Thieves rational, says cop

| 30/07/2010

(CNS): In most cases burglars think rationally and will target the property that is least likely to result in them getting caught, says RCIPS Inspector Dr Anthony White. Talking to tourism stakeholders last week at a special seminar designed to help them reduce the risk of their visitors and their properties falling victim to crime, the cop, who has a PhD in criminal justice, explained that the more they can make their properties look as if it was likely that a burglar would get caught in the act there, the less likely their condos will be broken into. More light, more natural surveillance and locked doors are more active deterrents to most rational burglars than long sentences or meagre pickings, he revealed. (Photo Dennie WarrenJr)

Talking very specifically about the Seven Mile Beach and West Bay Road Area, White explained that by cutting hedges and introducing lights to parking lots and walkways owners, will dramatically reduce their exposure to crime.
He said that because of an increase in armed robberies and other crimes recently there was heightened fear and concern, but by and large only a small number of people were committing crime on the island and there are simple steps condo owners can take to make their properties less attractive to criminals and protect their guests.
White explained that in many modern town and urban developments designers take the possibility of crime into consideration when creating the environment in what is known as CPTED — crime prevention through environmental design — which includes designing walkways, parking lots, lighting and other elements of an environment to reduce the opportunity for crime.
However, in the case of older properties, especially in Cayman, this was not the case but owners could adapt their properties to take into consideration what it is that a burglar thinks about before making a decision to break into a property.
“The certainty of being caught in most cases is the most influential thing for a criminal,” white said. “Offenders think rationally and they are more influenced by the cues about being caught than the reward or the potential punishment.”
He explained that long prison sentences or the quality of what they are trying to steal have very little influence on most burglars, who are simply out to avoid detection. The goal, he said, for all property owners was to enhance the belief of the potential burglar that coming to your property would be the place where he would likely get caught.
Properties with lots of natural surveillance, where they are overlooked by other properties or where the windows and doors can be clearly seen, are not the first choice for burglars. Criminals are looking for dark properties with high hedges where they can enter and leave undetected, White added.
Security cameras have also been proven here in Cayman to be very effective and he pointed out one local gas station with cameras which had not been targeted in the recent spate of robberies while the ones without had been hit.
White also encouraged a number of local businesses to improve the lighting in the parking lots at night. Showing slides of the parking in and around Grand Harbour, which was very dark, White said it was unacceptable for customers to have to use such dark parking areas, especially when they had spent hundreds of dollars on groceries.
Peppers night club was another location that White criticised, noting how dark the outside area was and said it was no surprise that a considerable amount of serious crime had taken place under cover of the darkness provided to criminals there.
White also advised people to maintain their properties, as he said run down places with garbage piled around or broken fences were attractive to burglars who would not stand out if they were seen and would have easy exits through broken fences.
He singled out Wendy’s on West Bay Road, which had broken fencing at the rear of its property and was also very dark.
White warned property owners not to overdo it. Razor wire, he said, was not advisable as that sent a signal to burglars that there was less likely to be anyone at the property and therefore an easier target.
The crime expert said residents have a major part to play in protecting themselves when crime starts to rise in any community.
“It can take years for government initiatives or policy changes to have impact on the behaviour of criminals even if they work,” he saidn warning people not to expect the authorities to solve the crime problem for them. “You can’t sit around waiting for some big government entity to solve your local crime problems; you have to address it yourselves.”
He said cutting down a hedge or putting in lights would have an immediate impact on reducing the crime on any individual’s property.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

About the Author ()

Comments (45)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nauticalone says:

    While i agree with much of what Dr. White says here, i would still like my Govt. to make it easier for me (and all law abiding and mentally sound adults) to own the means (including guns) to protect myself and my family or other guests in my home!


  2. 100% Caymanian says:

    It’s Time Those Laws Change!!

    I think whomever that have a license gun, should have the rights to shoot anyone that are found odd hours of the night/anytime in there homes that don’t live there.

    IT Should Be LEGAL!!

    I wish I had a license, the thieves are out of order peep’s work too hard to accomplish there things. And allow them to just come in and demand money etc and leave with it.

    That should teacher other THEIVES a lesson


    100A% Caymanian

    • a dangerous precedent – sir, that means if you see someone taking your property, you should shoot them to teach them a lesson or to recover back your property?

      Sir, that is murder – use of excessive force!

