PTV - Ch. 3 Crime Victimization PDF

Chapter 3 Typologies of Crime Victimization Objectives Upon completion of this chapter, you will be able to: • understand different typologies of victimization and their limitations, • understand and recognize the multidimensional role of the victim in a crime event, • discuss the theoretical...

Chapter 3 Typologies of Crime Victimization Objectives Upon completion of this chapter, you will be able to: • understand different typologies of victimization and their limitations, • understand and recognize the multidimensional role of the victim in a crime event, • discuss the theoretical paradigms for crime victimization, and • describe how data and research can be used to assist in evidence-based decision making and evidence-based practices to ensure better outcomes for victims of crime. Introduction The field of theoretical criminology has spent decades explaining criminal behavior in order to propose a variety of ways to control criminals. Because crime is as old as mankind, theories of crime used to be exclusively offender-oriented. It is only very recently that the attention of scholars, researchers, and practitioners began to focus on victims of crime. The earliest of these studies focused on the relationship between perpetrators and their victims, and more specifically, how characteristics of the victim (e.g., personality, temperament, decision-making) could explain criminal behavior (Wemmers, 2010). Thus, victims of crime were not portrayed as individuals harmed by a criminal act, but rather as persons who contribute to crime. 64 This paradigm began to shift, however, in the early 1970s when the rhetoric of criminal justice shifted towards crime victims’ rights and welfare, and the foundation for support services were established (Maguire, 1991). Under the influence of the victim’s movement, contemporary criminology similarly began to shift its focus from predominantly offender-oriented theories to crime opportunity theories and victimoriented theories, thus laying the foundation for victimology to evolve into its own discipline (van Kersteren, 2015). As a scientific discipline, victimology strives to address four questions – Who is a victim of crime? Why are some people more likely to become a victim of crime? How does the victimization experience effect the individual? And, what is the most effective way to aid a victim of crime in their recovery? To answer the first question, researchers use a variety of official and unofficial measures of crime victimization to identify the nature and scope of victimization in the United States. Some of these were presented in the previous chapter, each of provides information on the number and types of victims, as well as trend information so researchers can compare victims from one jurisdiction to another, from one type of victim to another, as well as measure the rate of victimization for a given population in a given period of time. From this data, researchers are then able to create victim typologies (i.e., classification model). To answer second question, researchers have to try to then explain why criminal victimization is not always randomly distributed across society. The data has consistently shown that select demographic and social characteristics may place some individuals at higher risk for victimization (Landau & Freeman-Longo, 1990; Spalek, 2006). Thus, victimologists will try to decipher how these variables interact, hen construct a series of 65 theoretical statements that articulate specific causal relationships to explain such phenomena, and then test their assumptions with the data. This is undoubtedly one of the most challenging aspects of research. Yet, without theory testing, researchers can not develop strategies to help prevent victimization, nor explore the impact of victimization and identify the most effective ways to develop tailored-based services for crime victims to help mitigate the harm they suffered and aid in their recovery. This chapter provides an overview of existing typologies of victimization and their potential limitations, and discusses the intersection of demographic and social characteristics with criminal victimization. It then provides a summary of the theoretical paradigms that have been forwarded to explain victimization patterns and trends. And, concludes with a discussion on how researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can use this data to design a tailored approach for victim assistance and services. Early Crime Victim Typologies As victimology emerged in the middle of the twentieth century, a small number of scholars began to study crime victims, develop theories of victimization and construct typologies of victims (Tobolowsky, Beloof, Gaboury, Jackson and Blackburn, 2016). Because large-scale data was not available at that time, these early scholars relied on anecdotal observations to formulate their typologies. The first of these was Hans Von Hentig. In his book, The Criminal and His Victim: Studies in the Sociobiology of Crime (Von Hentig, 1948), he asserted that some of the same characteristics that produce crime also produce victimization. In his research, he focused on the relationship between the victim and the offender, and looked at charcteristics of the victim that may increase the 66 risk of victimization risk. He proposed that some victims provoke victimization by because of their individual characteristics (e.g., they are targeted by offenders). His typologies for crime victims are presented in the table below. Table 1. Hans von Hentig's Victim Typology Characteristic The young Female The old The mentally defective and deranged Immigrants Minorities Dull normal The depressed The acquisitive The wanton The lonesome or heartbroken The tormentor The blocked, exempted, or fighting Why at Greater Risk of Victimization? Children and infants: physically weaker, less mental prowess, fewer legal rights, economically dependent. All women: physically weaker than men, culturally conditioned to men’s authority, financially dependent, conditioned to believe that their value is associated with their bodies – sexuality. The elderly: many of the same vulnerabilities as children The feeble-minded, the “insane”, drug addicts, and alcoholics: have an altered perception of reality. Foreigners unfamiliar with the culture: gaps in communication and comprehension The racially disadvantaged: groups in which there is some amount of bias and prejudice The simple minded persons: same type of exposure as the mentally defective Persons with various psychological maladies: they can expose themselves to all manners of danger The greedy, those looking for quick gains: may suspend their judgement or put themselves in dangerous situations in order to achieve their goals The promiscuous persons: they engage themselves in indiscriminate sexual activities with different partners The widows, widowers, those in mourning: they are prone to substance abuse and become easy prey The abusive parents: they expose themselves to the harm they inflict, the resulting angst, and the degree to which their victims fight back Victims of blackmail, extortion, and scams: they are exposed to continual financial loss or physical harm, or must suffer the consequences that come from bringing the police in to assist 67 Adapted from Doerner, W.G., and Lab, S.P. (2011). Victimology, 6th edition, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company. While Von Hentig’s theory received