Lecture 4&5
Victim’s Contribution To The Crime Problem
Shared responsibility — certain victims as well as criminals as well as criminals did something wrong.
Theories
Duet Frame of Reference — Von Hentig, 1941 — The duet frame present in crimes is a concept by Von Hentig, who described two characters who exist in a conventional criminal act. Thus, the concept involves an offender and a victim. The criminal act does no arise from a vacuum; rather it is a result of the drives and the needs of the criminal.
Repeat victims, chronic victims, and victims careers: Learning from past mistakes?
Are these individuals making the same mistakes over and over again?
clouded judgement due to drinking
failing to safeguard personal property
isolating self from bystanders who could intervene
spending time with dangerous individual
shared responsibility — certain victims as well as criminals did something wrong
additional theories
Penal Couple — Mendelsohn, 1956
in 1956, Benjamin Mendelsohn used the term “penal couple” to describe the relationship between a victim and an offender. Mendelsohn was a criminologist who created a typology if victims to help defense attorneys prepare for court.
Explanation
Mendelsohn’s typology
categorized victims into six groups, including “completely innocent” and imaginary victims”
focused on the victim’s guilt and how they shared responsibility in the crime
implied that no victim is entirely innocent
Criticism
Mendelsohn typology was criticized for victim blaming
some say that mendelsohn’s early publications shifted blame to the victim to defend the offender
Frequency of Share Responsibility of Violent Crimes
Victim’s Levels of Responsibility
Completely innocent victims cannot be blamed for what happened to them. They reasonably reduced risks, no negligence or passive indifference
Victims of property crimes often harden their targets with security devices and alarms
Victim is totally responsible when there is no offender —victims may pose as offender and commit fraud.
and yet more theories on shared responsibility
doer-sufferer relationship — Ellenberger, 1955
The relationship between a perpetrator (doer) and their victim (sufferer) is called the offender-victim relationship. This relationship can be influenced by the level of prior contact between the two people
explanation
the offender-victim relationship can be categorized as family, acquaintance, stranger, or online
The victim-offender relationship can affect how a victim responds emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally after a trauma
Restorative justice is a process that bring together the victim, offender, and community members to address the needs of the victim and encourage accountability from the offender.
Victim provocation is when a victim’s behavior incites another person to commit a crime
victim defending is a theory that rejects the idea that victims are partly at fault for a crime
some common responses to victimization include shock, numbness, denial, disbelief, anger, and recovery
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
Victim Blaming:
Characterization
argument that victims bear some responsibility along with their offender if facilitation, precipitation, or provocation of the event occurred
“Just world” outlook — people get what they deserve
bad things happen to evil characters and good things happened to good people
Personal Accountability/responsibility is shared- Basic doctrine of U.S. legal system that “encourages” victim blaming explanations
crime-conscious individuals should review their lifestyles and routines to increase personal safety
Victim blaming is the view that a majority of offenders hold “hey if you were not there I would not have robbed you”
Victim Defending:
Characterization
Whether it is accurate or fair to hold the targeted individual accountable for own losses or injuries inflicted by the wrongdoer
Victim defending — rejects the premise that victims are partly at fault
victim defender’s criticism of victim blamers:
Victim blaming overstates victim’s involvement/carelessness/shared responsibility.
Overstates events of victim facilitation, precipitation or provocation.
Exhorting people to be more cautious and vigilant is not an adequate solution. What do you think??
Two tendencies with victim defending regarding who or what is to be faulted:
Offender Blaming: do not shift any blame away from offender onto the victim.
System Blaming: behaviors of both parties influenced by the social environment; neither the victim nor the offender is to blame.
Linked with victim defending
if the lawbreaker is view as a product of his or her environment, and a product of his or her environment, and the victim is too, then the actions of both parties have been influenced by the agents of socialization.
Parental input, peer group pressure, subcultural prescriptions, school experiences, media images, religion.
Victim-blaming and victim-defending arguments bridge the gap between theoretical propositions and abstractions and how people genuinely think and act.
these arguments get caught up in the details of cases ignoring the oscial forces that shape both criminals and victims
Whenever partisans of the two perspectives clash, they inadvertently let the system and culture off the hook.
System Blaming Arguments
Homicide: glorification of violence in the media, as a source of entertainment, conflict resolution, and policy-making.
Robbery: gulf between the well-off and the poor, and the over-importance of material possessions
Burglary: organized nature of “fencing” stolen items as incentive to thievery
Identity Theft: numerous data breaches expose personal data thieves regardless of efforts by customers.