      It has nothing to do with self-defense

      • not a fan of Baines says:

        How much force is enough force to stop someone from taking your property ? I’m sure a jury of your peers will way in when necessary…but until then…?…Maybe a firm…"Stop that" is enough.. or is a rock in the side of the head OK?

        What if my "Stop that" is  aggressively challenged ?…Is a rock in the side of head OK to raise the stakes ?

        It has everything to do with self defence….."murder" something to be determined after the fact.

        Don’t know about you, but I will not take the chance of how hard my head is before I use excessive force…for that matter…how do I know if the criminal is there to steal and negotiate  ?

        I’m sure of one thing…by stepping into my home he has already raised the stakes.

  3. James says:


    I for one was DISSAPPOINTED in the statements, the Commissioner of Police has made concerning the use and owning of firearms by locals, homeowners, and police officers.

    How could he come with the faulty argument that where police are not routinely armed, a proportion of criminals will not arm themselves???  As a rational person, I can only think he is assuming that ALL CRIMINALS are alike! 

    But the fact remains – THEY ARE NOT ALL ALIKE!  I am afraid I can’t help but say that the Commissioner of Police has adopted a DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION!  Now other criminals from overseas, especially from Jamaica are comforted of the fact that Cayman Islands’ TOP COP have a "soft touch" to crime. This effectively encourages an importation of criminality here.

    I can not see how the Commissioner can belittle the effectiveness of locals and police officers having and using firearms as a deterrant to fighting serious offences?! Most naturally, armed criminals would be disadvantaged in their ability to threaten and commit violence without any correspnding risk to themselves if police officers along with locals, are given the right to bear arms. How could the Commissioner of Police belittle universal self-defense???

    Sorry, but I can not comprehend the leader of the Police force taking such a route!  I’m I missing something?

    Wouldn’t most people feel alot safer when they see armed police officers and they know that they have the right to protect their homes and businesses?  Who on earth wouldn’t feel alot safer unless they have some sort of fear of police brutality?  But even so… you will have less instances of police brutality when locals are given that right to arm themselves too!  Why?  Because the "balance of respect" between the state and its citizens would be there!  I certainly would feel alot safer if I saw officers with firearms near or about my business establishment.

    And then I question the ability of this Commissioner in taking good care of his officers. Let me tell you why, arming police officers is a matter of self-defense and better job performance. You would think that if we want officers to uphold law and order, we can’t allow them to be easy targets for criminals. But this Commissioner expects to recruit good officers to serve and protect, yet to serve and protect with what???  People, arming police officers decreases the risk to frontline officers of being the victims of gun crime. To know that they are not equiped thouroughly for a job, most definitely effects their job performance. Please don’t tell me otherwise! 

    Having rapid response armed units that arrive to crime scenes too late, is a joke! It allows criminals to better plan their crimes, and sets the crime-response of the police force up for ridicule and embarrassment by the public and media. Certainly, this effects their morale!

    No, No, No!!!




  4. just me says:

    In the U.K. the farmer Tony Martin’s 1999 killing of a burglar is a hot topic. Here’s a run down:

    In 1999 Martin was living in an isolated farmhouse in Norfork. He claimed to have been burgled a total of ten times, losing £6,000 worth of furniture. He also complained about police inaction over the burglaries. The neighbours had police reports of robbers in the area and nothing was done about it.

    One night two burglars, namely Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16 years old, entered Mr. Martin’s home. When confronted, they attempted to flee through a window. Shooting in the dark, with an illegally held shotgun, Martin shot Fearon in the leg, and Barras in the back: Barras escaped through the window but died at the scene.

    On 10 January 2000, Fearon and Darren Bark, 33 (who had acted as the get-away driver), admitted to conspiring to burgle Martin’s farmhouse. Fearon was sentenced to three years in prison, and Bark to 30 months.  Fearon was released on 10 August 2001.

    On 23 August 1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, the attempted murder of Fearon, "wounding with intent to cause injury" to Fearon, and "possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life".

    The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority. He was sentenced to life in prison, the mandatory sentence for murder under English law.

    An appeal was considered in October 2001 by three senior judges headed by Lord Lane. Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in self defence were rejected by the appeal court. However, on this occasion the defence submitted evidence that Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin’s murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five year sentence, and his ten year sentence forwounding Fearon was reduced to three years. These sentences were to run concurrently.

