CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Topalli V, Wright R, Fornango R. Br. J. Criminol. 2002; 42(2): 337-351. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2002, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Publisher Oxford University Press) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
Because of their illicit status, drug dealers robbed in the course of doing business cannot go to the police. Thus, the deterrent, compensatory and retributive benefits of formal justice are unavailable to them. Informal avenues of redress represent their only means of obtaining justice. This article, based on interviews with 20 recently robbed, active drug dealers in St Louis, Missouri, explores how such victims perceive and respond to the assault. Results indicate that direct retaliation is the preferred response because it serves three important aims: reputation maintenance, loss recovery and vengeance. When dealer/victims are unable or unwilling to retaliate they resort to less satisfactory alternatives such as robbery displacement and the resumption of selling. The implications of these findings for the spread of drug market violence are discussed. |