- Victimology-Anderson (2012).pdf

Victimology  Victimology Sixth Edition William G. Doerner Steven P. Lab AMSTERDAM BOSTON HEIDELBERG...

Victimology  Victimology Sixth Edition William G. Doerner Steven P. Lab AMSTERDAM BOSTON HEIDELBERG LONDON NEW YORK OXFORD PARIS SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO Anderson Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier Acquiring Editor: Shirley Decker-Lucke Development Editor: Ellen S. Boyne Project Manager: Danielle S. Miller Designer: Dennis Schaefer Anderson Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA # 2012 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods or professional practices, may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information or methods described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 2010919050 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-1-4377-3486-7 Printed in the United States of America 11 12 13 14 15 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 For information on all Anderson publications visit our website at www.andersonpublishing.com  To Judy. —WGD To my future. —SPL  1 The Scope of Victimology LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading Chapter 1, you should be able to: Explain how early society handled victim problems. Understand the meaning of retribution and restitution. Discuss the change from a victim justice system to a criminal justice system. Outline the early interest in victim typologies. Account for the attention paid to victim precipitation. Summarize what Wolfgang found out about homicide victims. Report on Amir’s victim precipitation study. Evaluate the reaction to Amir’s victim precipitation study. Critique the shortcomings that underlie victim precipitation. List the areas that fall under “general victimology.” Provide an overview of the broad topics victimologists study. Talk about the victim movement and tell how it increased public interest in crime victims. INTRODUCTION Something not very funny happened on the way to a formal system of justice. The victim was left out. As strange as it may sound, the bulk of history has seen crime victims become further removed from being an integral part of dealing with criminals. Fortu- nately, this trend is beginning to reverse itself. Recent years have seen an increased interest in the plight of crime victims and a movement toward reintegrating the victim into the criminal justice system. This chapter will look at the role of the victim through- out history and will trace the elimination of the victim from the social processing of criminal acts. We will see how victimology emerged and we will investigate the resur- gence of interest in the victim. THE VICTIM THROUGHOUT HISTORY Most people take the existence of the formal criminal justice system for granted. They do not realize that this method of handling deviant activity has not been the norm through- out history. Indeed, the modern version of criminal justice is a relatively new phenome- non. In days gone by, responsibility for dealing with offenders fell to the victim and the victim’s kin. There were no “authorities” to turn to for help in “enforcing the law.” Victims were expected to fend for themselves, and society acceded to this arrangement. 1 2 VICTIMOLOGY This state of affairs was not outlined in any set of laws or legal code. With rare excep- tions, written laws did not exist. Codes of behavior reflected prevailing social norms. Society recognized murder and other serious affronts as mala in se (totally unacceptable behavior). However, it was up to victims or their survivors to decide what action to take against the offender. Victims who wished to respond to offenses could not turn to judges for assistance or to jails for punishment. These institutions did not exist yet. Instead, vic- tims had to take matters into their own hands. This depiction does not imply there were no provisions for victims to follow. Society recognized a basic system of retribution and restitution for offenders. In simplest terms, retribution meant the offender would suffer in proportion to the degree of harm caused by his or her actions. Oftentimes, retribution took the form of restitution, or making pay- ment in an amount sufficient to render the victim whole again. If the offender was unable to make restitution, his or her kin were forced to assume the liability. This response system emphasized the principle known as lex talionis—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Punishment was commensurate with the harm inflicted upon the victim. Perhaps the most important feature of this system was that victims and their relatives handled the problem and were the beneficiaries of any payments. This arrange- ment was truly a “victim justice system.” This basic system of dealing with offensive behavior found its way into early codified laws. The Law of Moses, the Code of Hammurabi (2200 B.C.E.), and Roman law all entailed strong elements of individual responsibility for harms committed against others. Restitu- tion and retribution were specific ingredients in many of these early codes. Part of the rationale behind this response was to deter such behavior in the future. The major goal of deterrence is to prevent future transgressions. The thinking is that the lack of any enrichment or gain from criminal activity would make transgressive acts unattractive. Retribution and restitution attempt to reestablish the status quo that existed before the initial action of the offender. Thus, removing financial incentives would make it not profitable to commit crimes. This basic system of dealing with offensive behavior remained intact throughout the Middle Ages. Eventually, though, it fell into disuse. Two factors signaled the end of this victim justice system. The first change was the move by feudal barons to lay a claim to any compensation offenders paid their victims (Schafer, 1968). These rulers saw this money as a lucrative way to increase their own riches. The barons accomplished this goal by redefining criminal acts as violations against the state, instead of the victim. This strategy recast the state (the barons being the heads of the state) as the aggrieved party. The victim diminished in stature and was relegated to the status of witness for the state. Now the state could step in and reap the benefits of restitution. A second factor that reduced the victim’s position was the enormous upheaval that was transforming society. Up until this time, society was predominantly rural and agrar- ian. People lived in small groups, eking out an existence from daily labor in the fields. Life was a rustic struggle to meet day-to-day needs.  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 3 People, for the most part, were self-sufficient and relied heavily upon their families for assistance. Families often lived in relative isolation from other people. Whenever a crime took place, it brought physical and economic harm not only to the individual vic- tim, but also to the entire family network. This simple gemeinschaft society (Toennies, 1957) could rely on the individual to handle his or her own problems. As the Middle Ages drew to a close, the Industrial Revolution created a demand for larger urbanized communities. People took jobs in the new industries, leaving the rural areas and relocating to the cities. They settled into cramped quarters, surrounded by strangers. Neighbors no longer knew the people living next door. As faces blended into crowds, relationships grew more depersonalized. The interpersonal ties that once bound people together had vanished. As this gesellschaft type of society continued to grow, the old victim justice practices crumbled even further. Crime began to threaten the delicate social fabric that now linked people together. At the same time, concern shifted away from making the victim whole to dealing with the criminal. Gradually, the victim justice system withered and the criminal justice system became its replacement. In fact, some observers would contend that the victim injustice system would be a more apt description. Today, crime victims remain nothing more than witnesses for the state. Victims no longer take matters into their own hands to extract retribution and restitution from their offenders. The victim must call upon society to act. The development of formal law enforcement, courts, and correctional systems in the past few centuries has reflected an interest in protecting the state. For the most part, the criminal justice system simply forgot about victims and their best interests. Instead, the focus shifted to protecting the rights of the accused. THE REEMERGENCE OF THE VICTIM The criminal justice system spends the bulk of its time and energy trying to control criminals. It was within this preoccupation of understanding criminal activity and identifying the causes of criminal behavior that the victim was “rediscovered” in the 1940s. Interestingly, the victim emerged not as an individual worthy of sympathy or compassion but as a possible partner or contributor to his or her own demise. Students of criminal behavior began to look at the relationship between the victim and the offender in the hopes of better understanding the genesis of the criminal act. As interest in victims began to sprout and attract more scholarly attention, writers began to grapple with a very basic issue. What exactly was victimology? Some people believed that victimology was a specialty area or a subfield within criminology. After all, every criminal event had to include a criminal and a victim by definition. Others countered that because victimology was so broad and encompassing, it deserved to stand as a separate field or discipline in its own right. They foresaw the day when college catalogs would list victimology as a major area of study along with such pursuits as biol- ogy, criminology, psychology, mathematics, and political science. 