As with predators, there is great diversity in this archetype. Nevertheless, professionals tend to be of average intelligence and moderately sophisticated. They are often quite rational. Their tendency to plan, as well as their access to resources, varies considerably. They shun publicity and notoriety.
Opportunistic Criminals
This
type of criminal is impulse driven-the kind who decides to just steal a
personal computer while at the airport or mug an elderly person or
break into a house when they think the owners are away. They may often
be stupid, but that doesn't mean they aren't threats to the wealthy.
Generally below average in intelligence, opportunistic criminals are usually not sophisticated, nor are they particularly rational. By definition, they do not plan. So their access to resources is very limited. Still, they opt for privacy, even though their actions will regularly draw attention to them.
Terrorist Criminals
The wealthy per se are rarely specific targets of terrorism, though they have the same chance of being harmed as anyone else.
Terrorists
are politically motivated, committing crime to bring about a change in
social policy. Though they're generally of average intelligence and
moderate sophistication, they are not rational. However, they do indeed
plan and they sometimes find extensive resources. Unlike the other
types of criminals, terrorists are looking for exposure for their cause
at one level or another.
Kidnapping Comparison
To
better understand these criminal archetypes, let us look at how each
one would approach the crime of abducting an ultra-affluent couple's
child (Exhibit 2). It is likely that the master, professional and
opportunistic criminals would be seeking a financial payday, and would
thus ransom the child.
The master criminal begins by accessing the financial records of his well-heeled targets to calculate the optimum size of his ransom demands. The kidnapping itself is planned and rehearsed to the nth degree. Moreover, the criminal's process of communicating with the ultra-affluent family ensures his anonymity, as does the trading of the child for the ransom. Furthermore, there will be a number of well-thought-through contingencies. In all respects, the master criminal will execute the plan with precision.
In contrast, the professional criminal has chosen the child of a family that people know have money. There is usually a certain amount of planning, but it is often littered with gaps and few, if any, built-in "plan B's." The process of communicating with the family, as well as exchanging the ransom for the child, is similarly weak. Professional criminals range extensively in competence.
Opportunistic criminals see a situation and react generally without taking a multiple perspective view of the matter. Consequently, there is little, if any, planning. When there is planning, it is likely done no more than a few hours before the kidnapping. Even if the abduction is successful, there usually has not been any forethought given to how the kidnapper will communicate with the family or exchange the child for money. And there are no contingency plans.
Because their motivation is not money, predator criminals are much more dangerous when they kidnap a child from an ultra-affluent family. Usually, they have no interest in establishing contact with the family once the child has been taken. This type of criminal often has some sort of emotional bond with the victim and so has no desire to return the child under any financial arrangement. The planning for the abduction varies according to the opportunity and the capabilities of the criminal. In most cases there are few, if any, built-in contingencies.
When a terrorist targets the child of an ultra-affluent family, the aim is to make a political statement (unless the kidnapping was the unintended result of an unrelated criminal act) and the terrorist's goal is often to pressure the wealthy family to use its influence in enhancing his political goals. The planning is often not as well done, as it would be by the master criminal. Hence, there will be few, if any, built-in contingency plans, and there are likely to be weaknesses in the communication with the family and the transfer of the abducted.