significant attention when first introduced, it was the research of Benjamin Mendelsohn (1930; 1948) that helped to establish the study of crime victims as its own science. As noted in chapter one, Mendelsohn was the first to empirically explore personality attributes of victims and develop the first victim typologies. Mendelsohn was an attorney who became interested in the relationship between the victim and the criminal after years of observing the dynamics between the two parties in the courtroom. So, he interviewed both victims and witnesses, and discovered that often times the victim shared a relationship with his or her offender. He then used this information to create a classification (typology) system for victims that he and his fellow defense attorneys could use to aid in their preparation for criminal court cases. Based on his observations, he categorized victims into one of six typologies to help ascertain their level of culpability (see Table 2.). Table 2. Mendelsohn's Victim Typology Level of Culpability Completely innocent victim Description No provocative or facilitative behavior Victim with minor guilt Inadvertently places him/herself in a compromised situation Victim as guilty as offender Engages in vice crimes and is hurt; Includes victims of suicide Victim more guilty than offender Most guilty victim Provokes or instigates the causal act Imaginary victim Pretends to be a victim Starts off as the offender and in turn is hurt 68 Adapted from Doerner, W.G., and Lab, S.P. (2011). Victimology, 6th edition, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company. Under his classification scheme, only children and individuals who were not conscious during their assault were deemed ‘innocent.’ In all other instances, the victim shared some level of responsibility for their victimization. The level of culpability varied depending on how much the victim’s behavior could be considered provocative, ignorant, paranoid, and/or hysterical (Landau & Freeman – Longo, 1990). Once again, these typologies portrayed crime as a product of the victim’s personality or behavior, rather than the action of the offender. Hence, it reinforced the narrative that victims were often to blame for their victimization, at least to some degree. In his later scholarship, Mendolsohn shifted his focus to the impact of victimization on victims (e.g., feelings, responses they have in reaction to their experienes), and introduced the term “victimology” to describe the study of crime victims. Thus, earning him the title of the “father of victimology.” Stephen Schafer (1968) expanded upon Von Hertig and Mendolsohn’s research and created a set of typologies that combined both social characteristics and behaviors of victims. In his book, The Victim and His Criminal: A Study of Functional Responsibility, Schafer argued that people have a functional responsibility not to provoke others into victimizing or harming them, and should take active steps to prevent either from occurring. In his classification scheme, he created seven victim typologies and identified the level of responsibility a victim shouldered for their victimization (see Table 3). 69 Table 3. Schaefer's Victim Typology Level of Responsibility No responsibility Characteristic and/or Behavior Unrelated victims Share responsibility Provocative victims Some degree of responsibility Precipative victims No responsibility Biologially weak victims No responsibility Socially weak victims Total responsibility Self-victiming No responsibility Political victims Adapted from Daigle, L. E., and Muftic, L. R. (2016). Victimology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing. One of the methodological weaknesses of these early studies is that they relied exclusively on anecdotal information to create the typologies. Therefore, later scholars strove to expand the theoretical base of victim research by using empirical data (van Kesteren, 2015). In 1957, Marvin Wolfgang developed another victim typology based on his analysis of Philadelphia police homicide data. Echoing the work of Mendelsohn, Wolfgang’s classification primarily focused on the offender-victim relationship, and proposed a theory that victims share similar characteristics with their offenders (Wolfgang, 1957). For example, in his study, he noted approximately one-quarter of homicides were precipitated by the victim because the victim was the first to start a physical altercation with their offender, or was the first to display or use a weapon. Thus, Wolgang noted, these individuals were in part to blame for their own demise. He also found other common trends among the data. The majority of the victims knew their 70 offender, many victims had a history of violence (as perpetrator as well as victim), and many of the events involved parties who were drinking alcohol. A student of Wolgang’s, Menachem Amir (1971), expanded on his research using Philadelphia Police Department data on forcible rape cases to construct a similar classification scheme. Echoing Wolfgang’s theory, Amir asserted that some rape victims were in part responsible for their own victimization. In his review of the police reports, he classified 1 out of every 5 forcible rapes to be victim precipated, advanced by the victim’s own behaviors (e.g., consumed alcohol, acted in a seductive manner, or engaged in other negligent or reckless behaviors). Moreover, Amir argued the victim’s intention was irrelevant, rather it was the offender’s interpretation of the victim’s actions in the situation that was important. This concept of “victim precipitation” has been subsequently used in the criminal justice system to assign the victim’s level of responsibility in the crime when considering mitigating circumstances for the offender during sentencing procedures and other legal rulings (Petherick, 2017). Typically, if a victim was perceived by the court to have facilitated in their own victimization by engaging in risky behavior, or using alcohol or drugs, the perpetrator has been treated more leniently. Such ‘victim-blaming’ has often been used in sexual assault cases, and has helped to support and promote rape-culture among the general public (Daigle & Mufitic, 2016). While these early typologies have been met with consternation from advocates and contemporary victimology scholars for their portrayal of victims as someone who initiates or fosters the actions which lead to their harm or loss, they can not be discounted because they laid the foundation for the field of victimology as a scientific way to explain 71 victimization as a phenomena. The scholarship that followed those early studies have since expanded the focus of the research to include a wider range of victimization experiences and explore the multidimensional role of the victim. As new victimology concepts arose, along with the introduction of the National Crime Victimization Survey in 1972 which made large survey data available to researchers, victimiologists began to create victim profiles that focused on the victim’s individual attributes (e.g., demographics) and situational context of the crime (e.g., location, nature of relationship with offender, repeat victimization) without assigning any blame. Demographic Characteristics Predicting Victimization As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, historical empirical research focused predominantly on offenders, their risk factors, and motivations to be involved in crime. A number of criminological theories help to explain