4 VICTIMOLOGY Early scholarly work in victimology focused considerable energy upon creating victim typologies. A typology is an effort to categorize observations into logical groupings to reach a better understanding of our social world (McKinney, 1950, 1969). As we shall see in the following sections, these early theoretical reflections pushed the field in a direction that eventually created an explosive and haunting reaction, nearly crippling this fledgling enterprise. The Work of Hans von Hentig: The Criminal and His Victim An early pioneer in victimology was a German scholar, Hans von Hentig. As a criminol- ogist, von Hentig spent much time trying to discover what made a criminal predisposed to being a criminal. As he focused on crime victims, von Hentig began to wonder what it was that made the victim a victim. The key ingredient, according to von Hentig, was the criminal-victim dyad. In an early publication, von Hentig (1941) claimed the victim was often a contributing cause to the criminal act. One example would be an incident in which the ultimate victim began as the aggressor. However, for some reason, this person wound up becoming the loser in the confrontation. Von Hentig’s message was clear. Simply examining the out- come of a criminal event sometimes presents a distorted image of who the real victim is and who the real offender is. A closer inspection of the dynamics underlying the situa- tion might reveal that the victim was a major contributor to his or her own victimization. Von Hentig expanded upon the notion of the victim as an agent provocateur in a later book called The Criminal and His Victim. He explained that “increased attention should be paid to the crime-provocative function of the victim.... With a thorough knowledge of the interrelations between doer and sufferer new approaches to the detection of crime will be opened” (1948: 450). Von Hentig was not naive enough to believe that all victim contribution to crime was active. Much victim contribution results from characteristics or social positions beyond the control of the individual. As a result, von Hentig classified victims into 13 categories depending upon their propensity for victimization (Table 1–1). Many of von Hentig’s victim types reflect the inability to resist a perpetrator due to physical, social, or psychological disadvantages. For example, very young people, females, and elderly persons are more likely to lack the physical power to resist offen- ders. Immigrants and minorities, because of cultural differences, may feel they are out- side the mainstream of society. This lack of familiarity may lead them into situations in which criminals prey upon them. Individuals who are mentally defective or deranged, “dull normal,” depressed, lonesome, or blocked may not understand what is occurring around them or may be unable to resist. The acquisitive person and the tormentor are individuals who, due to their own desires, are either directly involved in the criminal act or place themselves in situations in which there is a clear potential for victimization. The typology that von Hentig created does not imply that the victim is always the primary cause of the criminal act. What he does suggest is that victim characteristics  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 5 Table 1–1 Hans von Hentig’s Victim Typology Type Example 1. The Young Children and infants 2. The Female All women 3. The Old Elderly persons 4. The Mentally Defective and Deranged The feeble-minded, the insane, drug addicts, alcoholics 5. Immigrants Foreigners unfamiliar with the culture 6. Minorities Racially disadvantaged persons 7. Dull Normals Simple-minded persons 8. The Depressed Persons with various psychological maladies 9. The Acquisitive The greedy, those looking for quick gains 10. The Wanton Promiscuous persons 11. The Lonesome and the Heartbroken Widows, widowers, and those in mourning 12. The Tormentor An abusive parent 13. The Blocked, Exempted, or Fighting Victims of blackmail, extortion, confidence games Source: Adapted from von Hentig, H. (1948). The Criminal and His Victim: Studies in the Sociobiology of Crime. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 404–438. may contribute to the victimization episode. According to von Hentig (1948: iii), we must realize “the victim is taken as one of the determinants, and that a nefarious sym- biosis is often established between doer and sufferer....” The Work of Benjamin Mendelsohn: Further Reflections Some observers credit Beniamin Mendelsohn, a practicing attorney, with being the “father” of victimology. Indeed, he coined the term victimology. Mendelsohn, like von Hentig, was intrigued by the dynamics that take place between victims and offenders. Before preparing a case, he would ask victims, witnesses, and bystanders in the situation to complete a detailed and probing questionnaire. After examining these responses, Mendelsohn discovered that usually there was a strong interpersonal relationship between victims and offenders. Using these data, Mendelsohn (1956) outlined a six-step classification of victims based on legal considerations of the degree of the victim’s blame (see Table 1–2). Table 1–2 Mendelsohn’s Victim Types Completely Innocent Victim No provocation or facilitating behavior Victim with Minor Guilt Victim inadvertently places himself in a compromising situation Victim as Guilty as Offender Victim was engaging in vice crimes and was hurt; suicide victim Victim More Guilty Than Offender Victim provokes or instigates the causal act Most Guilty Victim Started off as the offender and was hurt in turn Imaginary Victim Those who pretend to be a victim Source: Mendelsohn, B. (1956). The Victimology. Etudes Internationale de Psycho-Sociologie Criminelle, July, 23–26. 6 VICTIMOLOGY Mendelsohn’s types range from the completely innocent victim, who exhibited no pro- vocative or facilitating behavior prior to the offender’s attack, to the victim who is more guilty than offender, because the victim instigates or provokes the criminal act. The per- son who comes out on the losing end of a punch after making an abusive remark or goading the other party would fit here. The most guilty victim is one who entered the sit- uation as the offender and, because of circumstances beyond his or her control, ended up as the victim. Mendelsohn’s classification is useful primarily for identifying the rela- tive culpability of the victim in the criminal act. The Work of Stephen Schafer: The Victim and His Criminal Scholarly interest in victims and the role they played in their own demise evoked little interest throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Stephen Schafer, in a playful twist on Hans von Hentig’s seminal work, revisited the victim’s role in his book The Victim and His Criminal. The key concept that undergirded Schafer’s thinking was what he termed functional responsibility. Once again, the victim-offender relationship came under scrutiny. As Table 1–3 shows, Schafer (1968) provided a typology that builds upon victim respon- sibility for the crime. In many respects, Schafer’s groupings are a variation of those pro- posed by von Hentig (1948). The difference between the two schemes is primarily one of emphasis on the culpability of the victim. Where von Hentig’s listing identifies varying risk factors, Schafer explicitly sets forth the responsibility of different victims. Table 1–3 Schafer’s Victim Precipitation Typology 1. Unrelated Victims (no victim Instances in which the victim is simply the unfortunate target of the responsibility) offender. 2. Provocative Victims (victim shares The offender is reacting to some action or behavior of the victim. responsibility) 3. Precipitative Victims (some degree Victims leave themselves open for victimization by placing themselves in of victim responsibility) dangerous places or times, dressing inappropriately, acting, or saying the wrong things, etc. 4. Biologically Weak Victims (no victim The aged, young, infirm, and others who, due to their physical conditions, responsibility) are appealing targets for offenders. 5. Socially Weak Victims (no victim Immigrants, minorities, and others who are not adequately integrated into responsibility) society are seen as easy targets by offenders. 6. Self-Victimizing (total victim Individuals who are involved in such crimes as drug use, prostitution, responsibility) gambling, and other activities in which the victim and the criminal act in concert with one another. 7. Political Victims (no victim Individuals who are victimized because they oppose those in power or are responsibility) made victims in order to be kept in a subservient social position. Source: Adapted from Schafer, S. (1968). The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility. New York: Random House.  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 7 Other Scholarly Efforts Von Hentig, Mendelsohn, and Schafer were not the only persons to produce significant analyses regarding victims during this time. Most assuredly, some other scholars began recognizing the importance of a victim-based orientation. These early attempts to probe the victim-offender relationship signaled the beginning of a renewed academic interest in the victim. This concern, however, was lopsided. The early victimologists generally failed to look at the damage offenders inflicted upon their victims, ignored victim recuperative or rehabilitative efforts, and bypassed a host of other concerns. In an attempt to under- stand the causes of crime, they concentrated on how the victim contributed to his or her demise. Eventually, the idea of victim precipitation emerged from this preoccupa- tion with “blaming the victim.” As we shall see later in this chapter, the assumption that somehow the victim shared responsibility for or instigated the criminal episode would spark a major ideological confrontation. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF VICTIM PRECIPITATION Victim precipitation deals with the degree to which the victim is responsible for his or her own victimization. That involvement can be either passive (as much of von Hentig’s typol- ogy suggests) or active (as seen in Mendelsohn’s classification). Each typology presented in this chapter implicates victim contribution as a causative factor in the commission of a crime. However, the first systematic attempt to provide empirical support of this argu- ment was Wolfgang’s (1958) analysis of police homicide records. A few years later, one of Wolfgang’s students, Menachem Amir, applied this framework to forcible rape cases. His formulation and interpretation quickly met with a barrage of stinging criticism. The Work of Marvin E. Wolfgang: Patterns in Criminal Homicide Using homicide data from the city of Philadelphia, Wolfgang reported that 26% of the homi- cides that occurred from 1948 through 1952 resulted from victim precipitation. Wolfgang (1958: 252) defined victim-precipitated homicide as those instances in which the ultimate victim was the first in the homicide drama to use physical force directed against his subsequent slayer. The victim-precipitated cases are those in which the victim was the first to show and use a deadly weapon, to strike a blow in an altercation—in short, the first to commence the interplay of resort to physical violence. Wolfgang identified several factors as typical of victim-precipitated homicides. First, the victim and the offender usually had some prior interpersonal relationship. Typical examples include relationships of spouses, boyfriends-girlfriends, family members, and 8 VICTIMOLOGY close friends or acquaintances. In other words, victims were more likely to die at the hands of someone they knew rather than from the actions of a complete stranger. Second, the homicide act is often the product of a small disagreement that escalates until the situation bursts out of control. That change in degree could be either short- term or the result of a longer, drawn-out confrontation. For instance: A husband had beaten his wife on several previous occasions. In the present instance, she insisted that he take her to the hospital. He refused, and a violent quarrel followed, during which he slapped her several times, and she concluded by stabbing him (Wolfgang, 1958: 253). Third, alcohol consumed by the victim is a common ingredient in many victim- precipitated homicides. Several possibilities surface here. It may be that as intoxicated persons lose their inhibitions, they