12 replies to this topic

[Killicksparker]

Burglars are increasingly plumping for fashionable footwear when breaking into homes, it has been claimed.

The average house thief wears trainers worth more than £100 when they are on a job - and they favour the more expensive brands of Nike, Reebok and Adidas.

Criminologists at the University of Leicester used 'footwear profiling' - looking at footprints left at the scenes of crimes - to come up with the data.

Just a single imprint from the sole of a shoe told them the age of the offender, if they had a job and pinpointed where they live.

They found that 94 per cent of burglars wear trainers costing up to £120 and that the younger the intruder, the more expensive their threads are likely to be.

Forensic expert Dr John Bond said: 'Using data from Northamptonshire Police, the most common shoe we found were Nike trainers, followed by Reebok and Adidas costing up to about £120.

'And the more expensive the footwear, the younger and more socially deprived the burglar is likely to be and the less likely to be employed they are.'

'This research can give a profile of the offender, so if the police already have an idea who it is it can help narrow it down.

'By finding out how much the shoe cost we were able to correlate it to age, employment status and how socially deprived the area they live in is.'

The study found that out of 155 burglars, 94 per cent wore trainers at the scene of their crimes and the younger they were the more expensive their trainers were likely to be.

Dr Bond added: 'What we found was even the youngest offender, a 15-year-old, still wore the £120 trainers.

'This is probably because they want to be seen to be wearing the latest gear to fit in with their social group and to be more attractive to the opposite sex.

'The cheapest trainer we found was unbranded and cost around £20. This belonged to somebody in their forties.

'This fits with our findings as the older you get the less fashion conscious you get, the less of a need there is to fit in.'



The university is due to host an open day for police forces from around the country to see how the profiling works later on this year


Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1OfQk6CBc

Edited by David, 09 June 2011 - 05:49 PM.
Fonts/sizes/colours changed to standard for ease of reading

[Random~name]

I already knew that as I'm sure most cops know the profile of a burglar.

[SkinSte]

"They found that 94 per cent of burglars wear trainers costing up to £120"

Surely that means that 6% of burglars wore trainers costing more than £120?

As Mr Guf says, that's not ground breaking really; how many times do you nick people and they cry at custody when you take their trainers which "cost more than you earn in a day".

I love seizing trainers as evidence.

[tomspen]

"They found that 94 per cent of burglars wear trainers costing up to £120"

Surely that means that 6% of burglars wore trainers costing more than £120?

As Mr Guf says, that's not ground breaking really; how many times do you nick people and they cry at custody when you take their trainers which "cost more than you earn in a day".

I love seizing trainers as evidence.

It's hard to tell when the Daily Mail want to be ambiguous and when they don't.

[Killicksparker]

My bestest trainers come from TK Chav. £9.99. Bargain

[crunchybits]

I think you'll find alot of police officers are already very familiar with offender profiling. There have been a number of issues using offender profiling as it remains an inexact science. There is a strong statistical correlation between the number of stork nests on a house and the number of children present in that household. So what does that tell us about cause and affect?

What I struggle to understand is how we can use this insight as an objective decision making tool to facilitate crime reduction. A single shoe print is not going to tell me age of the offender, where they life and their employment status it's just going to give me a profile based on a statistical probability. A nice academic but ultimately pointless study.

Now if you showed me the results of gait analysis and how I can use that to identify and target suspects who I can monitor using CCTV then I am interested

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/7348164.stm

[bensonby]

"They found that 94 per cent of burglars wear trainers costing up to £120"

Surely that means that 6% of burglars wore trainers costing more than £120?

Or that 6% didn't wear trainers...

[Cheetah]

"They found that 94 per cent of burglars wear trainers costing up to £120"

What a totally vacuous statement. So out of 100 people one person is wearing a pair of trainiers that cost £800 and 93 people wore trainers costing £2.50, I can quite honestly make the statement "They found that 94 per cent of burglars wear trainers costing up to £800".

Not even very clever manipulative journalism. Fail!

[BazzaBill]

'Using data from Northamptonshire Police, the most common shoe we found were Nike trainers, followed by Reebok and Adidas costing up to about £120.

Last year it was Reebok Classics. It would appear as though these are now out of fashion with burglars.

[Killicksparker]

Last year it was Reebok Classics. It would appear as though these are now out of fashion with burglars.

Wasn't the film 'Kinky Boots' made in Northampton

[SkinSte]

Or that 6% didn't wear trainers...

Woops, I didn't read it like that at all.

It still doesn't make much sense though. As pointed outby Cheetah, if someone went on the rob in crocodile shoes, the headline could be "Burlgars wear footwear costing up to £1,500!". Sensationalist rubbish.

[boroughtrainer]

Last year it was Reebok Classics. It would appear as though these are now out of fashion with burglars.

It was Reebok classics for a long time through the ninties.

I always did like mine.

[samt]

"This is probably because they want to be seen to be wearing the latest gear to fit in with their social group and to be more attractive to the opposite sex."