offenders’ demographic characteristics, the role of peers, adequate parenting, rational choice, etc. Only very recently, empirical research and evidence suggest that certain individual characteristics also increase the probability of becoming a victim of crime. These demographic factors include gender, age, race and ethnicity, socio-economic status, marital status, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, being disabled, and citizenship status. Gender Males and females are not subject to the same crimes. Men are more likely to become victims of homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery, while females are at a greater risk of sexual assault and intimate partner violence (Lauritsen & Heimer, 2008; Lauritsen & 72 Carbone-Lopez, 2011; see Appendix A). According to official data, males makeup the majority of perpetrators of violent crimes. In 2018, in cases of homicide where the gender of the perpetrator could be revealed, over 87% were male and 77% the victims were male (FBI, 2018). However, while the vast majority of murder victims were men, women were far more likely to be killed by those closest to them. According to the CDC, more than half of all female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner (Petrosky et al., 2017); and 94% of victims of a murder-suicide involving intimate partners were female (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence [NCADV], n.d.). While males are more likely to experience physical violence by other males, females are more experience domestic violence at the hands of their male partner. Females are twice as likely to experienced IPV during their lifetime as males, and are twice as likely as males to experience severe intimate partner physical violence (NCADV, n.d.). According to NCADV, women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault, and the risk of injury increases among female victims of rape and physical assault when the perpetrator is their current or former spouse, partner, boyfriend, or date (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Females are also significantly more likely than males to be sexually assaulted. According to RAINN (2020), six times as many females have experienced sexual assault in the lifetime than males, and 90% of all rape victims are female. And 1 in 10 females experience intimate partner sexual assault in their lifetime (NCADV, n.d.) Age 73 Age is another important variable in predicting the risk of crime victimization. In general, individuals under the age of 25 and adults over the age of 65 experience higher rates of victimization. However, the type of victimization varies across these two demographics. As discussed in chapter two, the youngest children are at greatest risk for maltreatment. Nationally, more than one-quarter of victims are under the age of 3 (Children’s Bureau, 2018). Children in their first year of life have the highest rate of victimization, and are particularly vulnerable when it comes to child fatalities. Nearly 45% of all child fatalities recorded in 2018 involved a child under the age of 1, and 80% involved a child under the age of 4 (Children’s Bureau, 2018). A disproportionate number of children are also exposed to intimate partner violence in their homes. Approximately 1 in every 15 children are exposed to IPV each year, and 90% of those are direct witnesses of such violence (Child Trends Databank, 2016). As children get older, the research indicates that the type of violence children are exposed to tends to increase in severity (Child Trends Databank, 2016). This is particularly true for sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and gun violence. Females, ages 16-19, are four times more likely to be a victim of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault then the general population (RAINN, 2020). And females between the ages of 18-24 have the highest incidence of intimate partner violence (NCADV, n.d.), and nearly one-quarter of those victims first experienced IPV between the ages of 11-17 (Smith et al, 2018). Sadly, gun violence has become prolific in today’s society, and adolescents and young adults have been disproportionately affected. Approximately three million children witness gun violence every year, and it is now the leading cause of death 74 among children and adolescents in the United States (Every Town, 2020). And this violence has even infiltrated schools. Over the past thirty years, there have been over 50 mass shootings at schools, involving childrens of all ages. For example, the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary (Newtown, CT) in 2012 left 10 dead and injured 13; at Parkland High School (Parkland, FL) in 2018 left 17 dead and injured 17; and at Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, VA) in 2007 left 33 dead and 23 injured. [ INSERT SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGE #123970135 ] However, it isn’t just the young who are disproportionately affected by victimization. The elderly are also at higher risk for certain types of victimation. Unfortunately, there is lack of data on elder abuse, therefore researchers assert that we know less about this type of victimization than any other. For example, even though we have a significantly growing population of senior citizens in the U.S., we know very little about victimization of those with dementia, residents of long-term care settings, and their perpetrators. We do know this population is extremely vulnerable for abuse and exploitation because of their impairments in memory and communication abilities, as well as decline in physical ability. Despite that knowledge, signs of elder abuse may be missed by professionals working with them. It may because of the victim’s reluctance to report the abuse, or they lack the physical or cognitive ability to report. The studies that are available indicate 1 in 13 adults over 60 years of age have been victims either of financial exploitation; emotional, physical, and sexual abuse; or neglect (Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc. 2011); and, 47% of elders with dementia have been mistreated by their caregivers 75 (Wiglesworth et al., 2010). Among those victims, 89% experienced psychological abuse, 20% experienced physical abuse, and 30% experienced neglect. [ INSERT SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGE #1373965430 ] Race/ethnicity Racial and ethnic minorities consistently experience higher rates of violent victimization than Whites (see Appendix A); and, the type of violence they experience varies by age and gender. For child maltreatment, Native American children have the highest rate among all children, followed by African American children (Child Trends Databank, 2016). However, African American children were nearly three times as likely to suffer child fatality as the result of abuse than White children (Child Trends Databank, 2016). All racial and ethnic groups experience intimate partner violence and sexual violence, Native American women and multiracial women experience the highest percentage of IPV among all races and sexes (OVC, 2018). African American women also experience a disproportionately high rate of IPV in comparison to other women. Among male IPV victims, the highest rates are experienced by multiracial, Native American, and Black men (OVC, 2018). Similar disparities are evident among victims of sexual assault and rape. Once again, American Indians are at greatest risk. They are twice as likely to