Spread the love

ARMED ROBBERY IN NIGERIA-AQUALITATIVE STUDY OF YOUNG MALE ROBBERS

| Format: Ms Word | 1-5 Chapters | Table of Content|

 INSTANT PROJECT MATERIAL DOWNLOAD

Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE

Amount: ₦3,000.00

  1. Table of contents                                                                                               2
  2. Listof tables                                                                                                       5
  3. Appendices                                                                                                        6
  4. Abstract…………………………………………………………………. 7
  5. Declaration…………………………………………………………….. 8
  6. Copyrightstatement………………………………………………….. 9
  7. Acknowledgements………………………………………………….. 10
  8. Dedication…………………………………………………………….. 11
  9. Chapter1:Introduction…………………………………………………. 12
  10. Researchquestions………………………………………………….. 31
  11. Thenatureofarmedrobbery………………………………………… 33
  12. Overviewofthesis……………………………………………………. 37
  13. Chapter2:TheproblemofarmedrobberyinNigeria………………………. 39
  14. Backgroundtothestudy……………………………………………… 39
  15. Nigeria’spoliticalhistoryandsocio-economicconditions………… 42
  16. Crimeandcriminaljusticeinacomparativeperspective………….. 50
  17. Summary………………………………………………………………. 77
  18. Chapter3:Existingstudiesandtheories…………………………….. 78
  19. Previoustheoreticalandempiricalexplanationsofarmedrobbery.783.1.1.Causesandmotivations………………………………………………………………………….. 78
  20. Opportunityandcrime……………………………………………….. 82
  21. Decisionmaking………………………………………………………. 83
  22. Targetselection/planning…………………………………………… 84
  23. Useofweapon……………………………………………………………. 85
  24. Genderidentityandarmedrobbery…………………………………. 89
  25. Ageandarmedrobbery………………………………………………. 93
  26. Typologiesofarmedrobbers…………………………………………. 94
  27. Theoretical perspectives……………………………………………….. 99
  28. Social control theory……………………………………………….. 99
  29. Anomie-straintheory……………………………………………….. 105
  30. Summary…………………………………………………………….. 117
  31. Chapter4:Methodologicalframeworkandparadigm……………. 119
  32. Qualitativeresearchdesign………………………………………… 119
  33. Interpretiveparadigm………………………………………………. 120
  34. Fieldwork locationandlocalisation………………………………. 120
  35. Access………………………………………………………………… 121
  36. Sampling…………………………………………………………….. 122
  37. Ethics…………………………………………………………………. 125
  38. Datacollectionregimeandanalysis……………………………….. 126
  39. Researchlimitation…………………………………………………. 134
  40. Methodreliabilityandvalidity……………………………………… 136
  41. Summary…………………………………………………………….. 138
  42. Chapter5:Keyresearchfindings……………………………………….. 140
  43. Socio-culturaldemographicsofoffendersample……………….. 140
  44. Familycircumstances……………………………………………… 148
  45. Polygamy……………………………………………………………. 148
  46. Deathofparents…………………………………………………….. 153
  47. Brokenhome………………………………………………………… 156
  48. Economicmotivations……………………………………………… 161
  49. Lackofjobs………………………………………………………….. 161
  50. Poverty………………………………………………………………. 165
  51. Money………………………………………………………………… 168
  52. Betterlife………………………………………………………………. 173
  53. Corruption…………………………………………………………… 176
  54. Lifecourseengagement……………………………………………. 187
  55. “Badfriends”………………………………………………………….. 187
  56. Drugs/alcohol……………………………………………………….. 200
  57. Gambling…………………………………………………………….. 207
  58. Situational dynamicsincarryingoutanarmedrobbery………….. 209
  59. Decisionmaking…………………………………………………….. 210
  60. Planning……………………………………………………………… 211
  61. Co-operationfromoutsiders………………………………………. 213
  62. Maskedandunmasked………………………………………………. 216
  63. Useofweapons………………………………………………………. 216
  64. “Juju”power………………………………………………………….. 223
  65. Beliefin“God”…………………………………………………………. 229
  66. Summary……………………………………………………………. 232
  67. Chapter6:Responsetoarmedrobbery…………………………………. 233
  68. Offenders’ response………………………………………………. 233
  69. The criminal justicesystem’sresponse…………………………. 240
  70. Summary……………………………………………………………. 253
  71. Chapter7:Newtheorisingfromtheresearch…………………………… 255
  72. 7.1.Discussionandconclusions…………………………………… 255
  73. Bibliography………………………………………………………… 270

Listoftables

Table1:Fifteencountrieswithhighestvictimisationratesbetween1996-2000………… 57

Table2:Fifteencountrieswithmediumhighestvictimisationratesbetween

1996-2000………………………………………………………………………………………………………58

Table 3: Percentage of robberies committed with firearms in selected Africancountries…………………………………………………………………………………………… 59

Table4:ArmedrobberycasesinNigeria1980-1993……………………………………………. 60

Table 5: Discrepances in regard to recorded robbery cases in Nigeria 1994-2006……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61

Table6:ArmedrobberyfatalitiesinNigeria1994-2006……………………………………….. 63

Table 7: Summary of crime statistics in Nigeria from 1980-1986 (Offencesagainstproperty)…………………………………………………………………………… 65

Table 8: Summary of crime statistics in Nigeria from 1980-1986 (offences againstpersons)…………………………………………………………………………………………… 65

Table 9: Summary of crime statistics in Nigeria from 1987-1993 (Offencesagainstproperty)…………………………………………………………………………… 66

Table 10: Summary of crime statistics in Nigeria from 1987-1993 (offencesagainstpersons)……………………………………………………………………………… 66

Table 11: Summary of crime statistics in Nigeria from 1994-2003 (Offencesagainstproperty)…………………………………………………………………………… 67

Table 12: Summary of crime statistics in Nigeria from 1994-2003 (Offencesagainstpersons)…………………………………………………………………………….. 67

Table 13: The distribution of the broad categories of offences in Ghana 1980-1996……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69

Table14:CriminaloffencesinGhana fortheperiod2000-2005……………………………. 70

Table 15: Crime statistics for South Africa from April to March 2003/2004 to2009/2010……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

Table16:Offenders’previousoffencesandconvictions…………………………………….. 142

Table17:Offenders’ prisonstatus…………………………………………………………………. 143

Table18:Offenders’placesoforigin………………………………………………………………. 144

Table19:Ageofoffenderswhenrobberywascommitted……………………………………. 145

Table20:Ageof offendersatthetimeofinterview…………………………………………….. 146

Table21:Offenders’levelofeducation……………………………………………………………. 147

Appendices

Appendix1: Worldgovernanceindicatoramong selectedcountries……………………. 312

Appendix2: Informed consent form…………………………………………………………….. 316

Appendix3: Statisticalreturns ofconvicted armed robbers…………………………….. 317

Abstract

ThisisaNigerianstudy,whichinitiallyaimedtoexaminearmedrobbery culture and the youth subculture. With the employment ofsubculturaltheory,thestudybecameintellectuallyunviableinexplainingtheprimarydata.Areplacementwasmadebyseekingrecourse to anomie-strain theory and control theory to explain thedata.Presently,themainaimofthisstudyistoexaminetheinvolvement of youths in armed robbery. Specifically, the study willlook at armed robbery from the point of view of offenders and thefactorsresponsiblefor theircrime.

Armed robbery is a type of robbery aided by weapon(s) to threaten,force and deprive a person or persons of the right to private, public orcorporate belongings. Since the end of the Nigeria civil war (1967-1970), the offence has become a problem in the country, occurringalmost on a daily basis in the urban areas more than the rural. Armedrobberycantakeplaceinresidentialhomes,commercialplaces,motorways and any other place the offenders may deem necessary tooperate. The current criminal climate has made it possible for armed robbers to engage in interstate criminal operations as well.

Methodologically, the research is qualitative, involving semi-structured face-to-face oral interviews (open-ended) with 20 armed robbers in prison custody in Nigeria. There is also an unstructured interview with

4  members of the criminal justice system in Nigeria. The analytical framework employed is interpretive phenomenology, to capture the holistic worldview of the offender sample. Secondary data comes from both the Nigeria Police Force and the Nigeria Prison Service records.

