Summary: victimology and the criminal justice system
Academic year – Prof. Pemberton.
Victim survey: short comings
1. Not knowing that a specific victimization by crime is actually a crime – cf. FRA-survey: “Is
violence by the family also violence?”.
2. Forgetting or not mentioning:
Conscious: too personal for instance.
Unconscious: cf. reverse record check: the extent to which crimes that are reported
in one source can be traced back in another.
o Reverse: didn’t mention in survey but appeared in registration.
o Forward: mentioned in survey, but not registered.
3. Inaccurate information:
Forward telescoping: moving experience forward in time to fall in the period.
Mentioning other people’s experiences.
4. Differences in “productivity”: filling out a survey, answering questions is more difficult for
instance for people with a lower education → Also depending on how the questions are
phrased.
5. Increasing difficulty of achieving a representative sample: reaching respondents and a
correlation between non-response and victimization?
Routine Activity Theory for understanding victimization risk.
Routine Activity Theory: victimization results from the interaction of everyday factors → The
relationship among opportunity, routine activities and environmental factors increases victimization
potential.
Presence of motivated offenders
Availability of suitable targets: value, physical visibility, accessibility, inertia.
o CRAVED principle: concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable,
and disposable.
Absence of capable guardians → For example considerable time alone can create
vulnerability.
→ The appropriate environment for committing crime depends on (some) crime generators.
→ The central station can be seen as hotspot because there is a lack of competent guardians + there is
a lot of value which will motivate the offenders.
Repeat victimization.
Repeat victimization points to the relationship between victim characteristics and the risk of
victimization particularly the repeated finding that victims of crime run a higher risk of future
victimization that non-victims.
Risk heterogeneity (flag): victims often belong to high-risk groups – having been a
victim once is a signal that you belong to a high-risk group.
Event dependency (boost): the fact that you’re a victim affects victim and offender.
o “You don’t know if there’s a house or anything dangerous inside unless it’s
already burgled”.
o Offenders try again some months later.
o Victims develop symptoms which make them more vulnerable to be
revictimized.
→ Most common in high-crime areas which are lacking the means to block subsequent victimization.
→ Occurs soon after the initial victimization – insurance effect.
→ “Als het kalf verdronken is, dempt men de put” – When it has already happened, there is not much
left do. But in fact, there is actually a lot that can be done.
1
, Fear of crime
Fear of crime is composed of 3 tightly correlated dimensions: risk, consequences of victimization
and control.
Fear victimization paradox: lack of fear can lead to victimization by not stepping
out of the danger zone.
Recent victimization leads to fear of crime.
But… answers on fear of crime questions depend to a great deal on how the questions is phrased:
“Old” standard measures may imply a greater prevalence of fear than is commonly
found with specific measures of frequency → General fear of crime higher ratees than
“specific in your area”.
And is it always fear of crime that is measured? Or concern about crime or even anger
at crime?
Christie refers to ideal victim as an old lady.
When people think they can protect themselves, they believe that they are in
control. When you are older, you thus worry more about crime. Young people
think they can handle certain forms of crime (in fact a paradox: lack of fear can lead to
victimization by not stepping out of the danger zone).
+ ideal victims are very much afraid of being victimized because they get their
information through mass media and have no personal control of the information
conveyed.
Intimate partner violence: 2 perspectives – Family violence research & Gendered
violence research
1. Family violence research = violence between partners results from family conflict →
Results from frustration and escalation in routine conflict in the home.
Use of Conflict Tactics Scale: Intimate partner violence is…
o Very common
o A continuum of non-violence and violent conflict behavior: most violence is
not that serious.
o Equally perpetrated and suffered by man and woman in heterosexual
relationships.
2. Gendered violence research = violence between partners results from patriarchal values
in society → initial interest in wife beating and other forms of violence against woman.
Use of police data, data from for instance battered woman shelters & crime victim
surveys: Intimate partner violence is…
o Frequent → possible majority of woman experience intimate partner
violence but much less frequent than in family violence research.
o Victims are most often woman; perpetrators most often are man.
o Violence has serious consequences for the victim and is likely to escalate.
