Is there, erm, supposed to be text here?
In the novel Justine, by Marquis de Sade, Justine asks Madam Dubois why she acts respectably and indeed compassionately to her fellow theives, and Dubois answers that it’s not out of respect for them, but for a necessity to keep them on her team.
So I suppose that could partially answer the question that wasn’t asked.
jarbaby
Working with thieves and other criminals, I can assure you there is no “honor” among them. If criminals generally avoid preying on other criminals, it’s only because non-criminals make easier targets.
For shame! Who can doubt that honor exists among thieves?
Some of the most renowned people in history have been thieves, and successful ones at that.
I’m going to shut the lights off for fifteen seconds. When I turn them back on, I expect to see the first post put back where it belongs, no questions asked.
Hey! Who nicked my post?*
*especially as I’m not a thief…
→
Honest, I found it lying on, er, I mean it was there on the side of the road. Yeah, that’s it. 
The obvious answer is, “No, of course not” and that’s what you’ll get from nearly anyone who’s ever actually dealt with thieves. There is what you might call a paradigm by which a higher class of thieves are thought to be more honorable, although ever since this system has first been mentioned in writing, it has been described as being in a state of decline, so that one would presume that it had decayed a good long time ago. Of course, civilization itself has been in decline ever since always, and by my calculations we should have been back to banging the rocks together two weeks after The Wasteland hit bookstores.
I’ve read through Sutherland and Maurer and Inciardi and Shover and Jackson and Chambliss, and the answer to your question seems to be, “Kind of, maybe, no, yeah.” Incidentally, this strikes me as also being a good answer to the question, “Is there honor among square-Johns?” For squares, the stakes are often pettier, but the principle is the same – many live by old fashioned proscriptions, but for the most part the behavior of people toward their peers is governed by self-interest, even where they would not admit as much even to themselves.
Damnit, dont make me laugh like that…I’m still recovering from surgery…
ow ow ow …
There is a hierarchy of criminals but honour ? hah! if they could sell their cellmate to get an extra towel from the kit store they would.
They all complain about informers and being seen to grass up their co-defendants but meanwhile quietly try to do deals with the prosecutors for their testimony against their colleagues, sometimes they are in a hurry to make that deal before someone else beats them to it.
There is nothing they will not steal and there is no-one from whom they will not steal and nothing they will not do in order to carry out that theft, from robbing a blind woman of her white cane, as happened just two days ago in the UK, to removing charity collection boxes, beating up the handicapped or swindling pensioners out of their pitiful savings.
I also will add that most of the thieves I’ve come across are smackheads, the vast majority in fact, even other smackheads look down on them.
The heirarchy I’m referring to is what is called The Professional Thief, after Sutherland’s classic study. The definition of a professional thief is somewhat tautological, but basically the professional, according to Sutherland:
[ul][li]Derives his sole income from crime[/li][li]Is recognized as a professional by other professionals[/li][li]Recieved tuteledge from professionals[/ul][/li]
There are more, I believe, but I don’t have the book in front of me. Generally, these criteria tend to eliminate junkies. Professionals won’t work with them, because they can’t be trusted. Skill is a big factor in whether or not a criminal is considered a professional by his peers, but reliability is a big part of it as well.
But the majority of actual thieves are not professionals, and junkies are well represented among them. A junkie is a junkie first and foremost, and anything else second. They will do anything for the junk. There are, in effect, no morals among junkies at all.
But there are certain things that, for example, a professional pickpocket wouldn’t do. They wouldn’t take money out of purses, or rob sleeping drunks. There is a social stigma attached to it – those who do it are children, junkies and cowards. But again, there are plenty of pickpockets who aren’t professionals by Sutherland’s criteria.
And as I said before, even where there were certain scruples understood among professionals, these have always been seen as in decline. Your upper eschelon of professional pickpockets, known as class cannons are thought to be wholly extinct.
So the answer to the question of whether or not there is honor among thieves depends. First of all, if we sweep up junkies in that net, knowing that there is no honor among them by any means, we’re not really addressing the question. Then there are factors of professionalism and historical context. Taking all that into consideration, the answer is still `sort of, at one time, so the old folks say, maybe.’ And again, this is very similar to the answer you get if you ask if there is any honor at all.
I’m no thief, but my…er…checkered past has brought me in contact with many thieves, both inside and outside buildings of detention.
Generally, the honesty level is lower than that of the law-abiding population (excluding lawyers, politicians, televangelists, and car salesmen, of course).
But honor varies considerably. I’ve seen people take the rap for friends many times…even pleading guilty to a crime in which they had no involvement. Sometimes this is to return a favor. Often, it is out of sympathy for a pal who is on probation or parole and would thus be facing serious time for a relatively minor offense. Some thieves will steal from strangers only, never friends or family. And some are absolute scum by anyone’s standards.
Sure, a lot of folks will rat on a buddy to get out of trouble. But consider the high-pressure (and often dishonest) tactics used in separate interrogations:
“Look, your partner has already spilled his guts and pinned the whole thing on you. We want to hear your side of the story…”
Of course, we never see any self-preservation tactics, undermining, or backstabbing in any other line of work, right?
Oh, and Johnny Angel: As a former junkie and one who lives and works directly with addicts of all kinds, I can tell you that honor among addicts varies considerably, too. When I got to the point where it looked like I’d have to steal to support my habit, I got help and quit. Among those who do steal to support their habits, many do exercise certain ethical standards: some would never steal from a friend. Some would never steal from a single mother. Some will burglarize, but would never carry a gun. Some will only steal exactly the amount they need for a fix.
Some, of course, will do any damn thing.
Just be careful about generalizations.
TN*hippie wrote:
In fact, even some of the sources I’m citing could be used to counter-point the generalization I’ve made. That my research is largely into areas of crime in which junkies are stigmatized and excluded biases my conclusions, because the opinion among professional thieves is very strong that junkies are just no good. And there are solid reasons to presume that generalizations about thieves in general based on subsets that include junkies will be skewed accordingly – there is more at stake for the junkie, after all. Also, it’s important to remember that I didn’t think I’d get busted.
As for police interrogation tactics, Donald MacKenzie had this to say in his book Occupation: Thief:
On the matter of honor among thieves, he says:
I’m just stating my own observations. YMMV.
In my experience, thieves don’t show respect to other thieves just because they are thieves, but can be extremely honorable with those who are friends. I’ve also known guys who would steal or otherwise take advantage of someone they disrespected or outright hated, but would never think of dropping a dime on them.
Somebody’s been reading Plato? From the Republic:
Oddly enough here’s my position:
Some people have honor
Some people have none.
I’ve also seen what TN*Hippie speaks of. Having worked w/exoffenders for the past 20+ years (and out in the community, which I think gives a different flavor than inside walls), I came to the conclusion that some people have scrupples in some areas, and others don’t. Of course, that also holds true for folks who aren’t thieves and junkies.
IOW - there are folks that have total honor. They (IMHO) are few and far between.
There are others who have no honor at all. They, too aren’t common (most folks have somescrupples, even if it amounts to “I’ll feed my kids breakfast before I go out and cop”).
THe great majority of folks lie somewhere between.
This of course, is MHO.
College Park, MD used to have “Honor Among Thieves”, but Mitch left the group and they then disbanded. He eventually, started “Radio Star”, but they pretty much stunk. Besides, “Honor Among Thieves” is a much better band name.