    Source: Wikipedia

    Just thought I would share Martin’s murder case, because some people are thinking that it is right to shoot someone in your own home with the INTENTIONS of killing them. Allowing such self-defence with intent to kill or seriously harm someone avoids the fact that those who act in such a way are just as bad as the people against whom they act.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      The current law in the UK is what Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130, said: "…. where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant,or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ….".

      • People's Front of Cayman says:

        So you agree it is illegal to shoot someone merely to protect possessions? (It is illegal by the way)

        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

          Section 18(1)(a) of the Cayman Islands Firearm Law (2008 Revision) reads: “No person shall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place except in the lawful protection of his person or PROPERTY or of the person or PROPERTY of some other person.”

          • Lawrence says:

            Right!  So now in the 1999 case of Tony Martin where he shoots burglars "in the lawful protection of his… PROPERTY," what you are saying is, Tony should have got off scotch free, and should not have been charged with murder?

            Tony Martin knew that the burglars were in his residence to steal. He had a gun and he used it whilst they had their backs turn away from him. PROPERTY was the MAJOR CONCERN – not his life!

            You see be careful. The firearm’s law can say one thing, but pertaining to a "CASE," it could mean something completely different.

            I suggest you define each word according to that passage of law you quoted. Like the first word, should be "person." What does it mean by person? The second word "discharge." What does it mean to discharge? et cetera… Then you should ask yourself is there any law written that trumps this one???

            Because if this firearms law applied to Tony Martin’s case and he was found guilty of murder, there must have been a superior law to this firearm’s law that trumped over it. What is that law?


          • Barely legal says:

            As others have told you ad nauseam on CNS this only confirms the pre-existing right of self-defence (see the words "lawful protection") and there is no pre-exisitng right to use life threatening force merely to protect chattels. 

            A man who uses himself as a lawyer has a fool for counsel . . . .

            • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

              Without conceding anything, how do you know it was just about property?

    • Anonymous says:

      Even under criminal favourable British Law self defense is allowable. These men were shot trying to leave the house after being caught and therefore, under British Law were no longer a threat. Thus self defense could not be claimed.

      However, in some states / countries that are less accomidating to criminals (who could just have easily escaped and come back and killed the farmer) property owners are actually allowed to protect their property as well.

      What a concept. Laws to protect Law abiding citizens from criminals.

      • O'Really says:

        You are right, what a concept, to value a human life over a dvd player!! 

  5. samson says:


    What happens when you are in a domestic dispute between you and a love one, and let’s say that both of you have licensed firearm and the dispute escalated where one of you pull out your gun just to make a point. And let us say that she is your wife making threats to shoot you, and you have your gun in hand, would you be the first one to pull the trigger?

    Dennie, I don’t know, but I will feel alot safer if guns were not in the hands of certain individuals!  But you do have individuals who are decent and intelligent people who can overnight become monsters when they have that sense of power in their hands. At first, they appear decent and well-behaved, but under hot circumstances, they flare up and do mindless things.

    QUESTION:  What is the Firearm Licensing Unit or the Cayman Islands Sport Shooting Association, doing to ensure that people with firearms or wish to own or use one, are mentally sound and are free of pent-up psychological conflicts within themselves? 

     I understand alot of Police officers have mental issues as well. This concerns me alot, because they can always get away qualified to carry and own one here with the excuse that they need to have one in order to defend themselves from enemies they have made due to enforcing the law.

    • Loopy Lou says:


      You make an excellent point which the gun toting lobby failing to address because of their arrogance.  Everyone if asked would say that they would use a gun responsible and only in response to a proportionate threat.  They probably beleive that.  The problem is very very often that is not true.  In fact statistically much more often than not it is not true.  Guns are used to kill family members in an argument.  Guns are used to kill business partners.  Guns are stolen and used by "real criminals".  Bottom line is that guns bought with "good" intentions are more likely to be discharged with bad intentions.

      But don’t tell the arrogant gun lobby.  They have nerves of steel, perfect judgment, don’t give into their emotions and no-one will still from them because they are sitting with a gun.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      There are many legal firearms in the Cayman Islands right now and the scenario you have articulated is not accruing, but what is accruing is thatcriminals are terrorizing residents with unlawfully owned firearms and the Commissioner of Police is clueless about what to do.  Your scenario could as easily apply to a knife, bat, axe, machete or any other device.  I will just say this, when an intruder unlawfully enters your home at 2:00am with an unlicensed firearm and murders your family, because the police arrived minutes too late to save your life, those who refuse common sense contingencies today will then understand my point.  Yes, it can happen to you!