vocalize their feelings more readily. Eventually, these inebriated parties grow more obnoxious and belligerent, and unwittingly pro- voke their assailants into a deadly confrontation. Another alternative is that alcohol consumption renders these people so impaired that they lose the physical ability to defend themselves in a skirmish. In any event, Wolfgang (1958: 265) points out that “connotations of a victim as a weak and passive individual, seeking to withdraw from an assaultive situation, and of an offender as a brutal, strong, and overly aggressive person seeking out his victim, are not always correct.” The Work of Menachem Amir: Patterns in Forcible Rape Several years later, Menachem Amir undertook what perhaps became the most controver- sial empirical analysis of rape. Amir (1971) gathered information from police records on rape incidents that took place in Philadelphia between 1958 and 1960. Based on details contained in the files, he claimed that 19% of all forcible rapes were victim-precipitated. According to Amir (1971: 266), victim-precipitated rape referred to those situations in which the victim actually, or so it was deemed, agreed to sexual relations but retracted before the actual act or did not react strongly enough when the suggestion was made by the offender. The term applies also to cases in risky situations marred with sexual- ity, especially when she uses what could be interpreted as indecency in language and gestures, or constitutes what could be taken as an invitation to sexual relations. Amir proceeded to list a variety of factors that helped precipitate the criminal act. Similar to Wolfgang’s homicide findings, alcohol use—particularly by the victim—was a major factor in a precipitated rape. The risk of sexual victimization intensified if both parties had been drinking.  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 9 Other important factors include seductive actions by the victim, wearing revealing clothing, using risqué language, having a “bad” reputation, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to Amir, such behaviors could tantalize the offender to the point that he simply “misreads” the victim’s overtures. At one point, Amir (1971) even suggested that some victims may have an unconscious need to be sexually controlled through rape. In the concluding remarks of the section on victim precipitation, Amir (1971: 275– 276) commented: These results point to the fact that the offender should not be viewed as the sole “cause” and reason for the offense, and that the “virtuous” victim is not always the innocent and passive party. Thus, the role played by the victim and its contribu- tion to the perpetration of the offense becomes one of the main interests of the emerging discipline of victimology. Criticisms and Reactions The notion of victim precipitation, particularly regarding Amir’s claims about rape, came under swift attack. Weis and Borges (1973; Weis, 1976), for example, attributed Amir’s con- clusions to faults implicit in relying upon police accounts, to a host of procedural errors, as well as to ill-conceived theoretical notions. For example, Amir suggested that victims may psychologically prompt or desire the rape as a means of rebelling against accepted stan- dards of behavior. In contrast, though, the male is simply responding to social cues from the female. Interestingly, Amir does not provide any justification for why female behavior stems from psychological factors while male actions derive from social variables. Amir’s study attracted blistering rebuttals from academic quarters, along with enraged reactions from women’s groups and victim advocates. This reception made many victimologists very uncomfortable with the precipitation argument as it had developed to that point. Cooler heads soon prevailed. Rather than abandoning the idea of victim precipita- tion, some scholars began a more sensitive probing. Curtis (1974), for one, suggested that what was needed was a more accurate definition of victim precipitation. For exam- ple, one set of researchers might define hitchhiking as a precipitating factor. Other stud- ies may not make such a blanket assumption or may view hitchhiking as substantively different from other precipitating actions. A more productive approach came from a critical examination of the underpinnings of the victim-precipitation argument. Franklin and Franklin (1976) exposed four major assumptions behind this victimological approach (see Table 1–4). First, victim precipita- tion assumes that the behavior of the victim can explain the criminal act. However, some factors often identified as precipitous also appear in instances where no criminal act takes place. For example, many people go to bars at night. Sometimes they drink excessively and then stagger home alone without becoming victimized. Thus, supposedly precipitat- ing acts are not enough, in and of themselves, to cause criminal behavior. 10 VICTIMOLOGY Table 1–4 Problematic Assumptions of Victim Precipitation The behavior of the victim can explain the criminal act. The offender becomes activated only when a victim emits certain signals. A victim’s behavior is necessary and sufficient to cause a criminal act. The intent of the victim can be gauged by the victimization incident. Source: Compiled by authors from Franklin II, C. W., & Franklin, A. P. (1976). Victimology Revisited: A Critique and Suggestions for Future Direction. Criminology, 14, 177–214. Second, victim precipitation assumes the offender becomes activated only when the victim emits certain signals. This belief ignores the fact that many offenders plan their offenses ahead of time and do not simply react to another person’s behavior. For these criminals, crime is a rational, planned enterprise. Third, Franklin and Franklin (1976) disagree with the assumption that a victim’s behavior is necessary and sufficient to trigger the commission of a criminal act. In fact, the opposite is probably closer to the truth. Many offenders commit crimes despite any specific action by the victim. Others will not seize the opportunity to commit a crime, for whatever reason, although a potential victim presents him- or herself. Finally, victim precipitation arguments assume that the intent of the victim can be gauged by the victimization incident. Unfortunately, if intent is equivalent to action, there would be no need for criminal court proceedings beyond the infallible identifica- tion of the person who perpetrated the crime. Our criminal justice system, however, explicitly assumes possible variation in intent, regardless of the action. Although each of these assumptions shows how the victim precipitation argument falters, there is a much larger issue requiring attention. Studies of victim involvement tend to be myopic. That is, they do not address the offender. Instead, they imply all offenders are equal in their drive and desire to engage in deviant activity. This assump- tion, however, is untenable. Some offenders may actively hunt for the right situation, while others display little or no prior intent. What was needed was an integrated approach that would take both the victim and the offender into account. Curtis (1974) attempted to do just this when he sketched a simple grid that allows the degree of victim precipitation to vary. As Table 1–5 shows, Curtis merged victim Table 1–5 The Precipitation Grid Outlining the Relative Responsibility of Both Victim and Offender Degree of Victim Involvement Degree of Offender Intent Clear Provocation Some Involvement Little or No Involvement Deliberate premeditation Equal More offender Total Offender Responsibility Some Intent More victim Equal More offender Little or No Intent Pure Victim Precipitation More victim Equal Source: Adapted from Curtis, L. A., Criminal Violence: National Patterns and Behavior, p. 95, Copyright @ 1974 Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. First published by Lexington Books. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 11 provocation with offender intent. This strategy results in recognizing five degrees of precipitation, ranging from pure victim precipitation to total offender responsibility. This presentation shows that even in the position of clear outright provocation by the victim, the offender may still be an equally responsible partner in the final outcome. What is important to remember here is that, at best, one should conceive of victim precipitation as a contributing factor and, certainly, not as the predominant force. A NEW APPROACH: GENERAL VICTIMOLOGY The preoccupation with victim precipitation, along with its divisiveness and ensuing fragmentation, threatened to stagnate this fledgling area of interest. The lack of theoret- ical advances brought genuine worries from some quarters that victimology was bogging down in an academic quagmire (Bruinsma & Fiselier, 1982; Levine, 1978). In response to this situation, Beniamin Mendelsohn called for victimology to move out of the provin- cial backwaters of criminology and into its own rightful domain. Mendelsohn attempted to assure victimology of its independence from criminology by devising the term general victimology. According to Mendelsohn (1982: 59), victimologists aim to “investigate the causes of victimization in search of effective remedies.” Because human beings suffer from many causal factors, focusing on criminal victimization is too narrow a perspective. A more global term, like general victimology, is needed to convey the true meaning of the field. According to Mendelsohn (1976), general victimology subsumes five types of victims. They include victims of a criminal one’s self the social environment technology the natural environment. The first category (crime victims) is self-explanatory. It refers to the traditional sub- ject matter that victimologists have grown accustomed to studying. Self-victimization would include suicide, as well as any other suffering induced by victims themselves. The term victims of the social environment incorporates individual, class, or group oppression. Some common examples would include racial discrimination, caste rela- tions, genocide, and war atrocities. Technological victims are people who fall prey to society’s reliance upon scientific innovations. Nuclear accidents, improperly tested med- icines, industrial pollution, and transportation mishaps provide fodder for this category. Finally, victims of the natural environment would embrace those persons affected by such events as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and famine. In line with Mendelsohn’s formulations, Smith and Weis (1976) proposed a broad overview of the areas encompassed by general victimology. As Figure 1–1 illustrates, 12 VICTIMOLOGY Universe of situations, events, and processes that have a proba- bility of resulting in being defined as victimization A. Study of the B. Study of the Creation of definitions of Application of these victims by definitions by 1. legal processes 1. control agents 2. everyday processes 2. significant others 3. scientific processes 3. community 4. behavioral and social scientists 5. the victim him or herself D. Study of the C. Study of the Societal Response: Victim’s reaction: Systems for dealing with Postvictimization behavior FIGURE 1–1 General model of the areas victims 1. seeking help of research and application in the field of 1. crisis intervention 2. complaints victimology. Source: Smith, D. L., & 2. social service 3. reaction to the response Weis, K. (1976). Toward an open-system 3. police of others approach to studies in the field of 4. prevention victimology. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Victims & 5. medical Society. Washington, DC: Visage Press 6. civil court Inc., p. 45. there are four major areas of concern. They include the creation of definitions of victims, the application of these definitions, victim reactions during the postvictimization period, and societal reactions to victims. When viewed in this context, general victimology becomes a very broad enterprise with extensive implications. As Mendelsohn (1976: 21) explains: Just as medicine treats all patients and all diseases, just as criminology concerns itself with all criminals and all forms of crime, so victimology must concern itself with all victims and all aspects of victimity in which society takes an interest. CRITICAL VICTIMOLOGY One trend in victimology since the 1990s is the call to shift focus from the more general approach outlined in the preceding to what some people call critical victimology. Propo- nents of this move maintain that victimology fails to question the basic foundations of  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 13 what crime is, overlooks the question of why certain acts are sanctioned, and, conse- quently, has developed in the wrong direction. Mawby and Walklate (1994: 21) define critical victimology as an attempt to examine the wider social context in which some versions of victimol- ogy have become more dominant than others and also to understand how those versions of victimology are interwoven with questions of policy response and service delivery to victims of crime. Central to critical victimology, therefore, is the issue of how and why certain actions are defined as criminal and, as a result, how the entire field of victimology becomes focused on one set of actions instead of another. This notion is not entirely different from Mendelsohn’s category of “victim of the social environment.” Mawby and Walklate (1994) point out that many crimes committed by the powerful in society are not subjected to the criminal code. Some writers point to the neglect of criminological attention to genocide (Day & Vandiver, 2000; Friedrichs, 2000; Yacoubian, 2000), war crimes (Hoffman, 2000), political campaign law violations (Levine, 1997; Liddick, 2000; Taylor, 2000), clandestine arms sales and weapons of mass destruction (Berryman, 2000; Phythian, 2000; Whitby, 2001), smuggling (Beare, 2002; Bruinsma & Bernasco, 2004; Naylor, 2004; van Duyne, 2003), the human slave trade (Mameli, 2002; Schloenhardt, 1999; Shelley, 2003; Taylor & Jamieson, 1999), deportation (Chan, 2005), and investment and consumer fraud (Holtfreter, 2004; Holtfreter, van Slyke, & Blomberg, 2005; Naylor, 2007; Pontell, 2005) as evidence of the overly conservative nature of the field. Consequently, the victims of those crimes do not enter into the typical discussion of victimological concerns. Under critical victimology, most victim-oriented initiatives tend to perpetuate the existing definitions of crime by failing to question the supportive social factors that give rise to the action and the response (Elias, 1990). The reason for this failure is multiface- ted. One contributing factor is the reliance on official definitions and data in most analyses of victim issues. This inevitably leads to solutions that do not question the underlying social setting. Another factor is the ability of existing agencies to co-opt and incorporate emerging movements (such as children’s rights) into existing social control systems. A more radical argument posits that the control of criminal justice and victimology rests in the hands of a powerful few who would view a critical approach as a threat to the status quo. While critical victimology offers an interesting viewpoint and carries much potential for victimology, debating its merits is beyond the scope of this text. Various points throughout this book, however, will raise issues that are relevant to a critical approach. Examples of this include sociocultural discussions of why violence occurs and investiga- tions of impediments to victim programs. A deeper and more intense examination of critical victimology will be left for other forums. 14 VICTIMOLOGY THE VICTIM MOVEMENT While academicians were debating the victim-precipitation argument, practitioners had pinpointed the victim as someone who deserved assistance from society and the criminal justice system. To some extent, this grassroots concern for the victim’s well-being was a reaction to the charges of victim complicity in the offense. Several different movements occurred simultaneously and contributed to the renewed inter- est in the plight of the victim. Among them were (1) the women’s movement, (2) efforts to establish children’s rights, (3) concerns over the growing crime problem, (4) the advocacy of victim compensation, (5) legal reforms, and (6) some other factors. The Women’s Movement The women’s movement, especially in the mid- to late 1960s, included a large compo- nent dealing with victims. Victim-blaming arguments often dealt with rape and sexual assault. The female victim found herself and her lifestyle on trial whenever an offender was apprehended. Reformers complained that the system dealt with sexual assault victims as if they themselves were the offenders. Advocates pushed for equal treat- ment. They found the actions of the criminal justice system to be strong ammunition for their arguments. Beyond simply calling for changes in the formal system of justice, the women’s movement made many gains. A short list would include the devel- opment of rape crisis centers, shelters for battered women, counseling for abused women and their children, and other forms of assistance. As women demanded an equal place in society, they worked to overcome the disadvantages of the criminal justice system. Children’s Rights A growing concern over the needs and rights of youths blossomed during the 1960s. Many writers point to the mid-1960s as the time when child abuse was “discovered.” It was around this time that society decided to define abuse against children as a social problem. However, that does not mean that child abuse was a new phenomenon. Child abuse is an age-old practice and, by many accounts, may have been much worse in the past than today. The difference in the 1960s, however, was that many physical and psychological actions used with children began to be questioned and labeled as abuse. States enacted legislation outlining the limits to which a child could be physically “disciplined.” Specific children’s bureaus within criminal justice agencies were either established or expanded to deal with the growing recognition of child maltreatment. Shelters were created to house children from abusive situations.  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 15 Runaways also gained publicity as a serious problem in the late 1960s. The general rebellion of youths in the United States enticed many juveniles to seek freedom from authority. Consequently, runaway shelters appeared in most large cities for the purpose of assisting the youths rather than returning them to their homes. Children were emerging as a new class of victims—both of abuse at home and of society in general. The Growing Crime Problem The level of crime in the United States began to register giant strides in the 1960s and throughout the 1970s. According to Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data, crime in the United States more than doubled from 1960 to 1980. Along with concern over the Viet- nam War, crime was the most important issue of the day. Presidential and local elec- tions targeted the problem of law and order as a major concern. In an attempt to identify the causes of the growing problem and possible solutions, President Johnson appointed a commission to examine crime and the criminal justice system. Victim issues were a major focus of the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Among the victim components of the commission report (1967) were the beginnings of systematic victimization surveys, suggestions for the means of alleviating the pain and loss of victims, ideas for community pro- grams aimed at providing victim services, and calls for involving victims further in the criminal justice system. Some 15 years after this report was aired, another national task force concluded that victims still had substantial needs that were going unfilled. Many of the identified prob- lems were similar to those noted by the earlier commission. Victim Compensation One suggestion made by the President’s Commission (1967) was the establishment of methods for compensating crime victims for their losses. Among these techniques were restitution and victim compensation. Neither of these ideas, however, originated with the commission. As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, restitution was the common method for dealing with crime throughout most of history. Victim compensation (state payments made to crime victims) was first introduced in Great Britain by Margery Fry in 1957. Although that early attempt failed, victim compensation quickly became a major issue around the world. New Zealand passed the first compensation legislation in 1963, closely followed by England in 1964. In the United States, California established victim compensation in 1965, New York in 1966, Hawaii in 1967, and Massachusetts in 1968. The federal govern- ment enacted legislation in 1984 that outlined compensation in instances in which 16 VICTIMOLOGY federal crimes were committed. The statute also provided for monetary assistance to states with compensation programs. By 1989, 45 states had enacted compensation sta- tutes. Other countries, such as Australia and Finland, also have established compensation programs. While each program may differ in its particulars, the basic premise of assisting crime victims remains the same. Legal Reforms In addition to the establishment of compensation legislation, a variety of legal reforms aimed at protecting and helping crime victims have appeared since the 1960s. Among the changes that have emerged are statutes that protect the rape victim’s background and character in court proceedings. New laws were designed to protect battered spouses and their children. Legislation mandating that doctors and teachers report suspected cases of child abuse represented a bold initiative. Guidelines for informing victims about court proceedings and the legal system, as well as provisions that allow victim impact statements in sentencing and parole decisions, began to surface. In some instances, states passed a “Victims’ Bill of Rights.” These provisions outline the rights of the victim in a manner similar to those appearing in the U.S. Bill of Rights, which focuses on pro- tections for the accused (see Table 1–6). Other Factors Other factors have