Findings are  presented under four  systematic themes: family circumstances, economic  motivations, life course engagement, and situational dynamics in carrying out a robbery. Data reveal the four most significant factors in the hierarchy of response (bad friends, money, poverty and corruption) that may account for the involvement of youths in armed robbery.

Since the group of“ bad friends ”is the main  catalyst responsible for the involvement of youths in armed robbery, the thesis concludes that this sample of respondents be regarded as a network of criminals who were strained by the unjust social structure in their native Nigeria.Besides,thereisneedforaNigeriancriminologicaltheoreticalframework that offers an in-depth explanation of crime in the Nigerian society.

Chapter1:

Introduction

This “intellectual journey” has an underlying history. The author came to this taskwhile working in the Criminal Justice System of Nigeria (CJS), namely, the NigeriaPrison Service, between 1999 and 2003. Those five years were full of experiences andproblem-solvingscenariosfromprisoninmateswhohadeitherbeendetainedorconvicted. The police who arrested and sent them to prison labelled the majority ofthem “armed robbers”, pending the court hearings, which did not come up as andwhen due. With the daily influx of armed robbery suspects in prison, the authorthoughtitwisetostudythissubjectareatounderstandtheprobablefactorsresponsible for the youthful involvement in “armed robbery”, and to suggest crimepreventionand/orreductionstrategies,whichmayhelpthegovernmentandcriminologistsin criminal justicepolicy-making.

The current study was originally intended to be a comparative study of armed robberyin Nigeria and Britain (or more precisely England). Comparative criminology datesback to the time of Emile Durkheim (Newman & Howard, 2001). It involves anevaluative study of any type of crime as it affects more than one culture, or onenation-state, or region. The value of comparative criminology is that it identifies aninteresting subject area for study as well as an important method of carrying out theresearch(Zimring & Johnson, 2005).

Armed robbery is an important subject that has been studied widely by criminologistsacross the world. Research began to develop in the second half of the twentiethcentury. De Baun (1950); McClintock & Gibson (1961); Normandeau (1968a, 1968b,1968c, 1969a, 1969b), and Einstadter (1969) for example, pioneered the study ofarmed robbery in both the US and the UK. Since then many studies have featuredsamples from national, cultural, cross-cultural or cross-national populations (see forexampleRotimi,1984;Nkpa,1976;Marenin,1987;Ekpenyong,1989;Otu,2003;

Desroches,1995,2002;O’Donnell&Morrison,1994;Matthews,1996;Matthewset

al,2001;Matthews,2002;Gill,2000,2001;Wrightetal,2006;Wright&Decker,

1987; Macdonald, 1975; Gabor et al, 1987; Wright & Decker, 1997; Cook, 1987;Conklin, 1972; Nugent et al, 1989; Smith & Louis, 2010; Borycki, 2003; Boryckietal, 2005).

Armed robbery being talked about in this study involves banks, shops, petrol stations,domestic houses and highways or motorways. It involves different levels of force andan array of different weapons (Matthews, 2002) such as guns and knives. Matthews(2002) has also suggested that in some armed robberies enacted in the UK, weaponswere not used at all. This is not the case in Nigeria, because those who get involveduseweapon(s)tothreaten,forceanddepriveapersonorpersonsoftherighttoprivate,publicorcorporatebelongings(Nwalozie,2007).Basedonthedifferentnotions of the umbrella term “armed robbery” in Nigeria and the UK, it has becometoogeneralaconcepttouseasastartingpointofanalysis(Matthews,2002).Although armed robbery is a serious offence committed by youths, our interest is notso much in the terminology “armed robbery” but we are much more concerned withunderstanding what motivates them to do it. However, for the sake of clarity andwriting conventions used herein, the terms robbery and/or armed robbery will refer tothe same subject matter, “armed robbery”. If for any reason a different type of robberyismentioned, it will beclearly stated.

The initial intention to do a comparative research of armed robbery in Nigeria andBritain was for obvious reasons: To date, neither Nigerian nor British scholars havecarried out any comparative study of armed robbery between both countries. Theabsence of cross-national or cross-cultural research on armed robbery in the two stateshascreatedagapintheliterature.Thereisacoloniallegacythatmakesthisinteresting, the British leaving a legal system in the post colonial period and howsuited or unsuited such a system is to contemporary Nigeria in the comparative studyof crime and criminal justice. It seems also that Nigerian criminologists are not soinclinedtocomparativestudiesduetofinancialconstraintsandaccesstoresearchdata, while British criminologists seem to be more inclined to comparing crime andcriminaljusticeamongthedevelopedcountriesinEuropeandAmericawherefinancialresourcesandaccess toresearchdatamaynotbesoproblematic.

So,doingacomparativestudyofarmedrobberyinNigeriaandBritainwouldprobably have been the first of its kind; it would also have generated new knowledgeincriminologicalscience.Particularly,wewouldhavecometoknowinmoredetails

the similarities and differences surrounding the nature and patterns of armed robberyinthetwocountries.Presumablyanycomparativeresearchincriminologymusthighlight the similarities and dissimilarities of a particular crime in the countries beingstudied. Our first concern would have been to establish whether armed robbery was aproblem in both countries (see Clinard & Abbot, 1973). The research would haveconsidered two different groups of youths from two different cultural backgrounds.The study would have enabled us to know the current, recent, and previous robberytrends in both countries. This would have involved comparing crime rates from policedata and interviews with participants. Moreover, we would have come to know if themotivations to robbery are either similar or different or both. Motivation to crime isarguably the most assumed, causal variable in the origin of criminal behaviour. Indeedno offence can be committed without the offender being motivated by some factor(s)(Jacobs& Richards, 1999:149).

Outside the comparative realm, it would probably be difficult to properly determinewhich underlying factors could be criminogenic (Neapolitan, 2003) in both countries.It was therefore essential to ascertain if similar social processes would be responsiblefor crime in a technologically advanced country [Britain] and a developing country[Nigeria] (Clinard & Abbott, 1973: 1). Our task would have been to test if certaincriminological theories applicable to Britain could also be applicable to Nigeria. If theresults turned out to be similar, they would strengthen our confidence in universalfindings and theories. If on the contrary differences emerged, the challenge would betoexplainthedifferences,perhapsbyreferencetofeaturesofnationalcontexts(Farrington, 1999). However, it is the goal of any comparative criminology to developconcepts and generalisations at a level that distinguishes universals that apply to everysociety and unique characteristics that can be found in one or few places (Bendix,1963). Finally, we would have explored the preventive and/or reductive measures putinplacebytheCriminalJusticeSystemsofbothcountriesandsuggestedwaysforward.

With that in mind, the author set about researching relevant literature on comparativecriminology; and even wrote a chapter on that area. His interest was more in robberytrajectoriesinbothNigeriaandBritaininrelationtotheirpoliticaleconomies.However,theresearchertriedtoexploreafewothercountriessuchastheUnited

StatesofAmerica,AustraliaandCanadatomakethecomparisonrobust.Theliteraturereviewwasundertakenearlierwiththehopethataccesswouldbegrantedtheresearcher toconduct hisresearch in bothNigeriaandBritain.

Within eight months, access was granted the researcher to interview prisoners inNigeria; but unfortunately, access was denied him in England after twelve months ofmaking four separate applicationsto four prisonsin that country. This experiencecalls to mind that while prison establishments across the world deal with those whohave gone contrary to the criminal law of a particular country, the demands of thedifferent jurisdictions regarding security and research materials acceptable to prisonregimes are quite different too. For example, the researcher has come to know thatwhile a laptop, memory stick and tape recorder may be allowed for academic researchinaNigerianprison, theymay notbeapproved forsuch in anEnglish prison.

Considering all these daunting experiences and obvious setbacks, and with the fullsupport of his supervisors, the researcher decided to conduct a “single study” byfocusing on Nigeria where he was granted access to interview young armed robbers inKirikiri Maximum Security Prison in Lagos. The next challenge was to restructure thethesis by discarding the written chapters on comparative criminology and the politicaleconomy of Britain. This experience has revealed that while a researcher may set outtodoaparticularresearchofhischoice,hemayendupdoingwhatheneverwantedto do.