      Those like Loopy Lou who is simply not listening to me and others with the intention of understanding our prospective, is not helpful at all.  Example, after the murder of Estella, I circulated a petition which sought to amend the Penal Code to allow residents to have NON-LETHAL and LESS LETHAL devices for their protection.  Yes, imagine me also wanting people to have non-lethal and less lethal devices for self protection, but the police was against me then too (shame on the RCIPF).  I still believe that people should have a range of devices to choice from.

      I too would feel safer if firearms were not in the hands of certain people (criminals), which is why I believe only law-abiding residents should be permitted to LEGALLY purchase firearms…, but it need NOT be as difficult to obtain a firearm license as it currently is.  It’s not possible to stop criminals from unlawfully obtaining firearms.  What you have to remember is that when the law-abiding residents are disarmed, then criminals are free to terrorize the law-abiding, as they are currently doing.  No criminal will do as they wish where I have any say in the matter!

      Regarding the mental element, there is a process which ensures that no such person becomes a member of the CISSA.

      Since you cannot know everything a person will do in the future, you cannot say whether or not someone will drive drunk and kill an innocent family of five, who will be here on vacation six months from now.  What I can say, is where a government does not trust their own people, that government is too dangerous to govern.

  6. pinky says:

    I for 1 am 100% in favor of owning a private licensed firearm!



  7. Diver says:

     Finally the criminals won. My wife will not risk it any more and she already ordered an estimate for a security system and redoing all locks on doors and windows. Iam so sad this is the way. I am sad that this way is supported by the Police Force as the main means to combat crime: be prepared, don’t give any opportunity to the thieves. In their view we have to make a fortress out of our home. Our homes become a "safe room". Instead of tackling the problem, we are giving up walking outside at night and to enter our own home we have to deactivate a "security system" that rivals  the one in "Get Smart" TV series. Allthe inconvenience is for the rest of us while the criminals walk around finding opportunities.

    About ten years ago I sent a letter to the Commissioner Of Police as a result of the many burglaries at our work premises, where the actual Hammerhead’s Bar is today. He did answer by sending his Secretary. A very nice officer from Barbados who insisted that we needed to be proactive by placing cameras and an alarm system around the property. However my complaint was that during the late night checks we did when bad weather was looming,  we constantly saw people around our premises and even sleeping under the restaurant next door. Who are these people wandering around at 3 am? Do they work? Are they fishing? If so, what are they doing around buildings?. I told the officer they needed to patrol more often. If it were me, I would be stopping people and asking questions and making sure they know the arm of the law is watching. But that is not the case. The bad elements of society own the nights in Cayman with total impunity. Once the police car passed, they have several hours to act.

    I think the most important is to tackle the petty crime before they become hardened criminals bathing in the glory of their success. This is a small society and there is a great opportunity to turn the tide as opposed to big cities. Comparing our actual crime rate with other parts of the world is nonsense. The tolerance has to be zero and the aim to a society of no crime at all.The long term solution is education and instilling good social values to our youth. Statistics show that prison terms have a small rate of success in turning the tides of good values on criminals. Statistics show also that in places where citizens arm themselves, crime is not any less, only more violent.  In the short term, people with the skills like a Police Force, needs to be out there showing force and preventing crime before the methods of the criminals get more daring. A few days ago a Pizza Delivery person was robbed while delivering the pizza. Where I come from, the bad elements became more creative and evolved for the worth. "Kidnapping Express" for small amounts that people can and will  pay in short notice; "ATM Tours" with a scared passer- by as victim been taken around to different ATMs; Bag snatching with motorcycles and the list goes on. You may think that only happens in third world countries but we are not too far from that now.

    Criminals are the enemy number one of this country. They should be treated as traitors to our land.

  8. I was There says:

    I was there and the Dr. cleary stated that there was disagreement amoing criminologists in some areas about some things. Maybe some of you should have attended before baseless comments. Its time we acted based on studies instead of just acting crazy. We may make it worse. I am sick and tired of crime as well and more can be done. So I agree with many of you as well.

  9. Olympus says:

    Self-preservation is so important for our existence, I can’t see how anyone would be against the ancient right and freedom to bear arms for the protection of self, valued property, and others.

