Victimology: Canadians in Context PDF

University of Winnipeg Library Course Reserves Department 204.786.9809 [email protected] Your document begins after this page. DISCLAIMER This copy was made pursuant to the Copyright Policy of the University of Winnipeg. The copy may only be used for the purpose of research, private study, cri...

University of Winnipeg Library Course Reserves Department 204.786.9809 [email protected] Your document begins after this page. DISCLAIMER This copy was made pursuant to the Copyright Policy of the University of Winnipeg. The copy may only be used for the purpose of research, private study, criticism, review, news reporting, education, satire, or parody. If the copy is used for the purpose of review, criticism, or news reporting, the source and the name of the author must be mentioned. The use of this copy for any other purpose may require the permission of the Copyright owner.  HV 6250. 3 C2 S36 2016 Second Edition Victimology Canadians in Context Hannah Scott OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS  OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. Published in Canada by Oxford University Press 8 Sampson Mews, Suite 204, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 0H5 Canada www. oupcanada. com Copyright © Oxford University Press Canada 2016 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First Edition published in 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Permissions Department at the address above or through the following url: www.oupcanada.com/permission/permission_request. php Every effort has been made to determine and contact copyright holders. In the case of any omissions, the publisher will be pleased to make suitable acknowledgement in future editions. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Scott, Hannah, 1966-, author Victimology: Canadians in context / Hannah Scott. — Second edition. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-901463-7 (paperback) 1. Victims of crime—Canada—Textbooks. I. Title. HV6250.3.C3S36 2016 362.880971 C2016-900282-9 Cover image: © iStock/Julia_Sudnitskaya Oxford University Press is committed to our environment. Wherever possible, our books are printed on paper which comes from responsible sources. Printed and bound in Canada 3 4 5 —20 19 18 CHAPTER4 Criminological Theories and the Victim Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you will be able to * discuss recent theories that consider the victim’s role in crime; * understand what each of these theories assumes about the nature of the victim; * understand which part of the criminal event each theory attempts to explain; and * compare and contrast the ideas of victim as either active or passive. Introduction event. Others, such as feminist, critical, and labelling theories, see victims as more In the previous chapter we looked at some passive and more strongly influenced by of the early thinking regarding the role larger social actions than by those in their of victims, particularly how it developed individual day-to-day lives. into typologies of victims and the victim­ offender relationship. Although typolo­ gies serve to categorize behaviour, they Theory and Perspective: are not considered fully developed theor­ Classical Criminology ies of victim behaviour. These typologies have affected some more recent ideas The Classical School of thought in crim­ about the role of the victim, which we will inology assumes that individuals who examine in this chapter through various commit crime are active and rational theoretical lenses originating in the disci­ participants in their decisions to commit plines of sociology and criminology. We criminal acts. This idea stems from the will focus on the predominant theories Judeo-Christian belief that when people of the last half of the twentieth century, commit harms or sins, they are consciously beginning with explanations stemming aware that they are doing harm. Sins, from the Classical School of thought, such under these belief systems should be de­ as the criminal event perspective and ra­ terred. Once committed they should be tional choice theories, and moving to the admitted, and punishment should follow groups of theories including critical and/ to atone for those sins. The philosopher or feminist perspectives, and labelling/ Cesare Beccaria (1764 ) postulated social reaction theories. Many of these that all men are self-interested and have concepts assume that the criminal and, the capacity to commit criminal acts. It by default, the victim, are rational people is in the best interest of society to control who make choices that may affect their those who wish to engage in these ac­ chances of being involved in a victimizing tivities in order to maintain social order.  