experience rape and/or sexual assault compared to all other races (RAINN, 2020). Another type of violence that disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities is gun violence. African Americans are the most effected by this type of crime. Although Black males make up 7% of the U.S. population, they comprised 52% of all homicide 76 victims (Every Town, 2020). And in general, Blacks are 10 times more likely than Whites to die by gun homicide, and 14 times more likely to be injured in gun assault (Giffords Law Center, 2018). Racial and ethnic minorites are also disproportionately targeted as victims of hate crimes. According to the FBI, in 2018, personal attacks motivated by bias or prejudice reached an all-time high. Of the total hate crimes reported to law enforcement in 2018 approximately 47% of the victims were African Americans (FBI, 2018). Hispanic or Latinos were also targets (13%) of such crimes, and law enforcement has acknowledged this group is being targeted more frequently. Socioeconomic status Socioeconomic status is a vital factor in predicting human actions, including criminal and deviant behavior. Socio-economic status (SES) is measured in several different ways, but most often by household incomes or a combination of education, income, and occupation. Research in victimology suggests that SES is associated with victimization, and that victimization usually clusters in the poorest neighborhoods and among lower-income families (see Appendix A). Research indicates the relationship between measures of SES and violent victimization is much stronger than the correlation between SES and less serious offenses (Aaltonen, Kivivuori, Martikainen, & Salmi, 2012; Menard, Morris, Gerber, & Covey, 2011). For example, gun violence is consistently found to be heavily concentrated in poor, urban communities (Giffords Law Center, 2018), and similarly, homicide rates are highest among low-income neighborhoods. 77 Low-income households also experience higher rates of IPV and child maltreatment. While IPV occurs in every socioeconomic bracket, households earning between $15,000 and $24,999 experienced slightly more intimate partner than other households (OVC, 2018). Child maltreatment has also been found to be more prevalent among low-income communities (Ekenrode, Smith, McCarthy, & Dinnen, 2014), and the disparities are particularly pronounced for child fatalities related to child maltreatment. In a retrospective study examining 15 years of national data on child fatalities, researchers found fatalities were three times higher in counties with the highest poverty rates than counties with low poverty rates (Farrell et al., 2017) Marital Status Individuals who are single, separated, or divorced are at greater risk of victimization than married couples (Lauritsen & Carbone-Lopez, 2011) (see Appendix A). Young adults who are single are particularly at higher-risk for victimization than older single adults. The prevalence of sexual violence and rape is significantly higher among young women between the ages of 18-24 (RAINN, 2020). Approximately 42% of women who have reported being raped in their lifetime reported the first incident happened prior to age 18 (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.). Intimate partner violence is also prevalent among individuals who are not married but who are in a dating relationship. Approximately 1 out of 10 teens reported being physically abused by their dating partner in the past year, and 1 out of 3 college-aged women reported to have been in an abusive dating relationship (NDVH, n.d.) . 78 In terms of homicide, males between the ages of 15-29 are at greatest risk of being a victim of homicide (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, 2015). Given the younger nature of this cohort, most of these victims are not married A similar pattern is not observed among females. Interestingly, researchers have not found a significant difference in risk levels between single women and married women, however, they did find divorced women were 55% more likely to be a victim of homicide than married women, even after controlling for other known risk factors (Breault & Kpowsa, 1997). Religious Affiliation While one’s religious affiliation may not seem to an expected risk factor for victimization, it has been sadly become a reason why some individuals are targeted. In 2018, there were 1,617 individuals who were a victim of a hate crime because of their religious affiliation (FBI, 2018). Over half of these victims were Jewish. While the majority of these crimes involved property crimes, there has been an increasing number of violent crimes directed at Jews, including the mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh where the assailant killed 11 and wounded 6 others during Shabbat morning services. Moreover, anti-Semitic hate crimes have been on the rise for the past three years, and law enforcement officials are predicting the number to surpass the previous record (Hassan, 2020). [ INSERT SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGES #263959124 & 1319923598 ] 79 Another religious group disproportionately targeted as victims of hate crime are Muslims. In 2018, they comprised approximately 12% of the victims of hate crimes due to religious bias. While the most recent data show that their numbers are below what they experienced in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, they rose dramtically in 2016 and have been trending upwards since (Kishi, 2017). Sexual Orientation Individuals from the LGBTQ community are similarly targeted for bias crimes. Members of the LGBTQ community experience violent victimization at a disproportionately high rate, and experience victimization at school, in the workplace, and in the community. In the 2017 National Youth Risk Survey, LGBTQ students reported significantly higher incidents of bullying (33%) and cyberbullying survey (27%) than their heterosexual peers (17% and 13%). Moreover, 4 out of 5 LGBTQ students reported being harassed for their appearance and/or their perceived sexual orientation (GLAAD, n.d.). Even among students who report they are ‘unsure’ of their sexual orientation, they are more likely to be bullied then their heterosexual peers (Stopbullying, n.d.). Similar experiences continue into adulthood. In 2018, over 1,600 LGBTQ individuals reported being a victim of a hate crime, either because of their sexual orientation or gender identity (FBI, 2018). Gay males are the primary targest of such crimes. Many of these crimes involve violence. One of the most horrific examples was the 2016 Pulse Nightclub mass shooting in Orlando, when an assiliant killed 46 and wounded 56 individuals inside the gay club. 80 [ INSERT SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGE # 496236703 ] However, the threat to LGTBQ individuals is not exclusive to members outside of their community; they are also more likely to experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner (CDC, 2010). In 2010, the CDC released the first report on the prevelance of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among the LGBTQ population. Findings from this survey indicate that individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual have an equal or higher prevelance of experiencing all forms of IPV compared to self-identified heterosexuals (see Figure 1). Bisexual men and women, however, reported the highest rates of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner. Nearly