VII Congreso Nacional de investigación sobre violencia y delincuencia
than where those were parked around the house; however, its effect to prevent theft of car was quite similar in both parking settings. Summarizing, every security device were more effective to prevent theft from vehicles usually parked on the street than to prevent that cars usually parked on garage or driveways were broken in. Regarding with theft of car, the general protective effect of security devices is less clear. However, figures suggest that alarms, mechanical immobilizers and coded keys were more effective in street settings while electronic immobilizers were more effective in reducing car´s risk where they were parked in garages, driveways or bay behind fence of the property.
IV. DISCUSSION The use of security devices in Chile - around 70 % of the fleet- is still low compared with figures from the U.K. in the same year – more than 90 % of total vehicles (Farrell et al, forthcoming). However, in Chile as well as the U.K, the U.S. and Australia, car crime has sharply decreased during the last years. The widespread effect of increasing massive use of security devices in the country, no doubt, is a feasible hypothesis to explain those differences in trends. The distribution of different security devices among the fleet is very similar in Chile and the U.K, except for mechanical immobilisers. The most popular security device in both countries was alarms, but in Chile the second most popular were mechanical immobilisers while in England they were window security etchings. Marking codes was the third preferred security device in Chile and, as well as window etchings in the U.K., was more popular than electronic immobilisers. Finally, tracker devices were the newest and still least used security devices in both countries. Security devices had the effect in Chile which was expected from the theory. In line with findings in the U.S. (Hazelbaker 1997, cit in Brown 2004) and Australia (Brown, 2004), electronic immobilisers in Chile had a great effect on both theft from car
(56%) and, especially, for theft of vehicles, where the protective effect of electronic immobilisers was a decrease in car´s risk by 72 %. Marking codes also behaved according to the theory, having a significant and clear impact on theft from vehicles (55 %), but not theft of vehicle (9%). Each security device, either alone or combined with other items, had a statistically significant and positive protective effect upon car´s risk. Also in line with findings carried out in quite a different contexts (Farrell et al,, forthcoming; Brown, 2004), every security devices had the biggest effect on temporary theft of vehicles ( for joyriding or committing another offence) than upon permanent theft ( often done by more skilled thieves for selling either stolen cars or parts). This difference was larger in mechanical immobilisers (29%) than related to alarms (21%) to name the most popular devices; and even higher with electronic immobilisers, whose effect was 89% larger on temporary theft than permanent theft. These figures support the hypothesis that security devices are more effective to deterrent opportunistic thieves than professional thieves in Chile. In this line, current security devices used in Chile would not accomplish their purpose of “removing (for professional thieves) the economic incentive of dealing in stolen cars and parts by making the process more difficult and by increasing the likelihood of detection” (Carrol, 2004). From the findings of this study, it is clear that preponderant security device in Chile does not make the process of stealing a car difficult enough to deter professional thieves. The findings relating to the effectiveness of each security device are very similar to results of Farrell´s study (Farrel et al, forthcoming). In both studies, for Chile and the U.K., the first part of the ranking of effectiveness upon theft of vehicle, from the highest effectiveness to lowest effectiveness of security device, was as follows: tracker devices, electronic immobiliser, mechanical and electronic immobiliser configuration, and alarms. The second part of the ranking, however, is quite different: while in this study the sequence finished with mechanical immobilisers and marking codes; in Farrell´s study the last part was window etching and mechanical immobilisers.
173