Nevertheless,inthecontextofthecurrentthesis,itisimportanttostressthatoccasions may warrant comparative literature, survey data and official crime statisticsfrom some parts of the world, especially Africa being employed to make the studymore robust. Comparing recorded crime between different jurisdictions can createcomplications (Barclay & Tavares, 2000). It has been argued on the other hand, thatofficial statistics contain many problems and errors that seriously constrain their useforcomparativestudy (Lynch 1993;Mayhew & Van Dijk, 1997).

In trying to conduct this study, the researcher reflected on the theoretical frameworkthat would be suitable for the explanation of criminal behaviour, particularly armedrobbery in Nigeria. The theory that captured the researcher’s imagination and interestmore than any other was subcultural theory, from which the title of the thesis wasformulated.Atthebeginningoftheinterviews,respondentsseemedtobeyoungmen

robbingpeople,however,theresearcherthoughtthestudyhadsomekindofresonancearound subcultural form.

One of the assumptions about “subculture” is the lower, subordinate, or deviant statusof social groups labelled as such. These labelled groupings are distinguised by theirclass, ethnicity, language, poor and working class situations (Cutler, 2006); age orgeneration(Maira,1999).Theseculturalandsocio-structuralvariablesmakesubculturesrelatively homogeneous (Epstein, 2002).

Since the 1990s, the term subculture has been used in a much broader perspective toexplainanygroupofpeoplewhoadjusttonormsofbehaviour,values,beliefs,consumptionpatterns,andlifestylechoicesthataredistinctfromthoseofthedominantmainstreamculture(Cutler,2006). Accordingto Gelder(2005:1):

Subcultures aregroups of people that are insome way representedasnon-normativeand/ormarginalthroughtheirparticularinterestsandpractices, through what they are, what they do, and where they do it. Theymay represent themselves in this way; since subcultures are usually awareof their differences, bemoaning them, relishing them, exploiting them, andsoon.Buttheywillalsoberepresentedlikethisbyothers,whoinresponsecanbringanentireapparatusofsocialclassificationandregulationto bear upon them.

Gelder’s definition takes into account the groups themselves on the one hand; andmainstream society on the other. The groups feel marginalized because of their lifesituation,hencetheydecidetoexhibitnegativebehaviour.Gelderalsorevealshowthe entire society views these groups, and especially the way they categorize andisolate them as “subcultures”. Yet subcultures share elements of the main culture,whileat thesametimedistinct fromit(Brake, 1987:6).

In the generic sense, the term subculture could be applied to any group of individualswhosebehaviourdiffersfromtherestofsociety.Forexample,wehearaboutoccupational subculture (Trice, 1993); religious subculture (Gay & Ellison, 1993);consumer subculture (Schouten & Mcalexander, 1995); drug subculture (Cutler, 2006;Cohen & Sas, 1994), immigrant subculture (Brake, 1987);internet or cybercrimesubculture (Adeniran, 2008; Kahn & Kellner, 2006), and so on. This wider descriptionofsubculturehascometotheattentionofsomescholars(Weinzierl&Muggleton,

2006; Cutler, 2006) who query its utility, hence their call for a reconceptualisation orreplacement of the term. It is argued that this new conceptualisation captures thechanging sensibilities and practices of subcultural forms (Weinzierl & Muggleton,2006)in relation to youth groups.

Youth groups are now being referred to as “channels or subchannels”; “temporarysubstream networks”;“neo-tribes” and “clubculture” (see Weinzierl & Muggleton,2006). While this reconceptualisation project does not receive the outright approval ofscholars like Hodkinson (2002), it is apparent that some of these confusions can beclarified if we recognise that different concepts are often used to abstract variedaspects of social reality, and that they can be used interchangeably with subculture torefer to a variety of youth cultural formations (see Weinzierl & Muggleton, 2006).Therefore, a reconceptualised idea of subculture must have “relative distinctiveness”,providea senseof “identity”, a level of “commitment”, and the relative “autonomy”tooperate(seeHall & Jefferson, 2006;Hodkinson,2002).

For more than half a century, subcultural theory has increasingly influenced the studyof youth crime (Young, 2010). In doing so, it has developed two waves on the twosides of the Atlantic – a liberal or structural-functionalist American current of the1950s and 1960s; and a Marxist British version of the late 1970s (see Young, 2010;Newburn,2007;Blackman,2005).TheformerstartedattheChicagoSchool,whilethe latter originated from the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies,Universityof Birmingham (CCCS).

TheChicagoSchoolfirstusedtheconcept“subculture”intheirexplanationofdelinquency (see for example Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).Cohen (1955) went as far as developing Merton’s anomic propositions in his seminalwork,DelinquentBoys.Hearguedthatalargegroupofmaleadolescentshaddeveloped a culture, with its norms, values, and expectations contrary to the dominantculture.Thissubcultureemergedwhenyouthsfromlowersocio-economicstatusfamilies struggled to achieve success. When compared to youths from middle classsociety, those from the lower class had disadvantaged academic backgrounds. Theirinability to achieve success brought about their involvement in a subculture wheretheycouldfindsuccessandstatusenhancement.So,thissubculturerefusedmiddle

class values such as academic achievement, courtesy and delayed gratification (seealso Nihart et al, 2005). Cohen concludes that this delinquent subculture is “non-utilitarian”, “malicious” and “negativistic” (Cohen, 1955: 25) because it is used bystatus-frustrated youths as a hit-back mechanism (Macdonald, 2001: 33). Therefore,from the point of view of the youths themselves, their conduct is to be considered asmeaningful(seeClubb, 2001).

Miller (1958) further developed the work of Cohen by identifying what he refers to as“focal concerns” of the lower class culture. He uses “focal concerns” in preference to“value”;andtheyinclude:trouble,toughness,smartness,excitement,fateandautonomy.Apparently,the“focalconcerns”areareflectionofworkingclasstraditions rather than working class frustrations(see also Macdonald, 2001: 34). Fo rMiller, middle-class norms and values are not subculturally relevant. What is relevant,heargues,isthatmembersofthesubcultureconformtothedistinctivevaluesystemof their own working class culture (see also Macdonald, 2001: 33). This implies that people’s circumstances in life may push them to adopt certain measures or patterns of behaviour, which maybe beneficial ornot.Millerputthisquestion:whyisthecommission of crimes a customary feature of gangs? His answer is: street youths aremotivated to commit crime by the desire to achieve ends, status, or conditions whichare valued, and to avoid those that are disvalued within their most meaningful culturalmilieu, through those culturally available avenues which appear as the most feasiblemeansof achieving thoseends (Miller, 1958:17).

Cloward and Ohlin (1960) improved on the groundwork established by both Cohenand Miller, namely thekind of environment that gave rise to delinquent youths (seealso Nihart et al, 2005). As Cloward and Ohlin (1960: 86) maintain, adolescents whoform delinquent subcultures, have internalized an emphasis upon conformist goals.Drawing on Merton’s (1938) anomie-strain theory and Shaw and Mckay’s (1942)social disorganisation theory, Cloward and Ohlin argued that lower class boys werefacedwithinadequaciesoflawfulavenuesofaccesstothesegoalsandunabletorevise their ambitions downward, they experienced severe disappointments, hencetheir involvement in higher levels of delinquency than middle and upper class youths(seealsoNihartetal,2005).Thus,unfavourableanddisappointingexpectationinlife

coulddetermine delinquent behaviour as a viable option. Cloward and Ohlin outlinedthreetypologiesofdeviantsubculturenamely:criminal,conflict,andretreatist.

Like the Chicago School, the early Birmingham School focused on the link betweenthe “deviant” sensibilities of youth “gangs” and the localities from which such gangsemerged (Bennett, 1999). Ecological studies of various parts of post-war Britain1found poverty as the main cause of delinquency, especially when combined with theabsence of the father figure. In the 1950s, the absent or working mother came in forcriticism. Child-rearing practices were compared, and working class life was seen asdivided into “the rough” and “the respectable”. Delinquency was found to have localtraditions and values in underprivileged areas of Liverpool and London (see Brake,1987:59).

