Theoretical Explanations of Victims and Victimization - Term Paper Example

Victims and victimisation Introduction So as to properly understand the topic that this paper is going to tackle, it is essential that the paper defines some terms. These terms will appear repetitively through out the paper so it will help a lot to understand them before the paper commences on its discussion. Crime A crime is said to occur when someone goes against the law. Davies, Francis and Greer (2007, p. 3) states that there are basically two types of crimes namely crimes against property (fraud and breakings are examples) and crimes that are committed against human beings (sexual assault and physical abuse are examples). Some crimes may involve both human beings and property. Victim A victim or ‘crime victim’ may be defined as a person who, as a result of crime being committed, suffers direct or indirect harm. Direct harm includes injuries inflicted or physical harm while indirect harm may be emotional or psychological. There are basically three types of crime victims namely primary crime victims, secondary crime victims and tertiary crime victims (Dignan 2002, p. 29). Primary crime victims are the initial victim i.e. those that the crime is committed against. Secondary crime victims are those who experience second hand harm. These can be relatives of rape victims, intimate partners or children whose mum has been battered. Tertiary crime victims experience the harm, not directly but vicariously. This can be through the media i.e. watching the television, listening to the radio or through the internet. The primary crime victims are also classified into five categories. The first category, the innocent, is usually portrayed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time and somehow they did not contribute in any way to their injury. The depressive type was careless, unsuspecting and therefore became an easy target. The third category is the greedy types who are easily duped because of their enthusiasm for quick gain thus lowering their natural tendency to be apprehensive. The next category of crime victims is vulnerable to stresses brought about by a given period of time or life cycle, like juvenile victims and there are called the wanton type. The last category is the tormentor. An example of a tormentor is a battered wife. She is a victim of attack because of her past abuse (Goodey 2005, p. 57 - 61). During an investigation, crime victims may be classified in relations to their levels of risk of attack which is usually dependent on their lifestyle (Dignan 2002, p. 49). The high risk victim group represents victims whose lifestyle makes them to be at a higher risk for being victims of crime. Prostitutes fit well in this group. This is due to the nature of their work. Prostitutes will converse will strangers as they solicit for their services, get into strangers vehicles and accompany strangers to secluded areas. All this makes prostitutes high risk victims. The second group of victims is the moderate risk victims. These are victims who are usually safe but due to an expected circumstance, they end up being moderate risk victims. For example, a person driving in a secluded highway may get a flat tyre. In a bid to get away from that secluded place, they may end up taking a lift from a stranger who ends up victimizing them. The last group of victims is those whose lifestyles do not normally place them at any degree of risk, they are generally safe. They stay out of dilemmas, lock their doors and do not engage in usage of drugs. They are always aware of their environment, they are always taking precautions and they avoid secluded and dark areas or places. Several factors or information may be gathered to help with solving the crime or determining events leading to the occurrence of the crime. Ainsworth (2001 p. 95) claims that such information may include physical traits, occupation, personal diaries (if known and available), education, medical history, marital status, personal lifestyle, criminal justice system history, last known activities, including a timeline of events, map of travel prior to offence, drug and alcohol history, friends and enemies, family background and employment history. Victimology It can also be called victim profiling. Karmen (2007, p. 5) define victimology as the thorough analysis of the victim or victims involved in a particular crime. It involves the examination of every component of their way of life, health, background and physical characteristics. Victimology can be broadly defined as the scientific study of victimization, as well as the interactions among the offenders, the criminal justice organization and the victims (Walkate 2007, p. 11). From this definition, several concepts are encompassed i.e. victimisation, victim-offender relationship, victim-criminal justice system relationships, victims and the media, victims and the costs of crime and victims and social movements. Victimisation Victimisation comes from the word victim. Victimisation has several meanings but simply put, victimisation means adversity that result from being made a victim. It may also mean an act that treats others unfairly or exploits them. For the purpose of this paper, victimisation will be defined as the unwarranted singling out of persons for subjection to illegal activities, exploitation, unfair treatment, tort or any other wrong. Generally, Newburn (2007, p. 158) claims that victimisation impacts on persons