    It is a foundamental right which should never be takenaway from the people of these Islands.

    To take away people’s right to bear arms or some weapon of defense, would be the worse thing you could do to this island. You would strip this island of her defenses, exposed to the dangers of the outside world.

    Is this what you want???  A government that could possibly one day oppress the citizens of this country, because it has no respect for them, but treats them like sheep! Recently, we allowed government to get more eyes, to have over 300 cctv camaras install all about the place.

    I tell you – if the people are so weak and helpless, do you think their government will show them any respect?

    Don’t be a fool under this British-Caymanian territory!  The right to bear arms protects the citizzens from tyranny like it does from being an easy prey.

    I don’t know, but I prefer to be prepared for worse case scenarios. If you don’t want to defend yourself then you have the right to rely completely on the Police. But I and many other shave chosen to rely on no man or woman for protection.

    I see only two classes in Cayman:  the fit and the unfit – those who are dependent on society for everything!

  10. Thinker says:


    I would not feel safer if more private citizens own guns. Sometimes one might go for the gun and it won’t be to protect their immediate space. This is an island not a major city of 5+ million people. Having more guns won’t slow the rate of crime. What? You think the criminals are not determined to also arm themselves? Gun goes off, hits the wrong person. Husband/wife fight, BANG! Someone dies.

    In my opinion, those calling for the right to arm themselves are looking for a fight or are disillusioned by fake “From My Cold, Dead Hands” syndrome.

    Of course the John Wayne’s and Charlton Heston’s out there say otherwise.

    Remember when you kill someone, you can never take it back.

    I think this is the time for the Police to really start dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s more. Show some of us that citizens do not need to arm themselves.

    To really end 90% of the crime IMO, make illegal drugs LEGAL! "The War" on Drugs has been lost, Drugs Win!! Make it like liquor or cigarettes.

    Government will make a boat load of money instead of a boat load of drugs coming into the island. Society says no to that option but then want the Government, Police & Judicial system to lock the law breakers down and then complain about the cost. And the system starts again and again and again. Legal drugs =  far less crime = peace. 

    Maybe I’m wrong. But all I hear and read is the same old same old. Nothing about preventing the crime the first place! Very sad indeed

     ~ A lot of the people who keep a gun at home for safety are the same ones who refuse to wear a seat belt ~ George Carlin.

  11. John Evans says:

    Note the critical comment –

    "is least likely to result in them getting caught."

    Right now it looks like that applies to most of Cayman.

    Where I lived in the UK before coming to Cayman we had a problem with petty crime and a police force whose stock response to it was along the lines of, "It’s your own fault for not taking proper security precautions," or, "this is a matter for your insurance company."

    The perps were well known to both the local population and the police. They carried on like they were untouchable until, after trying for months to resolve the matter through normal channels, two things happened –

    1. Two of the perps ended up in hospital with multiple injuries after being ambushed in a pub car park.

    2. Two more had an ‘accident’ after their unlicensed, uninsured and unregistered getaway motorcycle was run off the road. It happened in broad daylight with at least 10 witnesses present not one of whom saw a thing.

    The police response to these incidents was impressive, the whole gang was rounded up and charged, exclusion orders (what we now refer to as ASBOs) were issued, stolen property was recovered and crime in the area dropped to just about zero.

    What encourages crime is the concept that, whatever the criminals do, the police and the court system will not catch up with them – that is nothing new in Cayman.

    Years ago a good friend of mine on island told me they had been burgled three times by the same person, who was identified by the RCIPS but never charged. I heard similar stories from a number of people while working for Net News. In one case it was alleged that a burglar was identified by three witnesses but told the RCIPs he didn’t do it so was released. This was one of a number of complaints (which I freely concede were unsubstantiated) that the RCIPS were refusing to handle complaints about assaults and thefts from ex-pats if the other party was Caymanian.

    Security measures only deter the opportunist thief. Even if someone sets their condo up like Fort Knox they still have to enter and leave the premises, which is when the organised criminal (safe in the knowledge their chances of getting caught are somewhere between fat and slim) will pounce. This is, with all due respect to the officer concerned, window dressing to cover up an underlying problem that still needs to be addressed.

  12. Anonymous says:

    " An armed society".

    It never ceases to amaze me how we can get "hung by our tongue". I refer to the police’s concern for "an armed society".