4 Criminological Theories and the Victim 61 Before Beccaria’s propositions, criminal that helps us understand how theories in­ punishment was meted out with harsh terplay. Vince Sacco at Queen’s University and arbitrary methods. Deterring crime and Leslie Kennedy, while working at the was less effective, as punishments could University of Alberta in 2002, put forth be predicated on a number of factors the criminal event perspective in order which might or might not have relevance to encourage people to look at crime to the details of criminal acts of which in a larger social context. They noticed one was accused. Baccaria, therefore, sug­ little existed in the way of an organizing gested that in order to effectively control framework in which to place theories. criminal activity, punishment should be In essence, looking for explanation of a proportional to the harm that was done. problem via theoretical explanations is Although initially extremely controver­ like looking at a problem through vari­ sial, his ideas were eventually adopted to ous lenses or windows. Although some become the basis for many law systems, theories seek to understand the act of including our own. crime by the offender, others look at The proposition that a criminal is wider social contexts, such as the influ­ an active participant in his or her own ence of gender on criminal offending experience has been adopted by many and victimization. Still other theories are different theorists to explain crime. interested in what happened to the of­ Although some distinctly try to explain fender before the criminal act (as a means the role of the victim, others simply fo­ of examining preventive measures) and cus on the offender but the role of the some examine the victims of crime. Each victim is implied. Under the Classical view gives a different formulation of the School, when extended to victimology, situation. The criminal event perspective the victim is also active and rational and seeks to rectify this problem by assert­ therefore can affect the outcome of the ing that a criminal event is like any other experience by taking certain actions that event, albeit with a criminal outcome. By might reduce or increase the chances of using this event framework, we can place victimization, the type of victimization theories in accordance to what phenom­ her or she may be exposed to, the level enon they are trying to explain in time of injury, and so on. Below we will ex­ and what players are involved. amine some of the most popular theories According to this perspective, par­ within this school of thought, highlight­ ticipants in the criminal event include ing their strengths and weaknesses. the offender, the victim, and any pub­ lic reaction that may occur either dir­ ectly through witnessing the event, or The Criminal Event indirectly through other means. The Perspective criminal event can be broken into three stages. Criminal precursors include all Unlike a theory the criminal event per­ factors that lead up to the event for spective shapes the outlook of individu­ all participants. The criminal transac­ als seeking to explain criminal behaviour. tion, or the actual victimizing activity, It is not an explanation per se but rather a is relatively short in comparison to the way of looking at crime and victimization other stages of the event, often lasting 62 Victimology less than five minutes. The aftermath (see page 64), as well as other security of crime includes all events that happen measures. The criminal event perspective to the participants after the victimiza­ works well with rational choice theor­ tion has taken place. More about this ies in that it shares some of the same perspective is outlined in Chapter 11. assumptions regarding the victim’s na­ ture and also fails to offer explanations as to why crime patterns occur the way they do. Critical Event Perspective: Underlying Assumptions About the Victim In the criminal event perspective, the victim is a rational being and an active Rational Choice Theories: participant in the criminal event, as are The Transaction the offender and any witnesses. This Developed in the 1970s, rational choice viewpoint considers the transaction to theories, like the criminal event per­ be dynamic, where all participants are spective, see the victim as a rational influenced by their previous experi­ participant in the criminal event and ac­ ences. Likewise, all participants will deal tive in his or her life. These theories— with the aftermath of the event in differ­ lifestyles, routine activities, deterrence, ent ways, depending on what resources rational choice perspective, and situated have been and are provided to them. This transaction—also predominantly focus perspective acknowledges that most ef­ on what happens just immediately before forts to explain crime have focused on and during the criminal event (or trans­ the criminal, with less attention paid to action) and why these events occur. The the victim and even less on any public basic tenants and assumptions of these reaction to criminal events. However, it five theories are described below. still maintains this offender focus while placing the act of victimization in con­ Lifestyles Theory text. Note that the perspective is called Developed by Michael J. Hindelang, “the criminal event” and not “the victim­ Michael R. Gottfredson, and James izing event.” Garofalo (1978, pp. 251-64), lifestyles By considering the victim to be ra­ theory posits that certain behavioural tional and active, the