half of bisexual women and bisexual men reported to have been raped at some point in their lifetime. Figure 1. [INSERT FIGURE – LIFETIME PREVALENCE OF RAPE, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND/OR STALKING BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER ] Transgender individuals have also been found to be at greater risk for sexual violence. In a recent survey, 21% of transgender young adults reported to have been sexually assaulted at school, in comparsion to 18% of gender-conforming females and 4% of gender-confirming males (RAINN, 2020) Individuals with a Disability 81 There are approximately 40 million Americans living with a disability – they can have cognitive, physical (e.g., ambulatory), or sensory (e.g., sight, hearing) limitations that make it difficult for them to care for themselves and/or live independently. Approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population living outside an institution have at least one of the aformentioned disabilities (Kraus, Lauer, Coleman, & Houtenville, 2018). Over three-quarters of these individuals are over the age of 65, however, approximately 6% are under the age of 18 (Bialik, 2017). Given their challenges, individuals with a disability are more vulnerable to victimization. Children with disabilities are three times more likely to be abused or neglected than children without a disability, and are more likely to suffer serious injury or harm from maltreatment (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2018). They are also three times more likely to be sexually abused (Smith & Harrell, 2013). And, children who have a cognitive or mental health disability are at the highest risk, they are nearly five times as likely to be a victim of sexual abuse than other children. The National Victimization Survey has also been collecting data on the number of individuals, ages 12 and older, who have been a victim of crime. The data has consistently found that individuals with disabilities are significantly at greater risk for victimization (Harrell, 2017). And, they are approximately three times more likely to have been a victim of violent crime than individuals without a disabilty, and nearly onehalf of those who are disabled had been a victim of a serious violent crime (see tables 4 and 5 below) (Harrell, 2017). The most common type of victimization they have experienced was robbery and aggravated assault, however, over one-third reported they had been sexually assaulted. The risk for victimization is even higher if the individual has 82 multiple disabilities (see Table 5). Most notably, the rate of sexual assault rate nearly doubled when the individual had more than one disability (Harrell, 2017). Table 4. Rate of violent victimization against persons with and without disabilities by victim characteristics, 2011-2015 Victim characteristics Total Sex Persons with disabilities 32.3 Persons without disabilities 12.7 Female Male 32.8 31.8 11.4 14.1 White Black Hispanic Other 30.8 30.8 29.3 28.2 12.0 18.2 13.0 6.4 Race Adapted from: Harrell, E. (2017). Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2033.609-2015 – Statistical Tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2017, NCJ 250632. Table 5. Percent of violent victimization against persons with disabilities by type of crime and number of disability types, 2011-2015 Type of Crime Total Serious violent crime Rape/sexual assault Robbery Aggravated Assault Simple Assault Single disability type 46.4% 45.4% 34.6 % 48.4% 46.7% 47.0% Multiple disability types 53.6% 54.6% 65.4% 51.6% 53.3% 53.0% Adapted from: Harrell, E. (2017). Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2033.609-2015 – Statistical Tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2017, NCJ 250632 Citizenship status 83 The United States has more immigrants than any other nation in the world. In 2018, there were an estimated 45 million immigrants residing in the U.S., accounting for approximately 13% of the country’s population (Radford, 2019). The majority are here legally, but approximately one-quarter are undocumented (Radford, 2019). The greatest proportion of the immigrant population in the U.S. are of Hispanic or Latino origin (44%) (Migration Policy Institute, 2017). Estimates of crime against immigrants are difficult to determine, especially for undocumented immigrant victims of crime, because many of these individuals do not report incidents of victimization out of fear that they will be deported. However, the National Crime Victimization Survey does include rates of violent victimization by citizenship status (see table 6 below). The group of non-citizens is a group composed of individuals with undocumented status, visa holders, permanent residents (green card holders), and others. The data indicates that immigrants experience a lower rate of violent victimization than native-born citizens. However, conditions surrounding the immigration process and status, particularly for undocumented immigrants, may make them less willing to participate in surveys such as this, or to report any victimization they experience to law enforcement. Moreover, language and cultural barriers, may further complicate the situation (Ricks, 2017). Research has found that undocumented immigrants are especially more vulnerable for victimization. They are more likely to be trafficked (labor or sex), financially exploited by employers (e.g, low-paying jobs, wage theft, etc.), and physically and sexually assaulted in the community (Ricks, 2017). Table 6. Number and rate of violent victimization by victim’s citizenship status, 2017 - 84 2018 Citizenship Status 2017 Number 2018 U.S. citizen U.S. born citizen Naturalized U.S. citizen Non – U.S. Citizen 5,304,470 5,106,650 197,820 Rate per 1,000 20.8 21.9 9.1 260,320, U.S. born Foreign – born 5,106,650 458,140, Number 6,163,570 5,900,190 263,380, Rate per 1,000 23.9 25.1 11.6 16.2 196,350 12.5 21.9 12.1 5,900,190 459,730 25.1 11.9 Adapted from: Morgan, R.E. & Oudekerk, B.A. (2018). Criminal Victimization, 2018. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2019, NCJ 253043. [ INSERT SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGE #1245453343 ] Immigrants of Hispanic or Latino origin, both documented and undocumented, are also at greater risk of being a victim of a hate crime. In 2018, Hispanic or Latino victims made up 13% of the hate crimes reported (FBI, 2018). Many of these victims have been targeted because of their presumed immigration status, and law enforcement has reported an uptick in the number of hate crimes involving Latinx victims in recent years (Hassan, 2019). Situational Context Variables Predicting Victimization In addition to demographic risk factors, research has also found a number of situational context variables that increase an individual’s risk of victimization, these include where the live, the prior history of victimization, and their relationship to the perpetrator. 