played either a direct or an indirect role in emphasizing victim issues. One such source of influence has been the mass media. Rarely a week goes by in which a “crime of the week” does not appear in a special movie or as part of an ongoing series. Shows such as “America’s Most Wanted” portray not only the offender but also the harm to the victim, often relying on interviews with the victim or victim’s family. Such media attention and interest in the victim naturally influence viewers in the audience. Another factor not to be overlooked is the increasing interest in victims among aca- demics. Four decades ago, there were virtually no books specifically focusing on vic- tims. The publication of Schafer’s (1968) The Victim and His Criminal signaled an era of increasing interest in victimology. Many texts have appeared since then. They range from general victim topics to specific discussions of compensation, intimate partner violence, child abuse, victim services, and other areas of interest. The first International Symposium on Victimology was held in Jerusalem in 1973. Since then, there have been several more worldwide gatherings and an uncounted number of national, state, and local meetings of academics and professionals working with crime victims. These efforts culminated in the establishment of the American Society of Vic- timology in 2003. The spurt in college courses devoted to victimology or topical victim issues is encouraging. Some campuses (e.g., California State University–Fresno, Sam  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 17 Table 1–6 Examples of Landmark Federal Victims’ Rights Legislation Enacted During the Twenty-First Century 1980 Wisconsin passed the first Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights 1981 First Victims’ Rights Week 1983 The Office for Victims of Crime created 1984 Victims of Crime Act Established federal crime victims’ fund 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act Federal reforms to protect child victims and witnesses in the court setting 1990 Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act Established a Federal Bill of Rights for crime victims 1993 Child Sexual Abuse Registry Act Established a national database and registry on child sex offenders 1994 Violence Against Women Act Authorized over $1 billion for addressing domestic violence 1996 Community Notification Act (Megan’s Law) Required states to notify community members when a sexual predator is released back into the community 1998 Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act Established enhanced penalties for sex crimes against children and addressed the use of the Internet by child sexual predators 1998 Identity Theft and Deterrence Act Criminalized identity theft and permitted those whose identities are stolen to be considered as victims 2001 Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act Created a new federal victim compensation program specifically for the victims of September 11. The program includes many types of damages normally available only through civil actions, such as payment for pain and suffering, lifetime lost earnings, and loss of enjoyment of life 2003 PROTECT Act (“Amber Alert” Law) Created a national AMBER network to facilitate rapid law enforcement and community response to kidnapped or abducted children 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act Provided new protections against identity theft and helped victims of identity theft recover their financial losses 2004 Justice for All Act Provided mechanisms at the federal level to enforce the rights of crime victims, giving victims and prosecutors legal standing to assert victims’ rights, authorizing the filing of writs of mandamus to assert a victim’s right, and requiring the Attorney General to establish a victims’ rights compliance program within the Department of Justice 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Increased supervision of sex offenders; also extended the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act to federal habeas corpus proceedings arising out of state convictions, eliminated the statute of limitations for federal prosecution of sexual offenses or child abduction, and extended the civil remedy for child sex crime victims to persons victimized as children, even if their injuries did not surface until the person became an adult 2008 Protect Our Children Act Improved the ability of law enforcement to prosecute child predators Source: Compiled from Department of Justice (2006). National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Resource Guide, Crime Victims’ Rights in America: A Historical Overview. Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime. Retrieved on August 17, 2007, from http:// www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/1997/histry.htm; and Fisher and Lab (2010). 18 VICTIMOLOGY Table 1–7 Selected Journals Devoted to Victim Issues Child Abuse & Neglect Child Maltreatment Homicide Studies International Review of Victimology Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect Journal of Family Violence Journal of Interpersonal Violence Violence Against Women Violence & Abuse Abstracts Violence and Victims Houston State University, University of New Haven) now offer specialized programs in victim services. As Table 1–7 shows, a variety of specialty journals devoted to victim issues now exist. In short, the victim movement has made strides over a relatively short period and continues to gain momentum. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK As you have read, Mendelsohn (1976) saw general victimology as addressing five distinct types of victims. In addition to crime victims, he saw self-victimization, social victims, technological victims, and victims of the natural environment as legitimate focal con- cerns. All these victims suffer some degree of social or physical pain or loss. Each deserves assistance to offset the devastating effects of the victimization episode. While Mendelsohn’s vision of general victimology is quite impressive, it does cover a huge territory. Because Mendelsohn’s approach is such a large undertaking, we will confine ourselves to a more manageable task. For that reason, this text must restrict itself to only the first category—crime victims. By the time you finish this book, we think you will agree with us. Victimology is so broad and complex that it makes sense to look at it in slices. A glimpse of what lies ahead reveals an ambitious range of topics. This first chapter has laid the foundation for a host of issues and ideas that we will take up in greater detail in later chapters. Many topics will appear in the context of more than one dis- cussion. Chapter 2 examines methods for measuring victimization, particularly the development of victimization surveys. Victim surveys have become a key measure of crime and contribute a great deal of information to the study of victimization. Chap- ters 3 and 4 examine the categories of property and personal crime that typically receive criminal justice attention. These chapters discuss the various types of offenses that fall into these categories, as well as consider the extent of the offenses and their impact on crime victims and society. Chapter 5 looks at the costs associated with being a crime victim and the additional burdens that result from becoming involved with the  Chapter 1 The Scope of Victimology 19 criminal justice system. As you will see, many people wrongly assume that victims do not cooperate with the authorities because of apathy. This chapter will demonstrate that the real reason reflects a very sensible cost-benefit analysis. Sometimes it is just too costly and too painful to be a “model citizen.” Chapter 6 examines how the crimi- nal justice system responds to victimization, the impact of those responses, and the continuing needs of victims. Chapter 7 continues this interest in making the victim whole again by visiting more recent efforts to bridge the gap between offenders and their victims through restorative justice. Chapters 8 through 12 turn to discussions of particular forms of criminal victimization. These special topics include sexual assault, intimate partner violence, child maltreatment, and elderly abuse. Victimization that takes place on school cam- puses and in the workplace is also discussed. Each of these specific victim groupings has developed its own literature about causes and possible remedies. Finally, the book concludes with a look at the changing landscape of legal rights for crime victims. Another feature that appears at the end of each chapter is the inclusion of selected Internet sites devoted to various victimological topics pertinent to that chapter. People in criminology and criminal justice are becoming much more aware of the wealth of information available through this medium. In order to take advantage of these techno- logical developments, Table 1–8 contains a listing of sites to get you started in this direction. Table 1–8 Selected Internet Sites Dealing with General Victim Issues American Society of Victimology http://american-society-victimology.us Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org International Victimology http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/intervict/ National Center for Victims of Crime http://www.ncvc.org National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center http://colleges.musc.edu/ncvc/index.htm National Criminal Justice Reference Service http://www.ncjrs.org National Organization for Victim Assistance http://www.try-nova.org United Nations http://www.un.org U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/welcome.html World Society of Victimology http://www.worldsocietyofvictimology.org/ KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 1 agent provocateur lex talionis criminal-victim dyad mala in se critical victimology restitution deterrence retribution gemeinschaft typology general victimology victim compensation gesellschaft victim precipitation  2 Measuring Criminal Victimization LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading Chapter 2, you should be able to: Describe three major data sources for measuring crime. Tell what the UCR does. Outline three advantages of the UCR. Explain three disadvantages of the UCR. List the contents of the Index Offenses. Differentiate personal from property offenses. Give a definition of the dark figure of crime. Discuss NIBRS. Give advantages NIBRS provides beyond the UCR. Specify what a victimization survey is. Outline the four generations of victimization surveys. Summarize and criticize the findings from the 1967 NORC survey. Give an example of telescoping. Explain how memory decay affects victim surveys. Compare and contrast reverse and forward record checks. Identify three assumptions behind the record check strategy. Define the term panel design. Reveal why bounding is important for victim surveys. Distinguish a self-respondent from a household respondent. Outline the contributions of second-generation victim surveys. Tell why the development of the NCS was so important. Address the mover-stayer problem in the NCS. Relay a prime difficulty with business victimization surveys. Discuss redesign efforts behind fourth-generation victim surveys. Provide an example of a screen question in victim surveys. Know what the initials NCVS represent. Convey the goals and objectives behind the NCVS. Discuss victimization surveys from other countries (the BCS and ICVS). Explain how the redesign has affected victimization estimates. Compare and contrast results from the NCVS with those from the UCR. Discuss the relationship between victims and offenders as found in the NCVS. Provide information on the level of reporting victimization to the police. Explain what repeat victimization means. Discuss the extent of repeat victimization. Explain why information on repeat victimization is important. 