criminal event per­ patterns create an opportunistic struc­ spective assumes victim responsibility, ture for criminals. The most common thereby creating the risk of victim blam­ examples of victimization risk being af­ ing. Those who study crime are often fected by lifestyle choices are those sur­ interested in the person before he or she rounding activities in taverns and bars. was a criminal or a victim. They want After analyzing an early victimization to know the precursory variables—what survey, the authors came to recognize happened to the parties before the crim­ patterns. For example, people who fre­ inal event. In this perspective, precur­ quent bars and consume alcohol tend sory factors to any victimizing event can to be at these locations at night. People protect or promote victimization. This who choose to engage in any or all of theory, then, encourages protective acts these activities also substantially increase such as “target hardening” for victims their risk for victimization. After looking  4 Criminological Theories and the Victim 63 at problems of victimization, the authors routines that involve the regular con­ drew the following eight conclusions sumption of alcohol increase our chance about the nature of patterning victim­ for victimization. Given that the majority ization behaviour: of victimizations are carried out by non­ family members, these conclusions sug­ 1. The more time that individuals gest that the more we are in large public spend in public places (especially at settings and in contact with non-family night), the more likely they are to members who are in our own age group, be victimized. the greater our risk for victimization. 2. Following certain lifestyles makes Likewise, the theory suggests that individuals more likely to frequent those who do not engage in these spe­ public places. cific lifestyle choices reduce their risk 3. The interactions that individuals of victimization and that a lifestyle pat­ maintain tend to be with persons terned upon staying home and engaging who share their lifestyles. in activities without alcohol is protective. 4. The probability that individuals will While this idea addresses large and ag­ be victims increases according to gregate patterns of how and when people the extent to which victims and of­ are victimized, it might not be true for fenders belong to the same demo­ all groups of people. It does not explain, graphic categories. for example, why patterns of victimiza­ 5. The proportion of time individu­ tion differ between men and women. als spend in places where there is a Women are more likely than men to be large number of non-family mem­ the victims of the most severe forms of bers varies according to lifestyle. spousal assault, as well as spousal ho­ 6. The chances of individuals being micide, sexual assault, and criminal ha­ the victims of a crime (particularly rassment (e.g., stalking; Johnson, 2006). theft) increase in conjunction with Therefore, lifestyle theory stands as a the amount of time they spend better explanation of male victimization among non-family members. patterns. 7. Differences in lifestyles relate to the ability of individuals to isolate Routine Activities Theory themselves from those with offender Another theory that looks at the role of characteristics. the victim is routine activities theory 8. Variations in lifestyles influence the (RAT). Developed by Lawrence Cohen convenience, desirability and ease and Marcus Felson (1979), RAT posits of victimizing individuals. that three elements must be present in order for a criminal event to occur: a mo­ Lifestyles Theory: Underlying Assumptions for the Victim tivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship. If one or Lifestyles theory suggests that patterning more of these elements are missing, a our lives to the point of creating regu­ crime will not occur. While the theory lar routines can place us at risk for vic­ does say that the offender must be moti­ timization. Furthermore, in Hindelang, vated to offend, the specific motivation is Gottfredson, and Garofalo’s study not important. The theory requires only 64 Victimology that motivation be present. Offenders for his or her own victimization. This cannot offend without a suitable target claim ignores the power dynamic be­ such as a location or a potential victim. tween a victim and an offender and Where there is a suitable victim but also a assumes equality between all three par­ form of guardianship serving as a protec­ ties: the victim, offender, and guardian. tive force, the potential victim becomes Therefore, we must be careful how we less attractive as a target. Protection use this theory to explain victimization. from a guardian can take several forms. Essentially, guardianship is any person, Deterrence Theory thing, or activity—including dogs, se­ The idea that people can be deterred from curity cameras, walking with others, and crime has been around for a long time. so on—-that serves to make the potential In its most rudimentary form, punish­ victim less suitable and to reduce the risk ment is assumed to deter crime. A good posed by a potential offender. example