Hey guys, I'm working on an essay paper about art theft and the relationship society impacts the crime rate. Earlier I had posted a thread about the introduction and thesis of the same paper. Without you guys' help, I would not have opened up my mind when writing this paper. Thank you guys so much, shout out to @holt, for giving me such valuable example and advice in my writing! For this essay, I'm not sure how to conclude this paper in a matter to cover back my thesis. Any help and advice are kindly appreciated!! Thank you!
The Significance of Media and Public
In 2008, 4 important painting by Van Gogh, Monet, Degas, and Cezanne were stolen from a museum in Zurich, Switzerland. The total cost of these paintings was 163.2 million dollars. Indeed, this theft is something that should have shaken the world owing to the amount of the paintings stolen in total. However, people rarely heard of the theft or, to this very day, remain oblivious to the theft of those paintings. While the paintings were eventually recovered, the perpetrators got very light sentences for their crime. Considering the historical value of the paintings and the monetary value involved, one would have expected that they would have given a stiffer punishment. For some reason, art theft is not considering a major crime similar to bank robbery. While banks employ the latest in anti-robbery devices, museums are seemingly stuck in the dark ages, unable to protect their national works of art. There is a negligence on the part of the museums when it comes to preventing art thievery and their interaction with potential art thieves. This paper will look into the society's negligence in its interactions with art thieves, and the details of advantage art theft hold as with society.
Case Evident: Stephen Hahn Art Gallery, Montreal Museum Fine Arts
On the cold night of November 17th, 1969, sevens paintings was stolen from the Stephen Hahn Art Gallery. Including four world famous pieces of art, estimated value at 500,000 American dollars. Despite the value was at 500,000 dollars, the news reporters find this event would not be interested in the public. In related to the case in 1972, the day Montreal Museum of Fine Arts when eighteen paints that are worth two million worth of money was stolen. From the print of "New York Times Achieved" mocked: "Flashback to the manner of 1969's Stephen Hahn Art Gallery, incredible moments of negligence." Considering that "New York Times Achieved" referred back to the 1969's Stephen Hahn Art Gallery case, where interest from the media was part of the flaw of 1972's Montreal Museum robbery. What's significant about this incident is that the media did not make a significant enough about this incident of robbery on the day of the news, thus the public and media had no impact to decrease the rate of art thieves. However, on a slightly positive side, later on, one of the painting was then recovered, "Serbian police are now guarding a recovered Cézanne painting, which was stolen at gunpoint four years ago in one of the history's largest art heists." Anoosh Chakelian stated. From these two cases, we can see the relationship, where one historical case's impact can lead towards Montreal Museum Fine Arts case. While the impact is not easy to comprehend at first glance, the evident in the relation can't be omitted.
Crime Opportunity Theory
The crime opportunity theory is defined as where one commits a crime due to certain favorable circumstances. Such factors include the ability to acquire a high rewarding payout without much effort or risk. In Felson's research writing, he stated, "Opportunities play a role in causing all crime", where "opportunity" is generalized the relation in crime and society. Offenders who choose to commit such crimes often go undetected due to premeditated planning. Due to many of these crimes going undetected, many criminals often get away with their acts as there is often never enough evidence for the police to get a lead. Till this day, art thief still continues to happen because of the lack of attention it receives from the public. In relation to crime and society, art thief is often rarer and does not leave a long lasting impact in comparison to crimes such as murder, robbery and much more.
Drawback to the case of the art theft cases, the connection between crime opportunity theory and art thievery is potentially related. "Some products offer more tempting crime opportunities." Felson continues stated, provided with an example "These opportunities reflect particularly the value, inertia, visibility of, and access to potential crime targets. For example, VCRs are high in value and low in inertia (they can easily be carried), and are often left in visible and accessible locations". Art theft, in this case, is being called upon the issue in the theory that has been addressed. The reason why art is present as often a target to robbers is because the direct value to artwork is different depending on each and every individuals. For example, a bank contains a million worth of cash versus a piece of art that is worth a million dollar according to the market value. While the security of the bank is often very strict, on the other hand, the strictness of the art gallery or museum wouldn't have the same significance. This is because a million dollar worth of art does not have the same direct value to a million dollar worth of cash. But how is this related to the art thievery and crime rate? The crime opportunity theory explains that artwork is often been treated as an easier target. While the society doesn't have the same value in terms of artworks, the crime rate of art theft has also increased at its exponential.
This paper had covered up the attitude of negligence from the media and the public, provided with two cases and explain within a theory. However, the increasing rate of art theft recently has the relationship with the apathy from the media and the public. I feel like art is unique and important in its own, but its value is intangible. I believed if the media and public have to pay more attention to the issue of art theft, naturally, the crime rate of art theft will decrease as well.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 Ethan, the reason that you have a difficult time developing your closing argument is because your earlier work lacks information. The case comparison should have been the point at which you presented evidence of security negligence or inefficiencies at the museums. Perhaps you should have discussed the existing security measures during the first heist and then developed that to reflect the weakness of the more "modern" security systems in place for the new robbery that took place. These discussions I believe, belong in the Case Evident section.
In the Crime Opportunity portion, you tried to compare the security system of a bank with that of a museum. However, you did not present any actual security system examples. The lack of the security system comparison affected your ability to be able to circle back in your discussion, to the very beginning, middle, then end portion, which would have helped you develop your concluding paragraph. The final conclusion being that due to the lack of interest on the part of the people when it comes to art thievery, security measures will never be enough to protect these priceless paintings and copycat robberies will continue to exist. Mention that it is the lack of security that has caused quite a number of notable paintings to have been stolen and it seems, will never be seen again unless one deals with the art black market or underground / illegal art purchases.
I hope my ideas can help you develop a solid conclusion for your research paper. By the way, this was really interesting to read. I thoroughly enjoyed your work.