21 22 VICTIMOLOGY INTRODUCTION Measuring the extent of criminal victimization has long been a goal of the criminal justice system and those who study crime. Researchers and policymakers typically rely upon three major data sources for measuring the level of crime (O’Brien, 1985). The first source, official records of police departments, is the traditional depository for crime information. However, dissatisfaction with police records prompted researchers to look elsewhere. Surveys that ask people about offenses they have committed became a popular alternative. Unfortunately, these surveys are not conducted on an annual or national basis, and they tell very little about the victims of crime. A third tactic is to question individuals about instances in which they were victimized. As we shall see in this chapter, this approach holds much promise. Despite the common goal of measuring crime, none of these strategies alone yields a definitive answer to the question of how much victimization occurs in society. Each scheme provides a slightly different angle from which to view the crime problem. Each one of these methods has its own distinct advantages and inherent flaws. This chapter examines some issues involved in measuring victimization, paying par- ticular attention to the development and use of victimization surveys. We also will exam- ine the level of crime and victimization presented by official police reports of crime and the National Crime Victimization Survey. As you will see, victim surveys provide a wealth of data that is quite useful for studying victims and related issues. OFFICIAL POLICE REPORTS The most widely cited measure of crime is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The UCR was initially developed by the Interna- tional Association of Chiefs of Police before being taken over by the FBI in 1931 (Chilton, 2010). The UCR was envisioned as a mechanism by which police departments in differ- ent jurisdictions could exchange relevant information about crime. Police administrators around the country were very supportive of this effort. They felt that such knowledge could help identify the magnitude of the crime problem, map changes over time, and guide actions to combat the criminal element. This reporting system was meant to be a tool for the law enforcement community throughout the United States. The UCR is characterized by a number of interesting and advantageous features. First, crime data are compiled annually from jurisdictions throughout the country. Such consistency and broad geographical coverage allow crime comparisons from year to year and from place to place. The fact that the UCR has been in operation since 1931 means that it is one of the longest-running systematic data collection efforts in the social sciences. Second, the UCR has been influential in providing standardized crime definitions. Common definitions make it possible to draw comparisons across different times and jurisdictions. To achieve this goal, the FBI introduced what it calls the Index, or Part I,  Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization 23 Offenses. The FBI divides these serious crimes into two groups. Personal offenses include murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property offenses consist of bur- glary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. While state statutes and local codes are not bound to these definitions, the UCR does introduce a common metric among the 50 states. Third, the UCR gathers a large amount of information and details about the Index crimes. These data are especially useful when attempting to identify patterns and trends about crime and criminals. In addition, the UCR collects data on reported crimes and arrests for an additional 21 categories of offenses, known as the Part II crimes. Included in this category are sex offenses (besides rape), offenses against the family, and vandalism. The same level of detail as found in the Part I offenses, however, is not collected for these crimes. The UCR is not immune from problems or disadvantages. Perhaps the greatest con- cern is that the UCR overlooks the dark figure of crime. In other words, these tabulations reflect only offenses that are known to the police. Any incidents in which victims or wit- nesses opt not to call the police are excluded from UCR figures. This drawback prompts critics to argue that the UCR grossly underreports the true level of crime in society. The UCR reflects police—and not necessarily criminal—activity. A second limitation with the UCR is its reliance on the “hierarchy rule.” The hierarchy rule dictates that only one offense (typically the most serious offense) is recorded when multiple offenses occur at the same time (Chilton, 2010). For example, when an offender robs a bank with a weapon and simultaneously detains customers and takes their wal- lets, he or she is committing multiple robberies, theft, assault, and kidnapping—but only a single count of robbery is recorded. Under this rule, the number of crimes recorded falls short of the actual number of offenses. Another major concern, particularly for our discussion, is the fact that the UCR offers lit- tle information on victims and offenders. The UCR gathers detailed data primarily on the more serious personal offenses (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). Even then, most of the data deal only with persons who are arrested. There is very little information about the victim, the victim’s circumstances, the context of the offense, and other potentially valuable information. This fact should not be surprising because law enforcement is oriented more toward dealing with offenders than with crime victims. Interest in victims and the need to know more about individual criminal events has led to changes in the UCR system over the years. The Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR) was initiated in 1976 and provides data on victim characteristics, location, offender characteristics, relationship between the victim and offender, the use of weap- ons, and the circumstances surrounding the homicide event. As such, the SHR offers information about the homicide victim and victimization not typically found in the bal- ance of the UCR data. Based on the SHR, we know that homicides rarely occur in com- mercial settings, occur more often on weekends, involve acquaintances or intimates, and typically occur with little planning (Schwartz & Gertseva, 2010). Despite the value of the SHR, problems with missing data and a lack of knowledge about the offender place limitations on its use (Schwartz & Gertseva, 2010). 24 VICTIMOLOGY The most recent set of changes in the UCR has been the Introduction of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The NIBRS grew out of a report completed in the mid-1980s that examined the changing needs for data collection and analysis that could assist law enforcement in combating crime. The NIBRS data have several major advantages over the traditional UCR data. First, NIBRS collects detailed information on 22 categories of offenses (see Table 2–1) rather than just the eight Index Offenses. There are an additional 24 subcategories for which data are recorded (Chilton, 2010). Second, rather than abiding by the hierarchy rule and counting only the most serious Index Offense, NIBRS reports on all of the offenses that occur during a criminal incident. Third, NIBRS collects 53 data elements, most of which are not found in the traditional UCR data, for each crime incident (Addington, 2010). Among the information included in this expanded data collection process is detailed information on the victim, the victim-offender relationship, injuries, and property loss (see Table 2–2). Other informa- tion collected includes the location of the offenses, the presence of weapons, property lost, number of victims and offenders, and arrestee information (Addington, 2010). The great advantage of the NIBRS data is the ability of law enforcement and research- ers to gain a more in-depth picture of the crime problem and to use that information to decide on appropriate courses of action. Unfortunately, participation in NIBRS requires increased data entry requirements and data-processing abilities on the part of local law enforcement. The agencies must also meet stringent guidelines for participation. Because of these requirements, NIBRS has not been implemented nationally and no nationally representative data are available for study. Local agencies using NIBRS, how- ever, are able to undertake more sophisticated analyses of their crime problems. Despite the problems with the UCR, the data have a long history and are helpful in answering a variety of questions. Increased involvement in the NIBRS system will enhance the value of official police crime data. Indeed, NIBRS data have been used to examine child- hood victimization, intimate partner violence, and hate crimes (Addington, 2010). Table 2–1 NIBRS Offense Categories Arson Homicide offenses Assault offenses Kidnapping/Abduction Bribery Larceny/Theft offenses Burglary/Breaking and Motor vehicle theft entering Counterfeiting/Forgery Pornography/Obscene material Destruction/Damage/ Prostitution offenses Vandalism Drug/Narcotic offenses Robbery Embezzlement Sex offenses, forcible Extortion/Blackmail Sex offenses, non-forcible Fraud offenses Stolen property offenses Gambling offenses Weapon law violations Source: Compiled from FBI (2010). http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nibrscat.pdf.  Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization 25 Table 2–2 Information Collected by NIBRS Offense Information Ethnicity (of victim) Incident date/hour Resident status (of victim) Location type Aggravated assault/Homicide circumstances Number of premises entered Additional justifiable homicide circumstances Method of entry Type injury Type criminal activity/Gang information Relationship(s) of victim to offender(s) Type weapon/Force involved Offender Segment Property Segment Age (of offender) Type property loss, etc. Sex (of offender) Property description Race (of offender) Value of property Arrestee Segment Date recovered Arrest date Number of stolen motor vehicles Type of arrest Number of recovered motor vehicles Multiple arrestee segments indicator Suspected drug type Arrestee was armed with Estimated drug quantity Age (of arrestee) Type drug measurement Sex (of arrestee) Victim Segment Race (of arrestee) Type of victim Ethnicity (of arrestee) Age (of victim) Resident status (of arrestee) Sex (of victim) Disposition of arrestee under 18 Race (of victim) Source: FBI (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System, Volume 1: Data collection guidelines. VICTIMIZATION SURVEYS While the UCR has a long history, victimization surveys are just about 40 years old. Victim surveys got their start with the work of the President’s Commission in the mid- 1960s. The Commission came about because of problems with increasing crime and civil unrest during that era. From its inception, the President’s Commission (1967) recognized that an accurate description of the crime problem was lacking. As a result, it authorized a number of independent projects to gather information about crime victims. From that modest starting point, victimization surveys have grown into an invaluable data source. A victimization survey, instead of relying upon police reports or other offi- cial information, entails contacting people and asking them if they have been crime vic- tims. In looking at the development of victimization surveys, one can divide them into various stages, or “generations” (Hindelang, 1976). Each successive generation is marked by the way it grappled with several methodological problems raised in earlier phases. Table 2–3 summarizes the four generations of victimization surveys since their inception in the mid-1960s. 26 VICTIMOLOGY Table 2–3 The Development of Victimization Surveys First-generation surveys Mid-1960s Carried out for the 1967 President’s Commission Pilot studies of the feasibility of victimization surveys Showed much greater victimization than police data Second-generation surveys Late 1960s and early 1970s Probed methods to address problems found in first-generation surveys City-specific surveys Third-generation surveys Early 1970s to late 1980s National Crime Survey (NCS) initiated in 1972 Business victimization surveys—1972 to 1977 City surveys—26 cities from 1972 to 1975 Fourth-generation surveys 1988 to present NCS renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey—initiated in 1992 First-Generation Victim Surveys The initial victim surveys, undertaken at the behest of the President’s Commission, represented little more than a set of extensive feasibility studies. These efforts tested whether such an approach could elicit sensitive information from the public. The researchers also wanted to determine how the criminal justice system could use these victim-based findings. The NORC Survey Perhaps the best known of all the initial pilot studies was the poll sponsored by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) and reported by Ennis (1967). This effort was the first national victim survey and targeted 10,000 households throughout the United States. Interviewers initially asked participants to report on incidents that hap- pened to them during the preceding 12-month period. Then the interviewer sought more detailed information on the two most recent and most serious offenses. What made this survey so well-known was the subsequent claim that the UCR underreported by roughly 50% the crime rate indicated by the NORC survey. Table 2–4 contains a comparison of crime rates based upon the NORC data and the UCR figures. The NORC survey uncovered almost four times as many rapes and more than three times as many burglaries as did the UCR. The lone exception to reporting discrepancies was  Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization 27 Table 2–4 Comparison of NORC Victimization Rates with UCR Rates Crime Category NORC UCR Ratio of NORC to UCR Homicide 3.0 5.1 0.6 Rape 42.5 11.6 3.7 Robbery 94.0 61.4 1.5 Aggravated assault 218.3 106.6 2.0 Burglary 949.1 299.6 3.2 Larceny $50þ 606.5 267.4 2.3 Auto theft 206.2 226.0 0.9 Violent crimes 357.8 184.7 1.9 Property crimes 1,761.8 793.0 2.2 Source: The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967). Task Force Report: Crime and its Impact—An Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. motor vehicle theft, for which the data sources produced comparable rates. This similarity was probably due to the fact that most auto insurance companies will not issue a reim- bursement check unless the victim files a police report. Combining the offenses into broader categories gave a much clearer picture. The NORC survey unearthed 1.9 times as many violent episodes and 2.2 times more property offenses than official crime statistics had logged. Critics quickly pointed to the NORC findings as definitive proof that official crime records were inaccurate and unreliable because they neglected the “dark figure of crime” (Biderman & Reiss, 1967). Some Methodological Considerations While the NORC results were dramatic, there were enough problems to compromise their usefulness. First, the claim that there was twice as much crime than what the police acknowledged was based on a very small number of victim accounts. Under nor- mal conditions, someone conducting a victim survey might anticipate uncovering only a handful of rape and robbery incidents. Deriving estimates from a few observations can yield some questionable figures. Second, the crime instances that victims reported were submitted to a panel of experts to assess whether these events were really crimes. Ultimately, the panel excluded more than one-third of the victim reports. An example of misclassification would be a person who returns home, finds all the furniture gone, and exclaims, “Help—I’ve been robbed!” The real crime here is a burglary, not a robbery. Employing a panel to check victim reports may help validate the results and impart a greater sense of confidence, but it also alerts us to the fact that the survey design had some major flaws in terms of question wording. A third set of problems dealt with subject recall. Some participants experienced diffi- culties with telescoping. Telescoping takes place when respondents mistakenly bring criminal events that occurred outside the time frame into the survey period. For 28 VICTIMOLOGY example, suppose that you are taking part in a victimization survey. The interviewer asks whether you had a car stolen during the past 12 months. In actuality, your auto- mobile was taken 14 months ago. However, because you cannot remember exactly when the incident took place, you advise the interviewer that you were the victim of such a crime. A related hindrance is faulty memory. Memory decay is evidenced when respondents were victimized during the survey time frame, but forgot the event and did not provide the correct answer to the question. Researchers also found that respondent fatigue could influence the results. For example, the level of crime reporting decreased as the length of the survey increased. Because of these considerations, victimization estimates derived from these efforts contained an unknown margin of error. Unless telescoping and mem- ory decay “exactly offset one another, the survey estimate of the amount of crime that occurred is inaccurate” (Schneider et al., 1978: 18–19). Another major concern emerged from the selection of respondents. The study did not randomly select respondents from households, and individuals under the age of 18 were excluded unless they were married. Additionally, all household offenses were counted as crimes against the head of the household. Each of these facts could add more bias to the results. Besides the preceding concerns, a host of other imperfections contaminated the find- ings. There were definitional problems in the survey questions, an inability to locate where the crime actually took place, a problem in having a count of victims rather than offenses, and other nagging obstacles that plagued first-generation efforts. Despite these weaknesses, an important contribution had emerged. Criminologists and victimologists learned that the public was willing to answer questions about their victimization experi- ences. These early pilot studies clearly established the need for more refined victimiza- tion surveys and the avenues they should travel. Second-Generation Victim Surveys Preparations for the second generation of victim surveys began with several exploratory projects conducted during 1970 and 1971. These preliminary studies investigated a vari- ety of methods for addressing the problems noted earlier with the first-generation surveys. Once these concerns received treatment, then it would be time to move on to running the surveys themselves. Recall Problems To test the accuracy of respondent recall, researchers in two different locations (Washington, DC, and Baltimore) conducted their own record checks. Their strategy was to compare information derived from police records with victimization survey data. Two types of record checks were involved: reverse record checks and forward record checks.  Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization 29 A reverse record check starts by locating crime victim names in police files. The next step is to contact these people and administer a victim survey to them. Therefore, survey responses are checked against the police records to assess the degree to which a respon- dent confirms offense characteristics that appear in the official files. The reverse record check comparisons revealed that memory decay grew more problematic as the time period increased. The best recall usually occurred within three months of the incident. After that point, victims became more forgetful about the incident and its details. The results also showed that recall was better for some offenses than others and that there was a noticeable degree of telescoping. In other words, victims erroneously moved up events that occurred outside the time frame and placed them inside the targeted interval. In addition, the wording of some questions and their order of presentation also affected the responses (Hindelang, 1976: 46–53). Schneider and her associates (1978) approached the very same issues with the exact opposite methodology. They opted to conduct a forward record check. After ask- ing respondents in a victim survey whether they had contacted the police about the incident, the researchers combed police records for a written case report. Police reports could not be found for about one-third of the victims who said they had filed such a report. When case records were located, police reports and victim accounts showed a great deal of similarity. However, there was evidence that telescoping could produce some major distortions unless specific steps were taken to counteract this tendency. Despite the gains that these record check studies provided, there was still a need for caution. Skogan (1981: 13–14) warned of three assumptions imbedded within this strategy. First, there is an assumption that police incident records are the appropriate benchmark against which to assess victim accounts. Just because an officer responds to a call does not mean that an official report will be filed by the officer. Second, record check studies can deal only with situations that have come to the attention of the record-keeper. Third, crime victims are a very mobile group whose frequent address changes make recontact difficult. Checking reports at a later time, therefore, becomes problematic. The problem of telescoping received further consideration in a panel study of house- holds undertaken by the Bureau of the Census in 1971. A panel design surveys the same group of households or respondents at regular intervals over a period of time. The repeated interviews or surveys allow for bounding. In other words, the first survey serves as the calendar reference point for the second, the second for the third, and so on. The earlier interview gives the respondent a solid referent for separating one time period from the next. It also permits the researcher to check on whether the same victimization instance is reported in more than one time period. This provision can eliminate any obvious repetition in the events that victims report. This panel study found more accu- rate recall and less telescoping in a six-month time frame than over a 12-month format (Hindelang, 1976). 