of how punishment was meted out during the Dark Ages is found on the first pages of Michel Foucault’s Discipline Routine Activities Theory: Assumptions about the Victim and Punish (1977), where he recounts a This theory assumes that people must case of drawing and quartering. A man engage in a process called target hard­ is being pulled in opposing directions ening to protect against victimization. by horses while being burned with hot In this process, a potential victim is edu­ pokers and having salt rubbed in his cated about, or “hardened” against, how wounds. The idea was that a person who offenders operate. He or she is encour­ had committed a crime should suffer as aged to take protective measures against part of their punishment, even if he or victimization by several means, such as she were sentenced to death. In this way, those mentioned above or by carrying a if the accused lived, it was assumed that weapon, dressing in a way that enhances he or she would be deterred or disabled escape from a potential offender (e.g., from committing another crime. These wearing running shoes instead of shoes punishments were also often carried out that hinder escape), and so on. By being in public, with the idea that observing proactive, victims become less suitable the suffering of the criminal would deter targets to offenders. others from committing similar acts of The expectation of target hardening violation. The punishment was usually and the perception of the victim and excessive and inflicted upon the lower the offender as being active and ra­ classes by the nobility, who were often tional participants in the criminal event able to avoid such forms of social justice. place the onus for the victimization on The refinement of the use of punish­ both parties. A victim can lessen the of­ ment for deterrence purposes is origin­ fender’s motivation by being less of a ally associated with eighteenth-century suitable target. A victim who does not English philosopher Jeremy Bentham educate him or herself in the methods of (1789). In addition to being one of becoming less suitable or who chooses the first to advocate for incarceration not to engage in “hardening” processes as a form of punishment, Bentham felt is implied to be partly responsible that punishment was a negative tactic  4 Criminological Theories and the Victim 65 that could reverse the effects of deterrence. achieving deterrence. The first element Therefore, it should be used sparingly is the speed at which the punishment is and only when other options have been administered, or the celerity of punish­ exhausted. When it is used, the pain ment. The criminal should be punished inflicted should be in direct proportion in close temporal proximity to when the to the pain that the victimizer caused. crime was committed, and/or soon after In essence, it was paramount that the the criminal is apprehended. If delayed punishment fit the crime. Bentham significantly, the punishment loses its eventually made elaborate calculations deterring strength. Second, there should on the application of punishment. He be a certainty of punishment. That is, felt that it was important to be precise when an act of deviance—an act that is with punishment, basing the amount of considered outside a prescribed set of punishment or pain inflicted to be a spe­ cultural norms—is committed, punish­ cific deterrent on the pleasure that was ment should consistently follow; incon­ gained when the victimizer committed sistency can serve as a weak deterrent the offence. to committing future deviance. Finally Deterrence theory claims that while severity of punishment must be appro­ many people have compulsive thoughts priate. Too much or too little punish­ of doing harm, the fear of punishment ment can weaken the effect on deterring keeps all but a few from acting on these the individual from future deviance. thoughts. Again, this theory consid­ ers people as rational beings who are Deterrence Theory: Underlying active in controlling their behaviour. Assumptions about the Victim Deterrence theory points to two forms This theory assumes that deterrence is of prevention that work upon the con­ key to reducing the expression of vic­ science of offending individuals as well timizing activity specifically in relation as others who may witness or hear of the to the victimizer. However, acts of de­ punishment carried out on the guilty. terrence also have a protective effect for Specific deterrence occurs when an in­ potential victims. Victims, under this dividual is directly punished for his or theory, are active and are acted upon by her deviant behaviour. If this form of de­ victimizers. This theory assumes that terrence is successful, the individual will all people are rational, weighing pain cease the offending behaviour for fear of against the idea of pleasure. Therefore, it further punishment. General deterrence follows that potential victims can also be occurs when other individuals learn of deterred from engaging in deviance. We someone being punished and, as a re­ assume that potential victims also make sult, are dissuaded from participating choices. One