Repeat Victimization
in accounting for repeat victimizations the term BOOST explanation focuses on the offender
in accounting for repeating victimizations, the term flag explanation emphasizes the vulnerability and attractiveness of the target
responsibility for one’s conduct is a changing concept. Its interpretation can be influenced by:
social conditions
political conditions
cultural conditions
Shared Responsibility Issues
Murder “victim is often major contributor”
Rape “virtuous rape victim is not always the innocent and passive party”
Theft “victims cause crime in the sense that they set up the opportunity for the crime to be committed.”
Burglary “understand the extent to which a victim vicariously contributes to or precipitates a break in.”
Shared Responsibility
Facilitation — Victims carelessly and inadvertently make it easier for a thief to steal (least serious)
the term facilitation refers to those situations in which victims carelessly and unknowingly make it easier for a criminal to commit a theft
Precipitation — Victim significantly contributes to the violent outbreak
Provocation — Worse than precipitation; victim more directly responsible for the time (most serious)
Victim Facilitation and auto theft
is it the careless who end up carless?
most likely victim under age 25 apartment dweller, urban inn-city African Americans, and Hispanic Americans, low-incomes
Victim blaming focuses on the proportion of motorists with bad habits
victims defending focuses on the majority of motorists who did nothing wrong
teenagers are no longer #1 in stealing cars—-organized car rings/chop shops
Victim Precipitation and Provocation
Subintetional Death those who got killed played contributory roles in their deaths by exercising poor judgment, taking excessive risks, or pursuing a self-destructive lifestyle
Justifiable Homicide if the security officer resorted to deadly force in self-defenses
Frequency of Shared Responsibility
study of conducted by national commission on the causes of prevention of violence
Homicide — person who died was the first to resort to force: 22%
aggravated assault — seriously injured first to use force or offensive action: 14%
armed robberies — victims did not reasonably handle money, jewelry or valuables: 11%
forcible rapes — woman first agreed to sexual relationship or invited through gestures, but then retracted before the act: 4%
NCVS
the NCVS keeps track of categories of burglaries, including:
unlawful entries, attempted forcible entries & forcible entries.
Predictors
the age of the head of the household is the most important determinant of whether or not someone is likely to facilitate a burglary.
The idea of precipitation is applied to those cases in which the person who was killed had been the first to use forced by drawing a weapon, striking the first physical blow during an argument, or in some way initiating violence to settle a dispute.
Provocation implies that the loser is more responsible than the victor for the victimization that occurred.
subintentional death has been applied when those who get killed play contributory roles in their deaths by exercising poor judgement, taking excessive risks, or pursuing a self-destructive lifestyle.
Laws and Law Enforcement
Nearly all states have passed laws to compel organizations that maintain databanks to notify people put at risk when a breach of security takes place.
Many law enforcement agencies still lack experts in forensic computing and remain behind the curve when it comes to detecting intrusions, figuring out who did it, and gathering evidence that will stand up in court.
Problems undermining law enforcement efforts in fighting identity theft:
many officers lack training and agencies lack resources provide adequate response
multi-jurisdictional complications undercut angenc’s commitment to follow through.
Law enforcement agencies stymied as many instances not reported to police (sometimes not even the victim is aware of the crime)
Typology
a typology is classification scheme that aids in the understanding of what a group has in common and how it differs from others.
arguments that the victims of a crime might share responsibility wit their offends for what happened due to facilitation, precipitation, and provocation have characterized as victim blaming.
Victim Defending challenges whether it is accurate and fair to try to hold the wounded party accountable to some degree for his or her own injuries or losses.
Victim Blaming proceeds from the assumption that sometimes the victim bears some responsibility for the crime.
The Five Techniques of neutralization are ways people rationalized or justify deviant behavior
in criminology, the five techniques of neutralization are ways people rationalize or justify deviant behavior. The techniques are:
Denial of Responsibility: The offender claims their actions caused no harm
Denial of injury: the offender claims their actions caused no harm.
Denial of the Victim: the offender claims the victim deserved it
Condemnation of the condemners: the offender claims those who condemn them are doing so out of spite or are unfairly shifting the blame
Appeal to higher loyalties: the offender claims the act was justified by a higher loyalty or law, such as friendship.
Legal importance of determining Responsibility
responsibility rests on judgments that are subject to challenges and criticism
whether the victim facilitated, precipitated or provoked, an offender is considered responsible by police, persecutors, juries, judges, compensation boards, insurance examiners, and politician’s.
it is an issue at many stages of the CJ process, restitution consideration, civil lawsuits, and insurance settlements.
according to system blaming, neither the offender nor the victim.