    The problem would not be a "LAWABIDING ARMED SOCIETY" . The crisis is that we have an "ARMED CRIMINAL SOCIETY", which the police apparently cannot, or does not have the will to, deal with.

    Until the police recognize that it is their sworn duty to protect the "LAWABIDING SOCIETY", if they cannot or fail to do so, then it behoves them, if necessary, TO ARM that LAWABIDING SOCIETY so that they can do what the police cannot do.


  13. Watler says:

    Dr. White

    If a criminal knows or even suspects that you have a gun, wouldn’t he think twice before attempting to rob or burglarize your home?

    I am no expert, but I sure do know that their are more doctors like yourself who disagree with your stance and Baine’s faulty reasoning.

    • Pauly Cicero says:

      And the second thought would be to bring a gun of his own.

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Have you not read that criminals have been doing that for a long time now?  However, criminals should know that such plans will NOT go smoothly, because there will be flying objects they’ll have to avoid.

        • Pauly Cicero says:

          Yes, they do have access, yes, they should know. They will stop making the mistake of coming in under-armed. We cannot count on criminals being foolish enough to wait for us to shoot them first.  It won’t go smoothly for us either.

          • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

            Re: “We cannot count on criminals being foolish enough to wait for us to shoot them first.  It won’t go smoothly for us either.”

            Just because you don’t hear specifics about how we’re Not depending on criminals should NOT worry you…, but it should worry criminals, because we are serious…  Criminals will NOT do as they please!

            • Pauly Cicero says:

              I worry because there is a slim to none chance of me becoming one of the we if the we have guns. The we will have guns or whatever and I will be left holding a rock and a can of wasp spray.

    • Truth says:

      Or break in using maximum violence and steal the gun to then use in further crimes

    • Anonymous says:

       Criminals will not have to import firearms anymore. They will just steal yours.  

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Spoken like a true anti-gunner!  Firstly, in 2003 my life was threatened, so I shall own firearms for my defense.  Secondly, I can’t talk about my layers of security with you in public, but it’s not as easy to steal firearms now as you might think…  In fact, if someone tries to steal my firearm he or she should be prepared to die in the process.



  14. Anonymous says:

    Are they trying to say the criminal are smarter than them?

  15. Anonymous says:

    Or, The RCIP could swamp the area and try a bit harder to catch the burglars and robbers!

  16. Dred says:

    True but to a point only. When we have criminals who do daylight robberies such as:

    The Cash store in broad daylight less than a 1/4 of a mile away from the Central Police station or the CNB bank job at an extremely public location.

    These criminals do not worry about risk per say, they are seeking the PAYOFF.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please correct me if I am wrong, Harrington Rivers pried Hurricane Shutters off the window to gain access to Mr. B’s residence? 

    • Anonymous says:

      @ Dred. You are absolutely correct. Criminals are never logical or rational. That is EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS! For example, it is MORE RATIONAL (though maybe not socially acceptable) to BEG than to steal. But I would venture to bet that these illogical and irrational people (criminals) haven’t tried begging yet! That would be totally unacceptable to their (prideful?) way of thinking!

      I am not advocating begging! I am simply making a point; while begging may not be "acceptable" it is still better; more rational and logical, to beg than to steal!

      • Truth says:

        Criminals are never logical or rational.

        For starter looking around Cayman, nearly everyone breaks traffic laws either not using their indicators, speeding or just not renewing there licnece. This makes most of Cayman criminals.

        Are you saying the majority of people in Cayman are irrational.

        If you are refering to theives you are also very wrong. Drug addicts may be deemed illigical, but most criminals plan their crimes to not get caught.

        Even serial killers can be logical or rational, which is why they can be so difficult to catch

        • Anonymous says:

          @ Truth.

          Yes; most people are not logical or rational. Therefore they speed. But, please read what I write carefully. (double meaning intended-read it carefully as I write it carefully).

          "Criminals are NEVER logical OR rational". And are you seriously prepared to suggest that speeding (irrational and maybe even illogical) are in the same vien as robbery, forced entry, and stealing; especially in a practical sense? Though I do realize that extreme speeding, or drunken driving could result in manslaughter and criminal charges-as they should, I don’t think you were referring to this to make your point.

          However, drunken driving, or extreme speeding (that could or most likely will result in criminal charges) is NEVER logical OR rational. I still hold to my point.