Victim–Offender Overlap, Serial Killers, and Costs of Victimisation – Study Notes

Theoretical Explanations for Victimisation

Several criminological theories help explain victimisation, often in the context of the victim-offender overlap:

• Dynamic Causal Perspective (focus on events & environments):

  • General Strain Theory (Agnew 1992 | Merton 1957):

    • Strain (e.g., from victimisation) creates/heightens negative emotions (stress, anger, depression), which can lead to crime.

    • This suggests a potential route from victim to offender, as victimisation itself can be a source of strain.

  • Routine Activities & Lifestyle Theory (Cohen & Felson 1979):

    • Offending is often part of a risky lifestyle; the same routines that place individuals in crime-producing settings also heighten their exposure to victimisation.

    • Offenders may be seen as "legally vulnerable" and thus attractive targets for others.

  • Subcultural Theories (Matza 1964; Wolfgang & Ferracuti 1967):

    • Within certain groups, values may accept or even promote violence.

    • Victimisation within these subcultures may lead to retaliation, turning victims into offenders.

    • Conversely, a victim-rationality perspective suggests victimisation could deter future offending if retaliation is deemed too costly.

• Population Heterogeneity Perspective:

  • General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990):

    • Posits that low self-control is a stable personal trait.

    • This same trait produces both offending (manifesting as impulsivity, preference for simple tasks) and victimisation (through risk-taking behaviours and association with delinquent peers).

• Biosocial Explanations:

  • Twin studies (Vaske, Boisvert & Wright 2012):

    • Higher victim-offender overlap in monozygotic twins compared to dizygotic twins suggests a genetic contribution.

    • $20{-}40\%$ of the correlation between violent victimisation and offending may be attributable to genetic factors.

  • Developmental trajectories combine genetic predispositions with environmental stressors (Beckley et al. 2018).

Victim Typologies in Criminal Contexts

The concept of the victim–offender overlap inherently challenges a simple binary view of individuals as exclusively victims or offenders, leading to distinct typologies:

• Mustaine & Tewkesbury (2000) isolate three distinct groups based on their experiences:

  1. Victims: Individuals who have exclusively experienced victimisation without engaging in offending.

  2. Offenders: Individuals who have exclusively engaged in offending without experiencing victimisation.

  3. Victim-offenders: Individuals who experience both roles, either sequentially or concurrently. This group represents the core of the victim-offender overlap phenomenon.

• Broidy et al. (2006) highlight that while the overlap is significant, not all victims are (potential) offenders, necessitating nuanced victim typologies to differentiate those who solely experience victimisation from those involved in both roles. The most pronounced overlap is seen in homicide, but it is observable across various offence types.

Critique of the Victim's Role in the Criminal Justice System (CJS)

The CJS, designed primarily as a system focusing on the state versus the offender, often sidelines victims, leading to profound impacts:

• Systemic Disregard: The CJS is often perceived as "not a victim-justice system," where institutional processes are impersonal and detached, potentially exacerbating trauma (secondary victimisation).

• Barriers to Engagement & Re-victimisation (Secondary Victimisation): Victims may avoid reporting or engaging with the CJS due to several factors that compound their initial harm:

  • Economic burdens: Costs associated with time off work, travel, and legal fees.

  • Emotional strain: The process can lead to re-victimisation through repeated recounting of traumatic events, public scrutiny, and a lack of empathy from system actors.

  • Perception of low utility vs. high personal cost: Victims may rationally withdraw if they perceive the personal costs (emotional, financial, time) outweigh the potential benefits of engaging with the system.

  • Silent protest: Some victims may disengage as a silent protest against what they perceive as an "injustice system."

• Long-term Impacts (Tertiary Victimisation): Beyond the immediate crime and CJS interaction, victims often face lasting consequences:

  • Non-financial costs: Pain, suffering, diminished quality of life, loss of affection/enjoyment, heightened fear, withdrawal, and sleep problems.

  • Loss of security: A profound loss of sense of security in their home and society.

  • Mental health impacts: Potential long-term psychological issues such as depression and PTSD (Freeman & Smith 2014).

These issues reflect how the CJS, despite its aims, can inadvertently contribute to a victim's ongoing suffering, moving beyond primary victimisation to secondary and tertiary forms.

Application of Victimology Theories: Case Study – Lust Serial Killers

The study of lust serial killers provides a powerful, albeit extreme, real-world application of victimology theories, illustrating the victim-offender overlap and the impact of early victimisation on later predatory behaviour.

• Definitional Framework:

  • A serial killer is defined as an individual who murders $\ge 3$ persons in separate events with a "cooling-off" period (Egger 2002; Hickey 2002; Ressler & Shachtman 1992).

  • A lust serial killer specifically has sexual gratification as their primary motive.

• Victimisation Background of Offenders:

  • Empirical evidence strongly suggests a significant history of victimisation among serial killers.

  • De Becker (1997) reported that $100\%$ of serial killers in his study reported childhood abuse (violence, neglect, humiliation).

  • Ressler & Shachtman (1992) found that >40\% were physically beaten/abused during childhood, and >70\% witnessed or experienced sexually stressful events.

• Mitchell & Aamodt (2005) Methodology and Findings:

  • Their study sampled $n=50$ lust serial killers, applying Virginia DSS abuse categories and including only verified abuse claims.

  • Abuse Prevalence: The findings underscore significant rates of childhood maltreatment:

    • Any maltreatment: $68\%$

    • Physical abuse: $36\%$

    • Sexual abuse: $26\%$

    • Psychological abuse: $50\%$

    • Neglect: $18\%$

    • No abuse: $32\%$

• Interpretation & Limits (Application to Theories):

  • Childhood abuse is considered a likely contributing factor to the development of dysfunctional interpersonal coping mechanisms, which can manifest as the punitive behaviours observed in these offenders. This aligns with General Strain Theory, where severe early victimisation (a form of strain) could lead to negative emotional states and, subsequently, violent offending.

  • The fact that abuse was not universally present (approximately $32\%$ of the sample reported no verifiable abuse) indicates that abuse is not the sole cause of such extreme offending. Instead, it highlights the complexity of human behaviour, suggesting multiple interacting pathways (potentially involving genetic predispositions as per Biosocial Explanations) contribute to the development of such predatory tendencies. This case study demonstrates how severe early victimisation can be a critical, though not exclusive, pathway in the victim-offender overlap dynamic.

Cost of Victimisation

Financial

• property loss

• victim services

• medical and mental health care

• lost work and school days

• Legal Costs

Non Financial

• Qaulity of life

• loss of affection / enoyment

• loss of security

• Withdrawal

• difficulty sleeping