emotional, financial, social, psychological and physical well being. It normally leads to trauma which a person can experience for a life time depending on the level of victimisation. Victimisation can occur at two levels, overt or direct victimisation and relational or indirect (social) victimisation. Overt victimisation involves systematic verbal and physical harassment (kicking, threatening, name calling, extortion and sexual harassment). It is usually done by men because of their perceived strength. Social victimisation involves deliberate and insensitive treatment of others. Examples here include spreading rumours and slandering. This type of victimization is more commonly done by women. Theories of victimisation There are four major theories of victimisation. These theories explain how victims and victimisation are the chief focuses in the study of crime. All the theories share many of the matching assumptions and strong points that deal with crime and its victims. However, each of these theories exhibits diverse ups and downs, controversies and points of contention, as well as points of accord. Each theory also explains in various situations why a certain person may be the prey of theft, violence, or abuse. Thorough understanding of the patterns of victimizations using these theories and the criminal justice system may better be able to prevent crime and treat the victims. The four major theories are Victim precipitation theory, lifestyle theory, deviant place theory and Routine activities theory. Victim precipitation theory This theory assumes that the criminals are provoked by the victims and that the criminal acts committed by criminals are as a result of the victims’ provocative behaviours (Davies, Francis and Jupp 2000, p. 165). The behaviours might have been exhibited either verbally or physically. Here, the victim is deemed to have initiated the confrontation that eventually leads to the crime. The theory buys the idea that a victim’s behaviour sparks or ignites the subsequent offense. Victim precipitation can either be active or passive. Active precipitation normally occurs when the criminal is encouraged by the actions of the victim or the victim is the first use threats, fighting words or even to attack. Examples of active precipitation include some victims of sexual assault who dress provocatively (Spalek 2006, p. 163). Passive precipitation may occur when the victim unconsciously exhibits some personal characteristic or behaviours that unknowingly either instigate, threatens or encourages the attacker. Passive precipitation is usually linked to power. Some examples of unconscious behaviours and personal characteristics that may trigger passive precipitation include successes, job status, love interests and job promotions. In addition, subjective activists, sexual orientations and marginal groups may also pose certain inadvertent threat to the attacker’s reputation, economic, or status well-being. Hate crime violence is also an example of passive precipitation and it can be hurried by immigrant group members’ incoming into the community to try and win for jobs and somewhere to live. Lifestyle theory The lifestyle theory purports that persons are targeted based on their way of life, standard of living and lifestyle choices which renders them to lawbreakers or to circumstances in which crimes may be committed. People’s lifestyles increase their exposure to criminal offenders. It is explained by Petherick (2008) that the basis of this theory is that a felony is not a random incidence, but to a certain extent a function of the victim’s way of life. Such everyday life choices may include going out at night time by your own, residing in "bad" parts of settlement, associating with well-known felons, being promiscuous and engaging in drugs. All these are considered high risk lifestyles. On the other hand, one’s probability of being attacked can be abridged by staying indoors at night, moving to a rustic area, staying out of open places, earning additional cash and getting married. Davies, Francis and Dupp (2000, p. 180) explains that lifestyle risks are higher in young adulthood than in any other time. This is due to the kind of activities and lifestyle that the young adults engage in. For example, university students and young men who spend a number of their nights each week merry making and who use recreational drugs are to a great extent more likely to be victims of vicious crime than persons who steer clear of such risky lifestyles. Young runaways on the other hand are at a higher risk for being crime victims. The more time they are out in the open street life, the higher the risk of them becoming felony victims. Adolescent males have an exceedingly higher risk than females because their daily life places them at perils both at school and outside the school compound. They spend a vast deal of time hanging out with their acquaintances and pursuing spare time fun. Their friends may possibly give them a bogus identification so that they can engage in alcohol taking in the local bar. The teenagers might hang out in taverns during the night, which places them at higher risks since many brawls and assaults occur in such places. Those having a history of engaging in serious misbehaving, getting drawn into gangs, carrying weapons, and dealing in drugs have a higher chance of they themselves becoming a target of grim violence (United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention 2000). Deviant place theory According