WiththepublicationoftheCCCSresearch,Britishstudiesofyouthcultureexperienced two fundamental changes. Firstly, emphasis shifted from the study ofyouth gangs to style-based youth cultures, such as Teddy boys, Mods, Rockers andSkinheads, which from the 1950s onwards rapidly became an essential feature ofeveryday British social life. Secondly, in keeping with the central hypothesis of theCCCS,asnotedabove,the“local”focusofearlieryouthstudieswasgivenupcompletelyinfavourofasubculturalmodelofexplanation(Bennett,1999).Theinitial Chicago School’s premise that subcultures are critical to an understanding ofdevianceasnormalbehaviourinthefaceofparticularsocialcircumstanceswasreworkedbytheBirminghamSchoolintheirmostinfluentialwork,ResistanceThrough Rituals (1976), in order to account for the style-centred youth cultures ofpost-warBritain.AccordingtotheCCCS,thedeviantbehaviourofsuchyouth“subcultures” had to be understood as the collective reaction of youths themselves, orrather working-class youths, to structural changes taking place in British post-warsociety(Bennett, 1999).

In his assessment of the two subcultural waves mentioned above, Cohen (1980: vi)said: “Both work with the same “problematic” … growing up in a class society; bothidentifythesamevulnerablegroup:theurbanmaleworking-classlateadolescent;

1ThankstoscholarslikeMays(1954);Morris(1957);Kerr(1958)forconductingsuchstudies.

both see delinquency as a collective solution to a structurally imposed problem”. This“problematic” is probably different from the Nigerian situation because of the tribaldivide of the youth population, but we shall see that some unemployed working classNigerian youths still face collective problems that need redress such as bad friends,lackof money, poverty, corruption, and so on.

Again,andasweshallseelater,theyouthrespondentsforthisstudyarefromdifferent tribes in the country (see table 18), even though the group element in theircriminal behaviour is not in doubt. However, as the fieldwork progressed, it becameapparentthatitwasnotasubculturalform.Evenso,theauthorthoughtthatsubcultural theory and its forms might still work; but disappointingly, the culturalidentities (such as common language, code of dressing, and music) shared by popularsubcultural groups like Teddy boys, Punks, Hip hops, were not found among theyouths chosen for this Nigerian study. Arguably, the sample of respondents (armedrobbers)weredoingsomethingverydifferentfromwhatcouldbetermedasubculture.So,asthedatawasanalyzed,itbecameobviousthatthesubcultureparadigmwould notwork.

Nevertheless, subcultural theorists have always insisted that they are better placed toexplain criminal behaviour (Blackman, 2005), hence no study of youth delinquencycan easily be undertaken without recourse to many of their insights (Newburn, 2007).Thisisbecausesubculturaltheoriststendtoconsiderthegeneralnatureofdelinquency with an emphasis on youth gangs and groups instead of the individualdeviant (Newburn, 2007). Thus, they place the group in the context of the entiresociety (see Young, 2010). According to Cohen (1955: 178), delinquency is not aboutsomething individualistic, but refers to “gangs of boys doing things together, theiractions deriving their meaning and flavour from the fact of togetherness and governedby a set of common understanding, common sentiments and common loyalties” (citedin Gelder, 2005: 21). To be involved in group delinquency also implies that theindividual takes delight and relief in the protective and sympathetic comfort of thegroupasheshareshisexperienceoffacingcommontaskswiththem(Walsh,1986).

Contemporarycriminologistshaveinvokedtheprinciplesofsubculturaltheorisationintheirvariousstudiesofyouthfuloffending,includingarmedrobbery.Forexample,

Jacobs and Wright (1999) interviewed 86 active armed robbers in St Louis Missouri(USA), on the impact of “street culture” on an offender’s decision to engage in armedrobbery. They conclude that “street culture subsumes a number of powerful conductnorms, including but not limited to the hedonistic pursuit of sensory stimulation,disdain for conventional living, lack of future orientation, and persistent eschewal ofresponsibility” (Jacobs & Wright, 1999: 165). This implies that those associated withstreet lifestyles are averse to the conventional norms of mainstream society. It is thisaversion to the norms of mainstream society that makes them become a deviantsubculture. However, not all subcultures are deviant or criminal-oriented (but seeCohen& Sas, 1994).

In what follows, the subcultural approach is not immune from criticisms. To beginwith, the notion of subculture has never really been adequately defined. Even whendefinitions are attempted, they are generically driven and without any connection withyouth delinquency, which the concept purports to be addressing. As Bennett (1999:599)stresses,“theproblemsofusing‘subculture’isthatithassometimesbeenapplied inexactly, becoming little more than a convenient ‘catch-all’ term for anyaspect of social life in which young people, style and music intersect”. It is littlewonder that “subculture” has been used as an ad hoc concept whenever a writerwished to emphasize the normative aspects of behaviour contrary to some generalstandard. The result has been a blurring of the meaning of the term, confusion withotherterms,andafailurefrequentlytodistinguishbetweentwolevelsofsocialcausation (see Yinger, 1960: 625-6 cited in Jenks, 2005: 7). Moreover,one wouldquestiontherandomuseoftheterm“subculture”toapplytothosewholiveoppositional to the mainstream society as those who have no positive ideals to pursue,thus making them all the more isolated from the larger society. On this view, theirmarginalization is simply intensified by their designation as a “subculture” (Jenks,2005:130).

Subcultural theory fails to make a clear-cut distinction between “subcultures” and“gangs”. Every so often, it tries to merge the two together in the name of studyingdeviantcriminalgroups.Forexample,Walsh(1986:19)makesthismergerbyarguingthattheconceptof“gang”and“subculture”areconventionallyusedtoexplaintheculturalenclaveinwhichtheapprenticeshipprocessoccurs,stressing

group support, both physical and in the sense of shared guilt or blame after events. Indoing so, he begs the question about the authenticity of the so-called “subcultures”.Itis important to stress that both concepts are different. Gangs are informally-structured“neargroups”madeupofacloselyconnectedcorewithaloosernetworkofperipheral members; whereas subcultures are the cluster of actions, values, style,imageryandlifestyleswhichthroughmediareportage,extendbeyondaneighbourhood to form a complex relationship with other larger cultures to form asymbolic pseudo-community (Brake, 1987). This distinction is important if we are toavoid the misrepresention of subculture as almost anything any person may think of.Otherwise, looking at the formal and substantive elements of “subculture”, if the termwere to be introduced for the first time now, it would be dismissed as inadequate(Clark1974 cited in Brake, 1987).

The subcultural approach is notoriously “overly deterministic” in its emphasis onthe“peergroup”or“gangs”orrather“groupcriminality”;butitissilentabouttheplaceof “personal choice” and “free will” in criminal behaviour (Clubb, 2001). Being in asubculture or gang makes delinquent activity more likely by actively promoting it,nevertheless,thisdoesnotmakedeviantbehaviourobligatory.Theindividualisnaturally free to choose whether to commit a crime or not, and to do so for personal reasons rather that as a group requirement (Clubb, 2001; Williams, 1997). Crime causation is a matter for the individual to deal with without much concern for the group (Clubb, 2001). This has also been a favourable argument for Merton’s anomietheory.However,accordingtoSutherlandandCressey’sdifferentialassociationtheory (1978), the values which encourage peers to commit crime are learnt along side the techniques to commit crime. When peers behave contrary to the group, they breakaway from the group’s solidarity. Group solidarity is a formidable and pivotal force as far as the subculture isconcerned.Arguably,mostyouthcrimeswouldnotbecommitted in a group if people did not want to exhibit their popularity and statusamongtheirmembers.Thereforebeingoverlydeterministicisasubcultural“complacency”toperpetuatecriminalbehaviour among youths.

Theclaimofsubculturaltheoriststobebetterplacedinthestudyofyouthdelinquencyisoverexaggerated.Whiletheyhavearoleinexplaininggroupdelinquency,theyaredeficientintheunderstandingofindividualcriminality.Group

criminality presupposes individual criminality, which likely starts at home before itdegeneratesinto peer delinquencyin theformofasubculture.