85 Location Research has established that crime is not equally distributed across all communities, rather it tends to cluster in metropolitan areas (FBI, 2018; OVC, 2015). This accounts for nearly all crimes (see Table 7). This is particularly for violent crimes. For every type of violent crime, a greater proportion is reported in metropolitan and urban areas. Gun violence is is especially heavily concentrated in urban city centers, and tends to cluster among racially segregated and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods (Giffords Law Center, 2018). For example, nearly one-half of all gun homicides occur in metropolitan communities (Giffords Law Center, 2018). Thus, individuals who reside in these communities are more likely to be exposed to crime, and therefore, are at greater risk of becoming a victim of crime. Table 7. [ INSERT TABLE – CRIME REPORTED TO POLICE, 2014 ] Repeat Victimization (multiple victimization) Until recently, there was little discussion of the extent to which many people are victims of crime not just once, but several times during their lifetime. Moreover, there was little knowledge and understanding of how repeat victimization increases the risk of substance use, and mental and physical health problems, which in turn, contributes to repeat victimation. In some instances, the same pattern of victimization is repeated (e.g,. 86 dating violence, then domestic violence); while other times, the individual experiences multiple forms of victimization (e.g., poly-victimization). Today, a body of literature and empirical research in victimology provides a better understanding of the extent to which victimization increases the risk of further victimization (Ruback, Clark, & Warner, 2014). According to the NCVS, approximately 1 in 5 individuals who reported to have experienced a violent victimization in the prior survey, experienced at least one subsequent violent victimization in the current year (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2017). Moreover, these individuals accounted for a disproportionate percentage of all violent victimizations that occurred that year. The 19% of individuals who had a history of repeat victimization, accounted for more than 50% of the total victimizations reported that year. Victims of IPV experienced the greatest percentage of repeat victimization (31%), compared to victims who did not share such a close relationship with their perpetrator (see Table 8). Similarly sexual assault victims were significantly more likely to experience repeat victimization than other victims of non-fatal violent crimes (e.g., robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault). Table 8: Percent of violent crime victims who experienced single or repeat victimization during the year by victim-offender relationship, 2005-2014 Victim-offender relationship Single Violent Crime Victims Repeat Violent Crime Victims Intimate Partner Well-known or casual Acquaintance Intimate Partner Well-known or Casual acquaintance 74.5% 66.7% Relative Stranger 75.4% 83.4% 33.3% 25.5% 24.6% 16.6% 26.2 4.3 1.5 18.6 2.3 3.6 0.8 3.9 87 Relative Stranger Average annual number of violent crime victims 1.5 3.1 372,300 0.8 5.3 1,036,600 16.7 3.5 239,900 0.6 11.2 1,420,200 Adapted from: Oudekerk, B.A. and Truman, J.L. (2017). Repeat Victimization, 2005-2014. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2017, NCJ 250567. As noted previously, one of the major limitations to the NCVS data is that it excludes children under the age of 12. However, the research has found they are at even greater risk for revictimization than either adolescents or adults. Moreover, the impact of such victimization often carries into adulthood. Studies with victims of child sexual abuse have found that as many as 70 percent these victims experience subsequent victimization, especially interpersonal victimization in adolescence in and adulthood, when compared to those children without history of abuse (Arata, 2002; Pittenger, Huit, & Hansen, 2016). Research has found that if the abuse happens during adolescence, or is more severe in nature, it is also associated with higher risk of re-victimization (Ford & Delker, 2017; Fortier et al. 2009; Matta Oshima, Jonson-Reid, & Seay, 2014). Researchers have also found that the trauma associated with childhood victimization significantly increases a youth’s risk of a range of high-risk behaviors, including substance use, running away, truancy, and participating in various deviant and criminal behavior. Many of these behaviors subsequently expose them to other offenders, thereby inadvertently but substantially increasing their risk of further victimization (Kaufman, 2009; Papachristos & Wildeman, 2014; Posick & Zimmerman, 2015). Relationship between Victim and Offender 88 While some individuals grew up being warned of ‘stranger danger,’ the reality is that you more likely to be victimized by someone you know than a stranger. For every type of crime reported to the police, the most common perpetrator was either a family member or an acquaintance of the victim (see Table 8). In fact, of the 1.5 million victims that experienced some type of violent crime in 2018, less than 10% were committed by a stranger (FBI, 2018). However, the trend for property crimes is altogether different. Nearly 40% of property crimes reported to police were committed by a stranger. When it comes to family violence, a slightly different pattern emerges. Among victims of child abuse, approximately 7 out of every 10 cases the perpetrator is the child’s parent(s) (Child Trend Databank, 2016). Similar patterns are found with individuals who are disabled. Among these victims, forty percent were abused by a caregiver or family member (Harrell, 2017). Thus, the data has thoroughly debunked the myth of ‘stranger danger.’ Theoretical Paradigms of Crime Victimization: Positivist vs. Critical Victimology As noted in the introduction of this chapter, victimologists are interested in not only defining the scope of victimization and the typologies of victims that emerge from the data, but then trying to uncover the reasons why some individuals are at greater risk of victimization than others. This part of the exercise requires careful thought and a lot of trial and error. There are two primary schools of thought that have been forwarded to explain crime victimization – Positivist and Critical Criminology. Victimologists who subscribe to a Positivist theoretical framework focus on why some people are more prone to 89 victimization than others by concentrating on the individual actions and behaviors (Fattah,1991; Miers,1990). To aid in their research they rely on the measurement of the amount and distribution of victimization by using conventional state and local criminal statistics and victimization surveys (Finkelhor & Hashima, 2001). Two of the more wellknown theories within this paradigm are Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofolo’s (1978) lifestyle theory of criminal victimization and Cohen and Felson’s (1979) routine activities theory. The lifestyle theory proposes a set of propositions to describe the connection between personal victimization and lifestyle that provides a possibility for offender-victim interactions. The theorists argue that the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of individuals, as well as their lifestyle patterns, determine their exposure to personal victimization (Hindelang et al, 1978). Hindelang et al argue personal victimization is not random, but varies by the individual’s socioeconomic status, age, race, and geographical location, employment, and marital status. Specifically, the likelihood of personal victimization increases as the amount of time a person spends outside of family increases. Moreover, the ability of individuals to isolate themselves from potential offenders varies by their individual characteristics. For example, those with higher income are more likely to isolate themselves from the potential offenders because they live in communities with lower crime rates. Similarly, those who are married are less likely to be alone when venturing out into the community. Thus, the theory is based on the assumption that a combination of vocational and leisure activities and demographic characteristics is linked with personal crime and one’s risk of victimization. 