to deviant place theory, sufferers of crime do not promote crime (Hoyle and Zedner 2007, p. 93). They are victim-prone since they live in socially disorganized high-crime places where they have the highest risk of coming into contact with criminal delinquent, irrespective of their own mannerism. The deviant place theory simply states that a greater exposure to precarious places makes one more liable to become a crime victim. Unlike the victim precipitation theory, the victims do not necessarily influence the crime by actively or passively encouraging it, but rather are attacked as a result of being in bad areas. As a result, there may be little, if any, reason for inhabitants in lower-class areas to change their lifestyle or take safety measures. This is because personal behaviour choices do not have an influence on the likelihood of ill-treatment. The locality crime levels may be more important for determining the probability of victimization than individual characteristics. Deviant places are poor, highly populated and vastly transient neighbourhoods in which commercial and suburban properties exist side by side. The commercial establishments provide felons with easy targets for theft felony, such as shoplifting. Bottoms (2008, pg. 178) claims that successful individuals usually stay out of these stigmatized places. They are places of residence to “demoralized kinds of people” who are an easy target for crime i.e. the homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted and the elderly poor. Individuals who live in wealthy areas and take safety precautions considerably lower their chances of becoming felony victims. The effect of safety precautions is less prominent in poor areas (Mawby and Walklate 1994, p. 67). Residents of underprivileged areas have a much higher risk of becoming crime victims because they reside in areas with various motivated criminals. To shelter themselves from being attacked, the residents try harder to be safe than do the wealthy. In a nutshell, if a neighbourhood is "deviant," the solitary way to lessen your risk of being attacked is to depart the neighbourhood for a less deviant, low crime rate area. Routine Activities Theory This theory assumes that the motivation to commit a crime and the supply of delinquents are constant. Every community will at all times have some individuals who are prepared to commit a crime or break the law for vengeance, greed, or some other reason. The amount and distribution of voracious crime are strongly related to the three variables that that interact to reflect the routine activities of the characteristic lifestyle (Davies, Francis and Jupp 2000, p.241). The three variables are: The accessibility of suitable targets that include homes containing easily marketable goods, unlocked homes, expensive cars and easily transportable goods The absence of able guardians, such as homeowners, neighbours, relatives, friends, police and lack of security systems. The capable guardians act as effective deterrents to crime. The presence of motivated criminals such as a huge number of teenage boys, the unemployed and an addict population. The motivated criminals are the people willing to commit a crime. The existence of these components augments the likelihood that a voracious crime will take place. Persons are more likely to be offended if they are poorly guarded and exposed to a group of motivated criminals such as teenaged boys. It is argued by Davies, Francis and Greer (2007, p. 120) that crime rates in Europe went higher between 1960 and 1980. This is because the number of adult guardians at home during the day went down as a result of an improved female participation in the labour force. While mothers are at their jobs and the kids in day care, their residences are left unguarded. Similarly, with the escalation of suburbia and the demur of the traditional neighbourhood, the number of such familiar guardians as family, neighbours and friends went down. Also leaving ones home during holiday creates a suitable target. Leaving a home for holiday in a metropolitan area creates an even greater risk (Newburn 2007, p. 189). Leaving ones home on holiday in an urban area in which there are many adolescent boys, known felons, or other motivated criminals create an even higher risk for victimisation. Skyrocketing drug use in the 1980s created a surplus of motivated criminals and the rates or number of crimes such as robbery increased significantly. Diminishing crime rates in the 1990s was due to the robust economy which reduced the pool of motivated criminals. Communities with sufficient police security, alarms and other security devices lessen their risk by creating guardianship which is noted under this theory to lessen crime rates. The lifestyle theory and the routine activities theory have a number of resemblances. They both presuppose that a person’s livelihood can affect the victim’s risk and that people who reside in unguarded neighbourhoods are at the mercy of motivated criminals (Spalek 2006, p. 220). These two theories both rely on four basic perceptions i.e. the proximity to criminals, the time of exposure to criminals, the target attractiveness and guardianship. Based on the same perceptions, both theories share the predictions that people increase their risk of being attacked if they live in high-crime areas and go out late at night, carry or wear precious items such as an expensive watch, engage in risky activities such as drinking alcohol and are without