The issue of a group’s homogeneity makes subcultural formation utterly “selective”andpro-western.Arguably,itisunnecessarytolookforahomogeneousyouthcriminalpopulationinordertogroupthemintoasubculturalform.Youthsofdifferent age brackets and backgrounds can still come together to form a subculture inorderto address whatthey perceiveasyouth problems inthepolity.

Moreover,subculturaltheoryhasconsistentlybeenattackedforhavingonlyonevulnerable group of people in mind, that is urban male working class late adolescents(see for example Macdonald, 2001). This position of criminologists from both sides ofthe Atlantic has overdominated subcultural studies with a stereotype of the youthfuloffender. An all-important question is: why has a particular group of individualsremainedthefocusofsubculturaltheoristsasthosethatcanbeassociatedwithdelinquency? Subcultural theorists should make a leap and extend their studies tovarious groups of youths in post-modern society in order to understand the dynamicsof youth delinquency. Criminologists from Africa must now rise to the challenge ofcreating their own school of subcultural studies instead of depending on the sort of“benchmark” set by both the Chicago and Birmingham Schools as the measure forsubculturalstudies.

Scholars (Redhead, 1990; Melechi, 1993; Miles, 1995; Malbond, 1998;Muggleton,1997;Bennett,2000)havearguedthatsubcultureswerecreatedbysubculturaltheorists,notviceversa.Thatistosay,subculturaltheoristsdeterminewhatsubculturesshouldrepresent.Forinstance,Americantheoristswouldanswerthequestion about the delinquent by referring to the “delinquent subculture” involvingcodedhonoursbasedon“Rep”andthemobilisationofviolence(Young,2010).British theorists would talk about the Teds, Punks, Mods, and so on, by clearlydefiningtheirstyles,therebyignoringthelackofclarityoftheactorsinvolved(Young,2010).Inthissense,subculturaltheorymaybeaccusedofbeingover-dominated by Western criminologists, especially American and British scholars, to anextent that any study of youth subcultures elsewhere must be influenced by studiesfromeitherorbothcountries.Thedangeristhatsubculturaltheoristsfrombothsides

of the Atlantic end up glamorising delinquents by “popularising”them as Rep, Mods,Teds,Hiphopsetc,withtheendresultthatthecriminalbehavioursofyouthsubculturesaredownplayed.

Subculturesaremale-dominatedsomuchsothatanemphasison“maleness”isseenas a panacea for an identity that has been weakened by structural features (Brake,1987).Perhapstheinvisibilityofgirls’subcultureisbecausetheveryterm“subculture”hasacquiredsuchconsistentlymasculineovertones(McRobbieandGarber, 2005).In this connection, men are regarded as more criminally-minded thanwomen. It has been argued that the“absence of girls from the whole of literature inthisareaisquitestrikinganddemandsexplanation”(McRobbie&Garber,1976:209), and very little seems to have been written about the involvement of girls ingroupdelinquency(McRobbieandGarber,2005);butwhenevertheyareacknowledged in the literature, the focus has been on their sexual attractiveness. Ifsubcultural theorists neglect the holistic study of female group delinquency, then acrucialelementofresearchthatcanexplorethegenderdivideinoffendingislacking.

Subcultural theory has been accused of over-prediction with regard to delinquency.For example, among the poorest working class communities, crime is not ever-presentin all individuals (see Newburn, 2007). Critics also maintain that subcultural theory isunnecessarilyover-rationalinanattempttogranthumanactorsasenseofmakingtheirhistoryinadeterminateworld.Consequenttothatisanunreflectivebouncingoff the conditions that beset such people (Young, 2010) hence the freedom to drift(Matza, 1964) into crime. For instance, the robber continues to rob, the alcoholiccontinues to drink and get drunk (see Young, 2010). In doing so, a culture of crime isdevelopedand animated.

Subculturaltheorisationtendstosplitupawholesocietywhenittalksabout“deviants”,thussuggestingthattherearealsonon-deviants.Thismakesthedeviantsto claim a moral high ground for their actions, while at the same time finding faultswith the mainstream society. Arguably, for the deviant, the mainstream is seen asdeviant; while for the mainstream, the subculture is the deviant. In the words ofJenks(2005:129)“theideaofsubculturecanbeemployedtovalorisetheunderdog,

radicalizethedispossesed,givevoicetotheinarticulatebutequallytomarginalizeandcontain thedeviantor non-mainstream”.

However, if by subculture we are referring to the well-known theory of the 1950s and1970s, then it might not be feasible to employ it in the explanation of the “youthsubculture” who enact armed robberies in Nigeria. As noted before, this is largely dueto the absence in this study of cultural identities associated with subcultures, such asdress code, music, common language, and so on. Although these cultural identitiesmay be crucial to any subcultural formation, they seem to have been overemphasizedbythetheory,therebyovershadowingthestudyofcriminalbehaviourofyouthsubcultures. In addition, the characteristics of the offender sample in the present studyin terms of age, state of origin, tribe, and geo-political zone do not fit with thehomogeneous nature of subculture, even though the respondents are involved in groupcriminality, which subcultural theorists claim to be better positioned to explain (seeonceagain Blackman, 2005).

Even if subculture remains the best way to explain more unconventional aspects ofyouth culture, it does not seem to offer much help for an understanding of the widerangeofyouthgroupsinthepost-modernworld(Cutler,2006;Muggleton&Weinnzierl,2006).Thismaybebecauseofthewaysubcultureissomewhat“benchmarked” to refer to certain group of people alone. In that weakness, subculturaltheory has probably now, “run its course” (Jenks 2005: 145), become “superfluous”and “no longer relevant” (Chaney 2004: 36) and fails to provide “a useful descriptionof young people’s social world or their experiences” (Karvonen et al, 2001: 393) inrelationto thecrimeof armed robberyin Nigeria.

It is important to reiterate that youth involvement in criminality there arises from theinjustices of the Nigerian state: when youths come together as “bad friends” to carryout armed robbery, they are motivated by a desire to get money due to the poverty andendemic corruption in the country. These are their major kinds of indicators thatexplain what they do. One can see their reasons as either appropriate or not. To saythat they are fighting against the state appears to be a romanticisation of crime, giventhatit wouldbeopen tothem todo so bypeacefulprotest ordemonstration.

Since subcultural theory could not bear on this study as its theoretical framework, andthere is no Nigerian criminological theoretical framework to help us, the availableoption was to employ anomie-strain theory and a measure of control theory becausethe data (see chapter 5) theoretically and significantly point towards anomie andcontrol.

Anomie occurs when society emphasizes achievement or culturally prescribed goalswithout addressing the approved norms that regulate the means to achieve those goals(Zembroski,2011:246).Originally,MertonidentifiedanomieasafeatureofAmerican society in general and experienced by those in the lower socio-demographicclassesbecausetheiraccesstolegitimateopportunitiesaremoreoftenthannotblocked (see Akers & Sellers, 2008). Nigerian social structure is unequal and unjust(Arhedo et al, 2011), and such inequality can result in anomie. The rich-poor divideobviouslypressurespeople,especiallyyouthsfrompoorerbackgrounds,togetinvolved in crimes such as armed robbery, as a way out of poverty. Whereas social systems hold the same goals for all people, they do not give the same people the equal means to achieve them. When that happens, standards of right and wrong are no longer applicable, and it is necessary to determine “which of the available procedures is most efficient in netting the culturally approved value?” (Merton, 1968: 189). The state of anomie results in “a literal demoralization, i.e., a de-institutionalization of the means” (Merton, 1968: 190; see also Zembroski, 2011: 245). For example, corruption in the higher echelons of Nigerian society appears to result in the fracturing of moral standards, and this causes problems in justifying the observance of the rule of law.Thisisbecausesocialstructuresexertenormouspressuresonpeopletodeviate(Merton, 1968). Therefore, anomie-strain theory seems to be the closest theory thatcan offer an explanation of criminal behaviour found among Nigerian youths in thisstudy.