of these choices could be in deviant acts for fear that they may to conform to social norms, thereby not also be punished. These individuals do drawing unwanted attention to them­ not directly experience punishment, but selves, discouraging deviance, and insu­ they fear the potential of punishment. lating themselves against victimization. This theory also states that three Potential victims who make preventive components to administering punish­ choices are deterred from taking risks ment make it most effective in terms of that might put them in harm’s way. In 66 Victimology this scenario, the potential victimizer ex­ based on the offender weighing the pros acts punishment in the form of criminal and cons of committing crime. victimization, inflicting specific deterrent effects on the future behaviour of the Rational Choice Perspective: potential victim. Further, other poten­ Underlying Assumptions about the tial victims, having either witnessed or Victim heard about the victimization, might be According to this perspective, victims deterred more generally from engaging come along in the form of opportunities in similar risks. to be taken advantage of. Although not While this theory was not intended explicitly stated, the perspective assumes to explain victim behaviour, its assump­ that all people are rational, not just those tions make it useful in studying the ra­ who are potential victimizers. Like rou­ tional processes and deterrent effects of tine activities theory, rational choice per­ victimization for both the victim and spective includes a suitability factor, in the offender. At the same time, deter­ the sense that victims give off cues that rence theory should be used with cau­ can attract or repel a potential predator. tion because, like other rational choice While victims are also rational and make theories, it implies that the victim holds choices in a similar way to offenders, they some degree of control over his or her are assumed to be weighing the risk of own victimization. Again, it ignores victimization in everyday activities rather other factors, such as social and physi­ than focusing on an offence. Victims also cal inequalities that may also affect the weigh the potential gains and losses in outcome of the event. This theory also engaging in risky behaviour. presents a false sense of security in the For example, a victimizer may wan­ idea that conformity is a protective meas­ der into a park looking for a potential ure against victimization. victim. He or she scans the park for someone who looks like an easy target Rational Choice Perspective and who does not pose a threat, perhaps Widely associated with Derek Cornish someone who is smaller, someone who and Ronald Clarke (1986), both of the is in an isolated part of the park, some­ London School of Economics, rational one who is elderly, and so on. At the choice perspective seeks to explain the same time, the potential victims (those victimizer’s motivation and decision­ using the park for legitimate purposes) making process. This perspective con­ evaluate the risk of being in a public siders the offender to be a rational and place and make choices about their be­ active person who makes choices based haviour and activities. Again, the deci­ on the presence or absence of poten­ sions of both parties do not have to be tial gain and the cost of committing the fully rational but are the result of this crime. In other words, crime is the re­ cognitive weighing process. sult of rational thinking in the offender’s mind. This idea, however, does not mean Situated Transaction Theory that the offender’s choices are completely The term “situated transaction” was rational but that victimizing behaviour is originally coined by sociologist Erving the process of successful rationalization Goffman (1963) to refer to a process of  4 Criminological Theories and the Victim 67 interaction between two or more individ­ can ignore the offensive behaviour uals. Situated transaction theory was and stop the situated transaction or developed by David Luckenbill (1977) he or she can react. and seeks to locate crime in time and 3. The eventual offender reacts to place. Luckenbill studied 70 transactions “save face” or protect honour. This involving 71 homicides (one was a dou­ reaction can be in the form of verbal ble murder) randomly selected from all or physical threats. homicides occurring in a medium-sized 4. The eventual victim responds California county between 1963 and aggressively, suggesting a violent 1972. In this study, he noted that “par­ resolution. During this stage, on­ ticipants interact in a common physical lookers might verbally or physically territory” (1977, p. 196). Because partici­ promote violence by yelling words pants interact in close proximity within a of encouragement and/or physi­ common territory, people interact in a var­ cally blocking exits. In this way, the iety of ways. In some cases, the outcome offender and the victim can become may not be a positive experience. In the committed to the altercation by the criminal situated transaction, the roles actions of those surrounding them. of the victim and