90 The routine activity theory, articulated by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979), hypothesizes that one’s daily routines influence one’s likelihood of coming into contact with motivated offenders. Victimization occurs when the individual is perceived to be a suitable target by the offender (e.g., themselves or their property) and there is an absence of a capable guardian. The routine activity theory assumes the continual presence of a motivated offender, thus what is examined is “the manner in which spatial-temporal organization of social activities helps people to translate their criminal inclination into action” (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In other words, the theory does not offer propositions on how to change the motivation to offend, but rather suggests changes in the opportunities to offend; hence, it puts the onus of responsibility on the victim to either modify the target or to increase their level of guardianship. While there is significant overlap between lifestyle and routine activity theories, the theories differ, however, in how they view the behaviors that put people at risk for victimization. The lifestyle theory asserts that the probability of one’s likelihood to become a victim of crime is based on the type of activities one chooses to engage in. For example, a young college student is more likely to be a victim of crime than a middleaged adult because their lifestyle often places them in high-risk times and places, and the more likely to engage with high-risk people. Routine activity theory, in contrast, simply describes the victimization event. It focuses on the three factors (motivated offender, suitable target, presence of guardian) to see if they converge in time and space. If they do, a victimization occurs; if one of the elements is missing, victimization is avoided. Given the focus the positivist theories placed on the role or behavior of the victim in their victimization (e.g., drinking alchol or participating in late-night leisure activities), 91 the paradigm has been been criticized by some in the field for victim blaming. Thus, a new paradigm started to emerge in the 1980s when some victimologists began to adopt the theoretical perspectives forwarded in critical criminology to explain patterns of victimization. Critical Criminology As opposed to positivist victimology, critical victimology is interested in the legalistic conception of crime and crime victims: how crimes are defined, as well as why some victims of crime are ignored by the criminal justice system, society, or both. The critical approach to victimization allows for an examination of forms of victimization both within and outside of law and legal statutes (Hilliard & Tombs, 2004). For example, critical victimology identifies victims of state crimes such as civilians and soldiers in war, individuals harmed by racism and sexism, prisoners, etc. Within this paradigm, government policies and legislative, societal, and structural patterns and relationships are viewed as contributing factors to the conditions under which certain segments of the population are more exposed to victimization, whereas others receive more protection and help through victim assistance programs (Long, 2015). For example, the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and women are more often victims of crime because of their lower status, and limited power within society. Two schools of thought within this paradigm are conflict theory and feminist theory. Conflict theoriests focus on the inequities of power and wealth in society. They argue that in a capitalisitic society inequalities abound because its economic structure allows the wealthy to manipulate the system in order to protect their own interests. However, 92 under a capitalistic society people are socialized to believe if they just ‘work hard,’ they too will be able to achieve the same levels of wealth. So, when people experience frustration over their inability to attain and/or maintain the desired level of financial stability, they may turn to illegitimate means to make ends meet, or may lash out violently at those around them. Thus, when more economic stressors are present, crime and victimization rates should rise. Feminists theorists also focus on inequities as the root of crime and victimization, however, they attribute such inequities to the power differentials between males and females observed in society. Feminist theorists assert that gender is social rather than a biological construct. They argue people are socialized to believe in specific gender roles for males and females, that in turn, dictate how each is supposed to think and behave. Specifically, males are supposed to be strong and independent; whereas, females are supposed to be meek and subservient. This set of gender roles aligns with a patriarchal framework for relationships and family structure. In such a household, the man is the head of the family and the sole breadwinner, and his wife and children are completely dependent on him for their emotional and financial wellbeing. Thus, feminists theorists argue that when the man’s position of authority is challenged either by his wife or his children, he must reassert his position of power and control. Because men have been socialized to believe that violence is an acceptable response to stress, when they perceive their authority to have been challenged, they often will resort to violence to reestablish control (Witt, 1987). Thus, feminist theorists argue that it is only when we change the social narratives of the power arrangments between men and women (e.g., patriarchy) will we be able to eliminate domestic and family violence. 93 Evidence-Based Decision Making and Evidence-Based Practices in Victim Services The third question victimologists are interested in answering is what is the impact of victimization, and how should we respond to help them in their recovery? In other words, what should do with all of the data and the research? In 2013, the Office for Victims of Crime released its report Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services that presented a call for action for a comprehensive, systemic, and evidence-based approach to addressing the needs of victims. The goal is to ensure better outcomes for victims, as well as to improve their safety and protect victims’ rights. To accomplish this goal, OVC recommended the justice system and victim services adopt evidence-based decision making [EBDM]. EBDM is based on the belief that decisions made by policymakers and stakeholders should be informed by the best and most current research (Gibel, Carter, & Ramirez, 2017). Thus, all decisions should be driven by data and empirically sound research, and similarly, should also be used to inform every policy, practice, and intervention directed at victims of crime (e.g., evidence-based practices). By utilizing such a disciplined approach to decision-making, policymakers and stakeholders are in a better position to create sound policy to help reduce crime victimization, as well as to monitor programs’ performance and effectiveness for improving outcomes for victims of crime. Conclusion Victimology is still a relatively young science, however over the past five decades it has created its own empirical research, institutions specializing in the study of victims 94 and victimization, services and programs established to negate the consequences of crime and harm done to victims, and legislation and policies (Wemmers, 2010). However, there is still much to be learned. While there are some commonalities or intersections across the different typologies of vicims, they are not a monolithic group. And, how victims respond to their experiences is equally complex. Thus, we must continue to assess for risk factors that don’t just explain the onset of victimization, but what may contribute to repeat victimization. Only by engaging in continual research will we gain the knowledge and a better understanding of victims’ experiences and needs, thereby enabling us to develop evidence-based policies and practices that will aid them in their recovery. Discussion Questions 1. What are the different typologies of victimization and their limitations? 