Moreover, the choice of anomie-strain theory to explain criminal behaviour in ananomicsocietylikeNigeriaisforthereasonthatithasamorefluidflexiblefitintotheNigeriancontext,andexplainscriminalbehaviourmainlyfromaneconomicposition. Anomic crimes like armed robbery (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001b) seem toflourishinNigeriabecausesomesegmentsoftheyouthpopulationaredisenfranchised,disaffectedandfairlyalienatedbythesocietyandgovernmentsuch

thatlegitimateopportunitiestoachievethedesiredculturalgoalsarefarremovedfrom them. The youth respondendents for this study is a typical example, hence theemployment of anomie-strain theory to explain their criminal behaviour. They seethemselves as bad friends, who are looking for money, and blaming the governmentforthepovertyanddeep-rootedcorruptioninthecountry.Ofcourse,consideringthesecriminogenicfactors,itcannotbegainsaidthatastateofnormlessnessandsocialdisorganisationprevailinNigeria.Society’sattitudestowardcorruption,cheating on one’s income tax, embezzling, fraud, and interfering with the right toprivacy help set the stage for acts that may be considered criminal. In Nigeria, there isatendencytoexalttherichwithoutbotheringaboutthesourceofthewealth(Odumosu,1999:72).Whenagroupofpeople,orsocietyorcommunitybecomemore disorganized or anomic, there is the tendency that higher rate of crime anddeviancecould be found amongthem (Akers & Sellers,2008).

Another reason for using anomie-strain theory in this study is because it provides aninsightintothecrimeprobleminNigeria,whichisarguablyconnectedtotheunbriddledquestformoney.AccordingtoAlemikaandChukwuma(2001:20),Nigerian society lays more emphasis on being “successful” in the sense of acquisitionof wealth, engagement in ostentatious lifestyle and conspicuous consumption (possessexpensive cars, large and expensive buildings, make huge donations at public fund-raising, etc), to be highly educated and to wield political power. Those who fail tomeettheseaspirationsandgoalsprescribedbysocietyexperiencetremendouspressure or strain. The main emphasis of Merton’s anomie-strain theory is “monetarysuccess”, which is one criminogenic aspect of the content of the American Dream. Asfar as monetary success is an inherently open-ended and elusive, the adequacy of thelegitimate means for achieving this particular cultural goal is suspect. Irrespective ofthe amount of money someone is able to make by staying within legal boundaries,illegal means will always offer further advantages in pursuit of the ultimate goal(Rosenfeld & Messner, 2000).It is obvious that those who may have no access tolegitimateopportunitiesaremostlikelytosufferthegreatest strain(Merton,1968).

Social control theory deals with social bonds in relation to delinquency, and it helps toexplain some probable factors that led the respondents to get involved in armedrobbery, and complements anomie-strain theory. Hirschi (2002, [1969]) argues thatwhen there is a strong social bond with conventional others and institutions, crime islikely not to be committed. Logically, youths who have nothing to loose socially,morally, or instrumentally are likely to become law breakers, as compared to thosewithstrongsocialbondstoconventionalothers,institutionsandbeliefsystems(Jensen,2000:140).TheruleoflawinNigeriaisveryfragile,andpeoplearesceptical of societal laws and norms. Itappears that some are able to break the lawwithimpunity,and thismayexplain whycorruptionis endemicand awayof life.

Current theoretical criminological perspectives do not adequately take account of theNigerianexperienceofcrimeandcriminality.Therefore,thereisneedforthedevelopment of a Nigerian criminological framework. It is hoped that this researchmakesacontributiontothatbodyofknowledge.ANigeriancriminologywilltakeinto full account an understanding of the management of crime and criminal justice inthe country. It will aim at linking crime with certain issues such as: tribal differencesthathaveformedpartofthepeople’slifestyle;rural-urbanmigrationofpeople,especially youths in search for jobs; the use of “juju” power and belief in “God”; highlevels of inequality and corruption among the powerful elite in Nigeria in relation tothe lower class people. By identifying these issues, what comes next is the beginningofadebateonthedevelopmentofaNigeriancriminological perspective.

Having said that, the main aim of this thesis is to study the factors responsible for theinvolvement of youths in armed robbery. In doing so, we will look closely at armedrobbery from the perspective of offenders. The importance of studying youths andarmed robbery in the Nigerian context lies in their increasing involvement in thecrime, which has become a disturbing phenomenon right across the country (FederalRepublicofNigeria[FRN],2001).Moreover,thecriminalactivitiesofNigerianyouths “are to a considerable extent products of our depressed economy, politicalrepression and instability under military rule, and the systematic abandonment of thepositiveaspectsofour cherishedculturalvaluesandtraditions”(FRN,2001:17).

“Youth” is a socially constructed part of the lifespan positioned between childhoodandadulthood.Thisdefinitionstressesanunderstandingofyouthhavingsocial,cultural and biological components (Hill, 2008: 167). Although “youth” is a conceptthat does not exist in comparable form in all societies, it remains an embodied socialconstructassociatedwithyoungpeople,who“areoftenconstructedindominantdiscourses as simultaneously and paradoxically at risk, and a risk to society” (Holt,2009: 283). At the same time, youth is considered as a key indicator of the state of acountry itself. In other words, there is a generally held assumption that young peoplehold a key to the future of a country, hence the treatment and management of “youth”isexpectedtoprovideameansof solvingthecountry’s problems(Griffin,2001).

The way in which a nation defines its youth is relative to the objective conditions andrealities that exist therein (FRN, 2001). Following the World Health Organisation’s(WHO)specification,youthsarebetween15and24yearsofage,nevertheless,inmost countries of sub-Saharan Africa, national policy extends the youth age to 30, 35and in rare cases to age 40 (Blum, 2007). In Nigeria for example, youth refers to“persons of ages 18 to 35, who are citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thiscategory represents the most active, the most volatile, and yet the most vulnerablesegment of the population socio-economically, emotionally, and in other respects”(FRN, 2001:5).

Nigeria’s population is largely made up of young people. Evidence shows that six outof every ten Nigerians are under 25 years of age. In 1991, the overall population ofthose between the ages of 15 and 34 was about 30 million; equivalent to one in everythreeNigerians;andofthese,14million(47percent)weremaleswhile16million(53 per cent) were females (FRN, 2001). Scholars (Adeniran, 2008; Adalemo, 1999)havearguedthatNigerianyouthsareknownfortheiridealistic,adventurous,resourceful,inquisitiveandproactivecharacteristics.Whenchallengedbypropermotivation,theyarepreparedtocontributetothedevelopmentoftheircountry(Adeniran, 2008; Mabogunje, 1998). However, the failure of leadership at all levels inthe polity to support positive values for the youths has often translated into socialincongruence (Adeniran, 2008), which may have contributed to their formation ofcriminalgroups.

AlthougharmedrobberyisnotanewcrimeinNigeria,theaudacityandopennesswith which it is announced and successfully enacted is (Marenin, 1987; Igbo, 2001).With the end of the Nigerian civil war (1967-1970), the offence began to occur veryfrequently in the urban areas more than the rural (Ekpenyong, 1989). In recent times,scholars(seeforexampleTorimiro&Kolawole,2005;Idemudia,2005)havecommented that the rate at which incidents of armed robbery are reported in the printmedia is frightening. According to a more recent editorial in the Punch Newspaper,2no state in the federation is safe from armed robbery attacks, and it is estimated thatthe country loses 100 of its citizens to armed robbers each month (Editorial Board,2009). The perpetrators are predominantly male youths (Nwalozie, 2007) who usesophisticatedgunsandothersophisticatedaccessoriesthatsmooththeprogressoftheir operation, such as gas cylinders, welding tools, hammers, powerful beam lightsandexplosives forblowing up banksafes (Sani,2006;seealsoOtu, 2003).

AsdocumentedbyMarenin(1987:278),armedrobbersinNigeriadrivethelatestcars, spend their gains on fancy clothes and women, and have close ties with corruptpoliceofficers.Evidencehasshownthatthecomplicityofsomepoliceofficers,military officers and local businessmen has facilitated armed robbery operations in thecountry (Nkpa, 1976; see also Aluyor, 2005). The current criminal climate has alsomade it possible for armed robbers to operate occasionally at inter-state level (seeIhonde, 2006). Yet, it is suspicious that there may be more to armed robbery thanappearsat first glance(Marenin, 1987:278).