offender are not pre­ 5. The two parties enter a physical determined. The outcome is determined interchange and the victim is killed. by action and reaction, in an exchange. This stage lasts a very short time The interactions that Luckenbill studied and the actions are precise: the tended to have a specific pattern: in a eventual victim is stabbed, shot, or surprising number of cases the eventual otherwise fatally injured. victim was, ironically, the first to initiate 6. The offender either remains with action in the altercation. He also noted the victim, is prevented from leav­ that the victim and the offender were of­ ing by witnesses, or flees the scene ten known to each other and that the hom­ of the crime. icide took place in an informal setting. Before any altercation, according to Situated transaction theory draws the theory, both participants have the heavily on symbolic interactionism, which developed out of the Chicago potential to be either a victim or an of­ School and the work of several theorists. fender. The roles are defined by the out­ According to sociologist Herbert Blumer come. Luckenbill identified six stages of the situated transaction where a homi­ (1969), major contributors to this school cide was the end result: of thought included George Herbert Mead (1934), Clifford Shaw (1930), WI. 1. The eventual victim insults the hon­ Thomas (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918), our of the eventual offender. This and Frederick M. Thrasher (1927). affront to “face” is usually in the Symbolic interactionism asserts that form of an unprovoked verbal com­ human interaction is based solely on munication or a physical gesture. the interpretation of symbols, such as 2. The eventual offender finds the language and behaviour, communi­ affront offensive. At this point, the cated between individuals. Symbols are offender has two choices: he or she not inherently good or deviant but are 68 Victimology subject to interpretation, which depends in the situation transaction. The partici­ on culturally prescribed norms and the pants’ interpretation of the actions, along social environment in which the transac­ with expectations about specific ways in tion occurs. These symbols can be mis­ which to respond to these actions, sug­ understood between individuals; both gest that powerful common ideas exist correct and incorrect interpretations about how one is to respond to certain can result in conflict. Once we have in­ types of interaction. terpreted the symbols, we react to them A product of its time, this theory ad­ in prescribed ways, fulfilling roles that dresses male-to-male violence, ignoring are expected of us in specific situations. other types. Again, male victims are of­ For example, one of the most power­ ten victimized by an acquaintance in a ful symbol systems humans have is the public location, usually as the result of ability to communicate with language. a disagreement. However, incidents of When we communicate, we use a series uxoricide (a man’s killing of his wife) of­ of symbols arranged in a particular or­ ten do not follow these patterns. Trends der and often in a particular intonation in spousal abuse suggest that before the that conveys meaning to others. When victim is killed, there is a long history of we hear words, we formulate meaning in abuse, often lasting for hours at a time. them and then react with more commun­ In essence, there is a series of situated ication symbols. If we find the language transactions that do not result in homi­ offensive, we respond in kind, leave the cide but which eventually escalate and situation, or react in another manner. culminate in the wife’s death. This term More on this perspective can be found is often confused with mariticide, which later on in this chapter. is the killing of either spouse by the other. Therefore, although this theory Situated Transaction Theory: Underlying Assumptions about the Victim may explain the patterns of lethal violence between males, it does little to clarify other forms of victimization. In situated transaction theory individu­ als use behaviour and language that is Criticisms of Rational Choice interpreted as threatening. Interestingly, Theories Luckenbill noted that the victim often This set of theories is reminiscent of the initiates the disagreement, and it is the “hunter and the hunted” model of think­ eventual offender’s understanding of ing. Victimizers are the predators to be those actions which leads to the initiator’s dissuaded, while non-victimizers serve, to ensuing downfall. Once the situation has varying degrees, as potential prey These been interpreted, both the offender and concepts assume the main principle of the victim engage in socially prescribed social Darwinism, a term first coined by ways to resolve the altercation, with the Herbert Spencer (1864/1900). Social offender ultimately using lethal violence. Darwinism, like Charles Darwin’s theory The fact that many of these altercations of evolution, suggests that the dominat­ have such similar event structures and ing assumption about social interaction adhere to these six stages of interaction is “survival of the fittest.” In other words, is evidence for these role expectations it is believed that society consists of those  4 Criminological Theories and the Victim 69 who are stronger and therefore will sur­ noted that some people were more vul­ vive and those who are weaker and there­ nerable to victimization than others. To fore will be preyed upon by the strong. If Lombroso, these causes were the result we extrapolate this idea to victimization, of improper evolution. Although most social Darwinism assumes that preying on of us dismiss these ideas today, they are those who are weak is justified because it significant as they suggest that something is necessary to “cull the herd”—to weed else, other than conscious will and self­ out the weak so that society can continue interest, are causes for criminal activity to grow and become stronger. and victimization experience. Although rational choice theories are Individuals are assumed to come into popular with criminal justice and law en­ the world with certain innate or social forcement officials, they are considered features. Innate features include the dif­ very conservative and should be applied ferences between individuals that are in­ with extreme caution. These theories ternal to the body and cannot be changed. serve to maintain the status quo and They are part of the composition of the do not question why certain groups of individual in question. In some cases peo­ people are more likely than others to be ple are bom with innate features, such as victimized in a particular way. By assign­ their sex and/or gender, their skin tone ing responsibility to the victim for his or and colour, and/or predispositions to vari­ her actions in a criminal event, those who ous diseases. Individuals may also have use these theories run the risk of blam­ social features that put them at certain ing the victim and ignoring the power advantage or disadvantage, depending dynamic between the victim and the vic- on many factors. These features include timizer. More critical approaches, such as the type of nutrition received at various feminist theories, address these concerns. stages of life, family life, who one’s friends are, the level of education available and/or achieved, where one is born, how much Theory and Perspective: money individuals or families have, the kind of job one does, political affiliations, Positivist Theories and so on. Innate and social features com­ Positivist theories of crime and vic­ bine in complex ways that ultimately are timization assume that actors have an assumed to shape lived experience. increased likelihood for criminal experi­ Unlike the Classical School, where ence depending on various predispo­ actors are rational and engaged in their sitions. This school of thought started experience, Positivist School adherents with the early work of Cesare Lombroso propose that actors are more passive; (1899/1911), mentioned in the previous what is most important are the factors chapter. Recall that Lombroso was the that push individuals into various path­ first to step away from the idea that all ways. Positivist theories differ as to what criminals were making conscious deci­ they think is the locus of that push, but sions to commit crime, stating that some all have in common the proposition criminals and victims were predisposed that we can best explain victimization to these acts. Although he was most in terms of the physiological and social interested in the born criminal, he also context of the individual. 70 Victimology Psychological Theories therapies—medicinal, cognitive, neural Psychological theories are primarily con­ regenerative, and so on—seek to help cerned with the workings of the mind. the victim deal with the maladaptive be­ This canopy of explanations of victimiza­ haviour or to cope with the consequences tion proposes that people may become of it. The aim of treatment, in any form, vulnerable to victimization because of is to reduce the effects of psychological various mental processes, such as mental issues by reducing symptoms. By doing illness or mental defect due to heredity or this, victims can learn to readjust after injury, and so on. These theories assume traumatic experiences. These theories are that severe mental illness or defect can interesting as many have the power to inhibit a person’s ability to make deci­ explain how people will cope with and sions appropriately and thereby put that recover from trauma. More about some person at risk for increased victimization. of these theories, with respect to reac­ Although some of these problems have tions, coping, and recovery, is covered in treatment solutions, such as medications Chapters 12 and 13. and/or corrective surgery, these remedies Control Theory might not be effective. These theories Control theory asserts that offenders have in common the idea that individu­ commit crimes and crime-related activi­ als are more disposed to violence or ties because they have low levels of self- victimization because of malfunctioning control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). neural processes and their cognitive and Criminal