30 VICTIMOLOGY Respondent Concerns Incorporating recommendations from earlier exploratory pretests, surveys in San Jose, CA, and Dayton, OH, sought to compare information gathered from self-respondents with household respondents. A self-respondent is a person who reports victimization incidents for him- or herself. On the other hand, a household respondent relays informa- tion about crimes committed against all members of his or her household. The San Jose and Dayton surveys revealed that self-respondents reported more personal crimes and experienced fewer recall problems than did household respondents (Hindelang, 1976: 57–68). In addition to interviewing victims from the general population, surveys of busi- nesses and commercial establishments were also being developed at this time. Problems with such things as telescoping, memory decay, question wording, and bounding also existed in these evaluations. Sometimes, particular problems loomed even larger. For example, most reports of a business burglary or robbery would come from an employee who knew about the incident firsthand. Quite often, subsequent efforts to recontact the original informant were hampered by personnel turnover. The contact person, as well as anyone familiar with the episode, sometimes was no longer an employee of the business at the time of the second interview. Thus, the quality of record checks suffered from a lack of continuity among respondents. The second-generation surveys were useful in identifying several factors that were incorporated into later survey instruments. First, it was found that more specific ques- tions elicited more accurate information and better recall than did very general ques- tions about prior victimization. Second, shorter recall periods (six months or less) significantly limited the problems of telescoping and memory decay. Third, bounding the time period by some concrete event (such as the last interview in a panel design) helped to limit the problem of telescoping. Fourth, interviewing individuals themselves about their victimization experiences was preferable to asking a proxy (a household respondent) about the experiences of others. Finally, through careful wording of ques- tions, it was possible to approximate UCR offense definitions in order to enable compar- isons across the two data sources. Third-Generation Victim Surveys The third generation witnessed an ambitious schedule of activity. The federal govern- ment launched a national victimization survey, a survey of commercial businesses, and a special victimization survey in 26 American cities. The following subsections outline each of these endeavors. The National Crime Survey The National Crime Survey (NCS) was launched in 1972 with a probability sample of 72,000 households set up in a panel format. The plan was to interview each member  Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization 31 of these households. This strategy would produce a study group of approximately 100,000 people after eliminating problems such as refusals to cooperate and incorrect addresses. Workers contacted each household every six months over a three-year period for a total of seven interviews during this time. To avoid replacing the entire sample at the end of three years, the NCS staggered the beginning and ending points for each wave. Every six months, one-sixth of the households departed the study group and their re- placements underwent the initial interview. Roughly 12,000 households were inter- viewed each month, making the survey process a year-round endeavor. The NCS incorporated many features uncovered in the earlier exploratory studies. The panel design, for example, established a six-month bounding period for the study. The first interview was not used to estimate crime rates. Instead, it became the starting point or boundary. To guard against telescoping and memory decay, each subsequent interview was checked against previous reports. One burden that confronted the NCS was the mover-stayer problem. Sampling of respondents was built on the residence, not the individual. If the original survey partici- pants vacated the premises and somebody else moved in, the new tenants automatically joined the sample for the balance of the study period. Responses from the new residents were used even though bounding was not possible. The NCS made no effort to track the original respondents. Instead, it was assumed that the impact of relocation upon victim- ization estimates and the comparability of stable versus changed residences were minimal. Unlike earlier generations, interviewers talked with each household member rather than just a single household representative. Exceptions to this rule occurred when the contact person was a child, when the parent objected to an interview with a minor, or when repeated attempts to contact an individual family member proved futile. In these cases, one person acted as a proxy for the entire household. While the preceding is true regarding individual victimizations, crimes against the household were solicited from only one household representative. This procedure aimed to reduce interviewing time and to eliminate the overlap from talking with more than one person about the same things. Unfortunately, the selected household respondent may not always be aware of all crimes against the household or may not know all the details needed for accurate reporting. The Business Victimization Survey Along with the national survey, the NCS also launched a commercial victimization survey. This undertaking gathered information from businesses to assess their level of risk. The commercial survey, though, was discontinued in 1977 for two primary reasons. First, the sample of 15,000 businesses was too small to project reliable estimates. Second, the costs of the survey were not commensurate with the potential payoff. 32 VICTIMOLOGY City Surveys Twenty-six large cities were selected for special surveys of both residents and businesses. A total of 12,000 households and 2,000 businesses were targeted for interviews in each city. While the single-city findings were interesting, there was a great deal of overlap with the national survey. The costs associated with these multiple projects were astronomical. Eventually, the city surveys were discontinued in 1975 after only three years of operation. Fourth-Generation Victim Surveys Today, we are in the fourth generation of victimization surveys. To emphasize this tran- sition, the format and title of the national victim surveys have changed. The name is now the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The redesign efforts began in 1979, partly as a response to issues raised in a National Academy of Science report (Penick & Owens, 1976). As before, a number of exploratory analyses were undertaken to test potential adjustments. Some of these considerations covered such items as improving accuracy of responses, identifying information by sub- groups, adding new questions to tap different dimensions of crime and victim responses, and making the data more useful for researchers (Skogan, 1990; Whitaker, 1989). Concern over recall accuracy returns to issues of question wording, bounding, mem- ory decay, and telescoping. There was some worry that the screen questions—those inquiries that probe possible victimization experiences—could be misleading and in need of revision (Dodge, 1985). Redesign analysts suggested that improved screen ques- tions could result in increased reports of crime by prodding the memory of respondents and providing clearer definitions of criminal victimization. To show how the NCVS does this, Table 2–5 displays screen questions used in both the individual and household surveys. Each respondent is asked the questions in Table 2–5 as a means of probing vic- timization experiences in the past six months. These responses are then used as the basis for in-depth questions about the specific victimization occurrences. To assess the impact of the changes in screen questions, half the interviews in 1992 were conducted using the old questions, while half the subjects were asked the new questions. A comparison of the two formats showed that the revamped queries produced 44% more personal victimization reports and 49% more property incidents (Kindermann, Lynch, & Cantor, 1997). As expected, reports for robbery, personal theft, and motor vehicle theft did not show substantial gains. However, rapes jumped by 157%, assaults rose 57%, burglaries increased by 20%, and theft moved upward by 27%. Inspection of the data led the analysts to believe that the new instrument made inroads into gray-area events. A gray-area event pertains to a victimization that does not conform to the usual common stereotype. For example, episodes involving nonstrangers as the aggressors showed marked increases with the new questions. It would appear, then, that the revisions worked as intended. A shorter reference period was also examined as a means to improve recall. This option, however, was rejected. The increased costs were simply too prohibitive.  Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization 33 Table 2–5 NCVS Screen Questions* 36a. I’m going to read some examples that will give you an idea of the kinds of crimes this study covers. As I go through them, tell me if any of these happened to you in the last 6 months, that is since ___________ _____, 20 _____. Was something belonging to YOU stolen, such as— a) Things that you carry, like luggage, a wallet, purse, briefcase, book— b) Clothing, jewelry, or calculator— c) Bicycle or sports equipment— d) Things in your home—like a TV, stereo, or tools— e) Things outside your home such as a garden hose or lawn furniture— f) Things belonging to children in the household— g) Things from a vehicle, such as a package, groceries, camera, or cassette tapes—OR h) Did anyone ATTEMPT to steal anything belonging to you? 36b. Did any incidents of this type happen to you? 36c. How many times? 37a. (Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone— a) Broken in or ATTEMPTED to break into your home by forcing a door or window, pushing past someone, jimmying a lock, cutting a screen, or entering through an open door or window? b) Has anyone illegally gotten in or tried to get into a garage, shed, or storage room? OR c) Illegally gotten in or trie