition does not involve violence towards another person has steadily become classified as a violent crime in many jurisdictions and statistics. What may be less obvious to the lay person is that the distinction of violence has a significant impact on the length of the prison sentence in the event of a conviction.
The findings of the study may also be less than intuitive to the casual observer. Statistically, less than 3% of burglaries result in injury to the victim. Drawing from different data sets yields different results, and the report considers many nuances and distinctions. The authors use this information to conclude that classifying burglary as a violent crime is most likely overly punitive. The recommendations build on this conclusion, and offer several thought provoking points for consideration by legislators at both the state and federal levels.
For a complete view of the case study analysis, click here.