acquaintances or relatives to watch or help them. Goodey (2005, p. 209) gives an example of a young woman who drinks alcohol in excess in bars and restaurants. By doing so, she increases her risk of date rape since she is an easy target and her assailant can rationalize sexually assaulting her because she is intoxicated. The attacker might say she is loose and immoral so I did not assume she would care. Intoxication is occasionally used to try and make it appear as though the victim is to blame for the crime. On the contrary, people can lessen their odds of repeat attacks if they alter their way of life and adopt crime-suppressing routines such as getting married, having kids or moving to a small neighbourhood (Goodey 2005, p. 211). Victimisation Theories Review  Victim Precipitation theory The strength of this theory is that it explains numerous victimisations. If individuals precipitate crime, it follows that they will turn out to be repeat victims if their mannerism persists over time. The research focuses of the theory are on the victim’s role, crime provocation, and the victim-offender relationship Lifestyle theory The strength of this theory is that it explains victimization patterns in terms of the social structure. Males, young people and the poor have a higher victimization rate because they have a higher-risk lifestyle than females, the elderly and the affluent. Deviant Place theory This theory states that the environs in which one lives is a factor in victimisation. Its strong point is that it shows why people with conventional lifestyles become crime victims. The research focus of this theory is that victimisation is high in disorganized neighbourhoods. Routine Activities theory Routine Activities theory explains crime rates and trends. It shows how a victim’s behaviour can influence criminal opportunity. It suggests that victimisation risk can be reduced by increasing guardianship and reducing target vulnerability. Research focuses on opportunity to commit crime, effect of police and guardians, population shifts and crime rates.  The four theories above were advanced as a result of a couple of models. These models were developed earlier before theories and they were used to try and solve crimes. There are generally two models, the situated transaction model and the threefold model (Ainsworth 2001, p. 59). Situated Transaction Model This is frequently found in sociology of deviance manuals. The idea is that at a personal level, crime and victimization is a contest of character.  The stages go like this: Insult - "Your mother" Clarification - "What did you say about my mother" Retaliation - "I said your mother and you too" Counter retaliation - "Well, youre worse than my mother" Presence of weapon - or search for a weapon or clenching of fists. Onlookers - presence of audience helps escalate the situation.  Threefold Model This is usually found in a number of criminological studies, from prison riots to strain theories.  The idea is that conditions that sustain crime can be classified into three general classes: Precipitating factors - time, space, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Attracting factors - choices, options, lifestyles (the sociological expression "lifestyle" refers to daily routine activities as well as special events one engages in on a predictable basis). Predisposing factors - all the socio-demographic characteristics of victims, being male, being young, being poor, being a minority, living in squalor, being single or being unemployed. Conclusion A lot can be said about crime, victims, victimology and victimisation. It should be noted however that some of this fields of study are still new and therefore not much information is known of them. For example, research in the field of victimology has remained inadequately low thus it can be said to be a young discipline. The theories presented by this paper are not exhaustive and with the happening of crime everyday, other theories are bound to be developed. References Ainsworth, P, B 2001, Offender profiling and crime analysis, Willan Publishing, Cullompton. Bottoms, A 2008, Victims in the Criminal Justice System: A need for rebalancing, Willan Publishing, Cullompton. Davies, P, Francis, P and Greer, C 2007, Victims, Crime and Society, Sage, New York. Davies, P, Francis, P & Jupp, V 2000, Victimisation: theory, research and policy, Macmillan, Michigan. Dignan, J 2002, Understanding victims and restorative justice, Open University Press, Ontario. Goodey, J. (2005). Victims and victimology: research, policy and practice, Pearson Longman, Harlow. Hoyle, C and Zedner, L 2007, Victims, victimisation and criminal justice in Maguire, Oxford University Press, London. Karmen, A 2007, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Thompson Wadsworth, Belmont. Mawby, R & Walklate, S 1994, Critical Victimology: International Perspectives, Sage, New York. Newburn, T 2007, Victims, victimisation and victimology, Willan Publishing, Cullompton. Petherick, W 2008, Victimology: The Study of Victims in Criminal Investigations, viewed on 9 November 2009, Spalek, B 2006, Crime Victims: theory, policy and practice, Palgrave, Paris. “The Trauma of Victimization”, National Organization for Victim Assistance, viewed on 9 November 2009, United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, 2000. “Handbook on Justice for Victims”, viewed on 9 November 2009, Walklate, S 2007, Handbook of Victims and Victimology, Open University Press, Ontario. Read More