Thefirstobjectivewillbetohaveabetterunderstandingofthesituationaldynamicsin armed robbery. Secondly, the study will encourage positive action to reduce and/orprevent armed robbery occurrence in future. It involves utilising the responses madeby both the offenders and members of the criminal justice system. Finally, the studywill develop a better understanding of the debates surrounding armed robbery as abasis for further theorizing. This will feature a discussion of the principal results fromthestudy andsomerecommendations asto theway forward forNigeria.

2Itwaspublishedon09/06/2009.

Themethodologicalassumptionsonwhichthepresentresearchisbasedaredetailedin chapter 4. Previous studies have extracted data on robbers from official records andfilesandinterviewedrobberyconvictsincustody(Mouzos&Carcach,2001;Matthews,2002;Wrightetal,2006).Thisstudywillfollowasimilarprocedure.Itwill employ a qualitative research method involving a semi-structured face-to-faceoral interview (open ended) with twenty armed robbers in prison custody in Nigeria. Itis also based on unstructured interviews with four members of the criminal justicesystemin that country.

1.1.   Researchquestions

Our central or main research question is: what are the factors responsible for theinvolvementofyouthsinarmedrobbery?Toanswerthisquestion,wehavetoconsiderthetheoreticalperspectivesinvolvedinthisstudy(seechapter3),whichhave helped in posing two other theory-based research questions. These researchquestionswill guidethestudy. Thequestions run interalia:

  • Does weak institutional control encourage the involvement of youths in armedrobbery?
    • Does a lack of legitimate opportunities encourage youths to get involved inarmedrobbery?

The first question was proposed on the basis of social control theory which argues thatpeople may not get involved in crime when they are attached to family, committed tothewidersociety,involvedinconventionalactivities,andhavebeliefintheruleoflaw (see Hirschi, 2002, [1969]). That is to say, when socialisation works well, peopleare drawn into closer contact with conventional society (Hirschi, 2002, [1969]; Meier,1982).However,whenthesesocialbondsareweak,thencrimeislikelytobecommitted. As we shall see in chapter 5, some of the respondents blamed polygamy,death of parents, and broken home as factors that led them into armed robbery. Theseyouths seem to be bereft of the bond of affection that would have kept them attachedtotheirparents,hencetheoptiontocommitcrime.Thesesocialbondsmayberegardedas social constraints (Zhang, 2001).

Futhermore,ifweagreewithHirschiandRudisill(1976:21)that“crimeisautomatically explained by explaining the behaviour of the law-abiding”, then thequestion we are trying to understand is what makes these Nigerian youths to break thelaw. In looking at social control, it is arguable that there is a breakdown on the law inNigerian society. As chapter 5 will reveal, the respondents mentioned corruption asone of their motivations for robbery. Previous research suggests that corruption is onemeasureofthelackofeffectivepoliticalinstitutionalization(Huntington,2009:255).

The second question was raised on the basis of anomie-strain theory. In consideringthe social structure and anomie, Merton (1968a) contends that deviance evolves fromthe culture and structure of society. Inasmuch as members of society are placed indifferent class structures, there may not be equal opportunity to achieve shared values,hence deviance is generated and there is anomie or normlessness. Some of the youthswhotaketo armedrobbery inNigeriaseeitas ashortcutto becomingwealthy.

Besides these two theory-based questions, and to make the study more robust, andclearer, three specific interview questions have been proposed to the respondentsnamely:

  • Doyouthinkthatyourfamilysituationwasresponsibleforyourgettinginvolvedin armed robbery?
    • Do you think that economic circumstances were responsible for your gettinginvolvedin armed robbery?
    • Do you think that engagement with criminal peers was responsible for yourgettinginvolved in armed robbery?

To address the objectives of this study as mentioned above, two more interviewquestionshavebeen crafted:

  • Canyoutellmehowarmedrobbersgotwhattheywantedfromtheirvictims?
  • Doyouthinkarmedrobberyissomethinganoffendercanstopdoing?

Thesespecificinterviewquestionshavebeenoperationalisedtostructurethefieldwork. The process of operationalisation is crucial to an effective research project.Thisinvolvesasetofoperations,behavioursthatcanbemeasured,addressedand

manipulated (Cohen et al, 2007). In answering all these research questions, it isexpectedthatrespondentsmayhaverecoursetothebroadculturalandsocio-economic factors in the native country Nigeria. The responses will allow reflection onthethreetheoreticalmodelsthataremoreconcretenamely:weakbond,economic,andpeerassociation asincitements toyouths tobecomearmedrobbers.

First, the weak bond model will concentrate on issues such as polygamy, death ofparents, and broken home. Second, the economic model will consider factors like lackofjobs,money,poverty,andbetterlife.Third,thepeerassociationmodelwillexamine the street life of “bad friends”, their use of drugs/alcohol, and involvement ingambling. It is important to state that both the weak bond and the economic modelswilldiscuss theissueof corruption.

Furthermore, the question of threat, force, and weapon use will help explain theseverity of the crime and how and where robbers get their guns. Finally, the questionof reduction and/or prevention strategies will be raised. They will be responses givenbytheoffender sampleand themembers of thecriminal justicesystem.

1.2.   Thenatureofarmedrobbery

BeforetheNigerianCivilWar,robberywaslegallydefinedas“stealingwithviolence” (Igbo, 2001: 182). Pursuant to the Criminal Code of 1958, two types ofrobbery existed in Nigeria namely: “ordinary robbery” and “aggravated robbery”. Theformer refers to the actual use or threat of violence to rob, while the latter involves theuse of dangerous weapons to rob leading to physical injuries to victims (Igbo, 2001).Immediately after the war, and consequent upon the dramatic rise in armed robberyoffences across the country, the then Federal Military Government abrogated thesection of the Criminal Code dealing with “aggravated robbery” and replaced it withthe Armed Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree 1970 no 47,3 as ageneraldeterrentmeasure(Igbo,2001).ThisDecreeisthebasisforthefluiddefinition regarding armed robbery in Nigeria today. It addresses the offender, theobjectsusedbefore,during,oraftertheoffence,theaccomplices,theinjuryinflicted

3ThisDecreeiscited in theCriminalCodeAct(CCA)1990 Sections402-403.

on the victim, the intent to commit the offence, the conspiracy to rob, and the requisitepunishment.

According to the Decree, armed robbery occurs: if an offender is armed with anyfirearms, or any offensive weapon, or any obnoxious or chemical materials, or is incompany with any person so armed; or at or immediately before or immediately afterthe time of robbery, and if the said offender wounds any person, the offender shallupon conviction be sentenced to death (CCA, 1990, S. 402, 2 a-b). Secondly, if anyoffender who commits the offence of robbery is armed with any firearms or anyoffensiveweaponorisincompanywithanyotherpersonsoarmed;oratorimmediately before or immediately after the time of the offence, the said offenderwounds or uses any other personal violence to any person, the offender shall uponconviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life with or without weeping (CCA,1990, S.403, 2a-b).

Thirdly, if any person is found in any public place in possession of any firearmswhetherrealorimitationandincircumstancesreasonablyindicatingthatthepossession of the firearms is with intent to the immediate or eventual commission bythat person or any other person of any offence under Section 402 (CCA, 1990, S.403,3).Fourthly,anypersonwhoconspireswithanypersontocommittheoffencewhetherornotheispresentwhentheoffenceiscommittedorattemptedtobecommitted shall be deemed guilty of the offence as a principal offender and shall bepunishedaccordingly (CCA, 1990, S. 403a).

Indeed, the underlying principle in Nigeria is that armed robbery must involve the useof firearms4 or any offensive weapons5 at the disposal of the motivated offender, thatis,anypersonwhoaids,counsels,abets,procuresorconspireswithanypersonto

4The Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1984 Section 13 (1) defines“firearms” to includeany canon, gun, rifle, carbine, machine gun, cap-gun, flint-lock gun, revolver, pistol or other firearmwhether wholeor indetachedpieces.