2. What are the different predictors that increase the probability of becoming a victim of crime? 3. What is the role of victim in a crime event? Compare and contrast the lifestyle theory of criminal victimization with the routine activity theory. Explain why both theories have been criticized for promoting a philosophy of ‘victim-blaming.’ 4. Provide an example of how you could use data to create a new policy or practice to aid a specific type of crime victim. 95 References Aaltonen, M., Kivivuori, J., Martikainen, P., & Salmi, V. (2012). Socio-economic status and criminality as predictors of male violence: Does victim’s gender or place of occurrence matter? British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1192–1211. Amir, M. (1968). Victim precipitated forcible rape. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 58(4), 493–502. Arata, C. M. (2002). Child sexual abuse and sexual re-victimization. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(2), 135–164. Bialik, K. (2017). 7 facts about Americans with disabilities. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/27/7-facts-aboutamericans-with-disabilities/ Breault, K. D., & Kpowsa, A. J. (1997). Effects of marital status on adult femail homicides in the United States. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13(2), 217230. Child Trends Data Bank. (2016, May). Children’s exposure to violence – Indicators on children and youth. Retrieved from: https://www.childtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/118_Exposure_to_Violence.pdf Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2018, January). The risk and prevention of maltreatment of children with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Children’s Bureau. (2018). Child maltreatment, 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children Youth and Families. 96 Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. Daigle, L. E., & Mufitic, L. R. (2016). Victimology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing. Doerner, W. G., & Lab, S. P. (2011). Victimology (6thed.). Burlington, MA: Anderson. Eckenrode, J., Smith, E. G., McCarthy, M. E., & Dineen, M. (2014). Income inequality and child maltreatment in the United States. Pediatrics, 133(3), 454-461. Every Town For Gun Safety (2020). Gun violence in America. Retrieved from: https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ Farrell, C. A., Fleeger, E. W., Monuteaux, M .C., Wilson, C. R., Cristian, C. W., & Lee, L. K. (2017). Community poverty and child abuse fatalities in the United States. Pediatrics, 139(5), 1-9. Fattah E. A. (1991). Understanding criminal victimization: An introduction to theoretical victimology. Scarborough, Canada: Prentice Hall Canada. Federal Bureua of Investigation. (2018). Hate crimes - Victims. Retrieved from: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/victims Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2018). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr Finkelhor, D., & Hashima, P. (2001). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive overview. In S. O. White (Ed.), Handbook of youth and justice (pp. 49–78). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. 97 Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K. & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 7–26. Fortier, M., DiLillo, D., Messman-Moore, T., Peugh, J., DeNardi, K. A., & Gaffey, K. J. (2009). Severity of child sexual abuse and re-victimization: The mediating role of coping and trauma symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 308–320. GLAAD. (n.d.). Violence and bullying. Retrieved from: https://www.glaad.org/resources/ally/6 Gibel, S., Carter, M. M., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Evidence-based decision making: A guide for victim service providers. Prepared for the National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from: https://info.nicic.gov/ebdm/sites/info.nicic.gov.ebdm/files/ebdm-users-guidevsp.pdf Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2018). Gun violence statistics. Retrieved from: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/ Grove, L. E. & Farrell, G. (2011). Repeat victimization. New York: Oxford Bibliographies, Oxford University Press. Harrell, E. (2017, July). Crime against persons with disabilities [ NCJ 250632]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Hassan, A. (2019, November 12). Hate-crime violence hits 16-year high, F.B.I. reports. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/hatecrimes-fbi-report.html Hassan, A., (2020, January 3). ‘A different era:’ Anti-Semitic crimes, and efforts to track 98 them, climb. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/anti-semitism-hate-crimes.html Hillyard, P., & Tombs, S. (2004), “Beyond criminology.” In P. Hillyard, C. Pantazis, S. Tombs, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously (pp.1029). London: Pluto Press. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballanger Publishing. Kaufman, J. M. (2009). Gendered responses to serious strain: The argument for a general strain theory of deviance. Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 410–444. Kishi, K. (2017). Assaults against Muslims in U.S. surpass 2001 level. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2017/11/15/assaults-against-muslims-in-u-s-surpass-2001-level/ Kraus, L., Lauer, E., Coleman, R., & Houtenville, A. (2018). 2017 disability statistics report. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. Landau, S. F. & Freeman-Longo, R. E. (1990). Classifying victims: A proposed multidimensional victimological typology. International Review of Victimology, 1(3), 267–286. Lauritsen, J. L. & Carbone-Lopez, K. (2011). Gender differences in risk factors for violent victimization: An examination of individual-, family-, and communitylevel predictors. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(4), 538–565. Lauritsen, J. L. & Heimer, K. (2008). The gender gap in violent victimization, 1973– 2004. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 125–47. 99 Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc. (2011, May). Under the radar: New York state prevlanece study of elder abuse. Retrieved from: https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/reports/Under%20the%20Radar%2005%2012%2011%2 0final%20report.pdf Long, M. A. (2015). Critical criminology. In W. Jennings (Ed.), The Encyclopedia