activity is not an isolated social behavioural responses reactions to those phenomenon but rather is part of a larger processes. Victims are assumed to not be continuum of behaviours that share entirely at fault because they are subject common excitement, little advanced to forces they have difficulty controlling. planning, and short-term gain. In other Behaviour and cognitive understanding words, criminal offenders are more likely that results from impaired neural pro­ than the non-offender population to seek cesses, leading to increased vulnerability, short-term gain and are less likely to be is understood through a psychological able to work towards longer term goals. and/or medical model. Weak self-control is the product of ex­ Psychological Theories of Crime: periences in early childhood, such as inap­ Underlying Assumptions about the Victim propriate parenting, where self-control skills were not learned, or early child­ This model largely deals with the after­ hood trauma, and so on. This theory has math of victimization: individuals are been recently extended to include those assumed to have suffered psychologi­ who are vulnerable to victimization. cal and/or physical trauma as a result of victimization. Under this model, victims Control Theory: Underlying Assumptions receive treatment in myriad forms to help about the Victim mediate the psychological changes that Supporters of control theory empha­ might have occurred as a result of the size that offenders and victims often trauma, whether as a result of brain injury share social demographic patterns or psychological traumatic exposure. All (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nofziger,  4 Criminological Theories and the Victim 71 2009; Pratt, Turanovic, Fox, & Wright, the shortcut, as there has been some 2014). Therefore, this theory asserts that suspicious activity in those places. Your if criminal offending is the result of low friend tells everyone not to worry and self-control, then vulnerability to victim­ begins to head home. The next day your ization must be as well. Victimization, friend relays that he or she made good like criminal activity, is the result of low time and got home in 15 minutes. You self-control. Low self-control is a charac­ know that could have happened only by teristic, developed in childhood, which taking the shortcuts that are known to varies from person to person and is part be somewhat risky Although the walk of a larger range of behaviour patterns. was uneventful, you worry that, because A study by Pratt, Turanovic, Fox, & of the lack of self-control that would Wright (2014), which looked at a total have your friend leave social events at a of 66 studies, examined the relationship reasonable time, your friend is engaging between self-control and vulnerability in risky behaviour, which might result to victimization. Overall, the authors in victimization. According to control found that whereas a consistent and theory, you would be correct in your well established direct relationship ex­ assessment: this theory states that your isted between lack of self-control and friend is more indirectly vulnerable to criminal offending, the relationship be­ victimization because of his or her lack tween self-control and victimization was of self-control to engage in longer term indirect. In other words, where offend­ planning for such situations. Likewise, ers with low self-control were tempted it is safe to assume that if many of your by opportunities that became available, friend’s friends are offenders, your victims were found to have engaged friend’s chances of being victimized in behaviour that may have created are increased, given the activities of the situations that made them vulnerable. people that he or she regularly is sur­ Individuals with low self-control might rounded by. not exercise lifestyle choices that make This theory was developed to ex­ them less vulnerable. plain the actions of juvenile offenders. For example, imagine a friend of Victimization is a new extension of this yours decides to go out for the evening theory that attempts to explain why with friends to the campus pub. As the some individuals appear to be more vul­ night wears on, you remind your friend nerable to victimization than others and that bus service to the campus stops why victims and offenders often share at midnight and he or she should not similar characteristics. Researchers in miss the last bus. Your friend tells you this area openly acknowledge that their not to worry and continues socializing. intent is not to “blame the victim” (see Eventually, your friend looks up and Chapter 3) or assert that the victim par­ realizes that the last bus has gone. Your ticipates in his or her own victimization friend lives about a 30-minute walk from (Nofziger, 2009; Pratt, Turanovic, Fox, campus, but there is a shortcut through & Wright, 2014). Yet it is understand­ some laneways and parks that will cut able that critical and feminist theories down the walk by 10 minutes. Others at (mentioned below) find these explana­ the table advise your friend not to take tions problematic. Critics of this theory