3 - A Typology of Criminal Retaliation

Summary

In the best of all possible worlds, most street criminals want to strike back at those who cross them immediately. Not doing so risks being labeled a punk, and no excuse can deflect the stigma that invariably accompanies unjustified surrender. A reflexive reaction is especially important when audiences are present because, on the street, third parties are the final arbiters of status (Wilkinson and Fagan 2001:174). Word travels fast, and the reputational damage flowing from any appearance of cowardice can be serious and long-lasting.

But street criminals do not inhabit the best of all possible worlds; their milieu is filled with uncertainty, and they are not always able to exact payback quickly. The affront committed against them may not involve face-to-face contact. And even if it does involve such contact, the violator may get away before they can strike back. Perhaps they did not know the person who wronged them. Information about the violator's identity or whereabouts might not emerge until well after an affront, if it emerges at all. Once that happens, they still may have to wait to catch the violator in a sufficiently compromising position before retaliating. They might not be able to generate enough coercive power, or they may be in a setting unsuited to revenge. They may want to retaliate then and there, but face costs and risks (for example, foregone criminal opportunities, chances of injury or arrest) that are too high to justify an immediate strike.