5Ibid. “Offensive weapon” isany article made or adapted for use for causing injury or intended by theperson having it for such use by him and it includes an air gun, air pistol, bow and arrow, spear, cutlass,machete, dagger, cudgel, or any piece of wood, metal glass or stone capable of being used as anoffensive weapon.

commit the offence.6 As Ekpenyong (1989) argues, the fluidity of the definition hasmeant that many property offenders stand accused of armed robbery in circumstancesthatought to have been considered as theft, burglary or ordinary robbery. Whatamountstoareasonableintenttocommitanarmedrobberyisinfactlargelydependentonpoliceinterpretation,andthiscreatesanopportunityforpolicemanipulation to their own advantage (Ekpenyong, 1989). Unfortunately, the label of“armedrobbers”hasveryoftenbeenusedtojustifytheundueimprisonmentofinnocent Nigerians who have come to the attention of the police for reasons rangingfromtheirrefusaltogivebribestoescapepunishmentforsomeminoroffences(Alston, 2005) to being used as a pretext for the administration of “jungle justice”.7Thisdevelopmenthasattimesmadeitdifficulttodecipherwhotherealcriminalsare.

It may be relevant to consider the British definition of robbery, because of the centralrole Britain played in establishing the Nigerian legal system during the colonial years.As the British Theft Act 1968 prescribes, “a person is guilty of robbery if he or shesteals and immediately before or at any time so doing, and in order to do, uses force,8or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force”(see Smith, 1997: 87). This definition makes no direct reference to armed robbery orthe use of any weapon to rob but emphasises the use of “force” to rob or in order torob. It is more than four decades since the definition was enacted, but it has stood thetest of time, and remained the current legal definition used in Britain to refer to armedrobbery, street robbery, and any other form of robbery. It has also influenced manydefinitions ofrobbery across the world, including Nigeria. Apparently, wheneverreferenceismadetorobberyofbusinessorcommercialpropertyinBritain,itinvariably points to armed robbery (see for example Gill, 2000; Matthews, 1996,2002).

In Nigeria, armed robbery appears to have a different conceptualisation. It is a spatio-temporalcrime(Adeboyejo&Abodunri,2007)thatcanbeenactedathome,ina

6See S. 3a introduced by S. 2 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) (Amendment) DecreeNo. 48of 1971.

7Thisreferstothepublicdispensingjusticeapartfromthenormalprocessoflaw.Inmostcases,itinvolves extra-judicial killingthrough neck-tying.

8Smithinterpretsthisforcetoimplyanyexerciseofphysicalstrengthagainstanotherperson(p.88).

commercial setting, in the work environment, on the motorway (highway) (see forexample Ekpenyong, 1989; Ginifer & Ismail, 2005; Onuminya & Ohwowhiagbese,2005) or wherever the offenders may choose to operate. Once a weapon is involved,the tendency is for the criminal justice system, particularly the police, generally tointerpret everything as armed robbery without proper categorisation into residentialrobbery, commercial robbery, car robbery, street robbery and so on. Undoubtedly, thisdevelopmentcontinuestocreateambiguitiesinofficialstatisticsandsentencingproceduresin thecountry.

Armed robbery bridges the conventional divide between violent crime and propertycrime (Wright & Decker, 1997; Matthews, 2002). For instance, the British CrimeSurvey calls it property crime while the Annual Criminal Statistics of Britain refers toit as a form of violent crime (Matthews, 2002). In essence, robbery is both a propertycrime as well as a crime of violence (Carroll & Jackson, 1983; Cook, 1987). Perhapsthe most serious harm caused by robbery is that it violates two strongly held values,which are: the right to personal safety and the right to property (Conklin, 1972). Attimes robbery leads to the sudden death of either the victims or offenders. If deathoccurs, it is a different offence, usually murder or manslaughter. When violence andtheft are combined, robbery becomes the most serious of the common offences ofdishonesty(Gilyeat, 1993:13).

Armed robbery inspires fear (Macdonald, 1975; Cook, 1987). This fear is predicatedon the use of force against the victim and the theft of his property (Conklin, 1972).Another pertinent reason for fear of robbery is that it is an offence usually committedby a stranger9who attacks a victim or victims violently and unexpectedly (Conklin,1972; Cook, 1987; Felson et al, 2000). This fear keeps people off the streets, makesthemavoidstrangers,andleadsthemtolocktheirdoors(Conklin,1972:4).Inopeningtheinteraction,theperpetratorswillemployatleastoneofthreeproceduresto intimidate their victims: first, a command for compliance supported by a threat offorce; second, the utilization of prodding force; third, the exercise of incapacitatingforce(Desroches, 2002;Luckenbill, 1980).

9Theword“stranger”asusedhereconnotessomeonewhomayormaynothaveknownthevictimbutwhoappears unknowntohimduringtheoperation.

Despite the common view that robbery is a crime perpetrated by strangers (Desroches,2002), it is also an acquaintance crime (Felson et al, 2000). More than four decadesago, Normandeau (1968b) revealed that 85 per cent ofall robberies in the US wereenacted against strangers. However, a recent study shows that in more than one-thirdofrobberiescommittedintheUS,thecriminalmusthaveknownthevictimpreviously (Felson et al, 2000). Whether or not a stranger or an acquaintance commitsrobbery,it at timestends to generatemoralpanicin the culturalmilieu.10

Inwhatfollows,weshall giveanoverviewofthethesis.

1.3.   Overviewofthesis

This thesis contains seven chapters in total. Chapter 2 discusses in detail the problemof armed robbery in Nigeria. It starts by establishing the background to the study. Thenext subsection will attempt to situate armed robbery in the political history andsocio-economicconditionsofNigeria.Finally,thechapterwilldemonstrateacomparativeanalysisofcrimeandcriminaljusticebyconsideringthebroaderliterature in the area. In specific terms, we will be comparing Nigeria with a fewcountriesoncertaincriminaljusticeissuessuchasvictimsurveysandofficialstatisticsamong others.

Chapter 3 explores the existing studies and the theoretical framework. This includes areview of literature based on previous theoretical and empirical explanations of armedrobbery. It will employ two theories of crime (control and anomie-strain theories) as abasisfor explaining youth involvementin armed robbery.

Chapter4explainstheresearchmethod.Theresearchdesignisqualitative.Furthermore, there will be a discussion of the following subheadings: interpretiveparadigm, fieldwork location and localisation, access, sampling, ethics, data collectionandanalysis,researchlimitations andaproof ofmethodreliabilityand validity.

10The creation of moral panic over crime was brought about by a coalition of political, law enforcementand media interests that accounts for the growth of the crime industry” (Chambliss, 1994a: 192). Themedia have always used that strategy “wittingly or unwittingly to reproduce the definitions of thepowerful”(Eldridge,1997:65).Thatis,theymayeithercriticise,orsupportpoliticians  and  thecriminaljustice systemor evenadd their owntomake the crimestorymore dramatic.

Chapter5examinesthekeyresearchfindings.Thiswillinvolveissuesarisingfromthe fieldwork and the way they are analysed to give meaning to the study. First, wewilldiscussthesocio-culturaldemographicsofthesampleofarmedrobbers.Then,the rest of the results will appear in four parts namely: the family circumstances ofoffenders, the economic motivations for getting involved in armed robberies, the lifecourseengagementofoffenders,andthesituationaldynamicsincarryingoutarobberyoperation.

Chapter 6 suggests how to respond to armed robbery based on the research findings.For the sake of clarity, it will appear in two subsections. The first will capture theresponses given by the sample of prisoners interviewed. The second will reflect theviewsof thefour members ofthecriminaljusticesystem interviewed.

Finally,chapter7 will initiate new theorising by discussing the outcome of this research, which features a discussion of the principal results. In short, this is the conclusion chapter.

USE THIS MATERIALS AS A GUIDE FOR YOUR PERSONAL RESEARCH WORK (IF PROPERLY CITED)

PAY ₦3,000 HERE TO DOWNLOAD MATERIALS 

Account Number: 0709546102

Access Bank: Savings
Account Name: Emmanuel Idorenyin Samuel.