Micheal Johnson reconciled these two perspectives.
Intimate partner violence is NOT a unitary phenomenon.
The 2 groups of researchers generally use different (biased) sampling strategies
which tap different types of partner violence. These types differ in their
relationship to gender.
→ The types of violence are defined by degree of control (!!) not by characteristics of violence. If one
considers the behavior both people in the relationship, one can identify 4 basic types of individual
violences:
2
Academic year – Prof. Pemberton.
Victim survey: short comings
1. Not knowing that a specific victimization by crime is actually a crime – cf. FRA-survey: “Is
violence by the family also violence?”.
2. Forgetting or not mentioning:
Conscious: too personal for instance.
Unconscious: cf. reverse record check: the extent to which crimes that are reported
in one source can be traced back in another.
o Reverse: didn’t mention in survey but appeared in registration.
o Forward: mentioned in survey, but not registered.
3. Inaccurate information:
Forward telescoping: moving experience forward in time to fall in the period.
Mentioning other people’s experiences.
4. Differences in “productivity”: filling out a survey, answering questions is more difficult for
instance for people with a lower education → Also depending on how the questions are
phrased.
5. Increasing difficulty of achieving a representative sample: reaching respondents and a
correlation between non-response and victimization?
Routine Activity Theory for understanding victimization risk.
Routine Activity Theory: victimization results from the interaction of everyday factors → The
relationship among opportunity, routine activities and environmental factors increases victimization
potential.
Presence of motivated offenders
Availability of suitable targets: value, physical visibility, accessibility, inertia.
o CRAVED principle: concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable,
and disposable.
Absence of capable guardians → For example considerable time alone can create
vulnerability.
→ The appropriate environment for committing crime depends on (some) crime generators.
→ The central station can be seen as hotspot because there is a lack of competent guardians + there is
a lot of value which will motivate the offenders.
Repeat victimization.
Repeat victimization points to the relationship between victim characteristics and the risk of
victimization particularly the repeated finding that victims of crime run a higher risk of future
victimization that non-victims.
Risk heterogeneity (flag): victims often belong to high-risk groups – having been a
victim once is a signal that you belong to a high-risk group.
Event dependency (boost): the fact that you’re a victim affects victim and offender.
o “You don’t know if there’s a house or anything dangerous inside unless it’s
already burgled”.
o Offenders try again some months later.
o Victims develop symptoms which make them more vulnerable to be
revictimized.
→ Most common in high-crime areas which are lacking the means to block subsequent victimization.
→ Occurs soon after the initial victimization – insurance effect.
→ “Als het kalf verdronken is, dempt men de put” – When it has already happened, there is not much
left do. But in fact, there is actually a lot that can be done.
1
, Fear of crime
Fear of crime is composed of 3 tightly correlated dimensions: risk, consequences of victimization
and control.
Fear victimization paradox: lack of fear can lead to victimization by not stepping
out of the danger zone.
Recent victimization leads to fear of crime.
But… answers on fear of crime questions depend to a great deal on how the questions is phrased:
“Old” standard measures may imply a greater prevalence of fear than is commonly
found with specific measures of frequency → General fear of crime higher ratees than
“specific in your area”.
And is it always fear of crime that is measured? Or concern about crime or even anger
at crime?
Christie refers to ideal victim as an old lady.
When people think they can protect themselves, they believe that they are in
control. When you are older, you thus worry more about crime. Young people
think they can handle certain forms of crime (in fact a paradox: lack of fear can lead to
victimization by not stepping out of the danger zone).
+ ideal victims are very much afraid of being victimized because they get their
information through mass media and have no personal control of the information
conveyed.
Intimate partner violence: 2 perspectives – Family violence research & Gendered
violence research
1. Family violence research = violence between partners results from family conflict →
Results from frustration and escalation in routine conflict in the home.
Use of Conflict Tactics Scale: Intimate partner violence is…
o Very common
o A continuum of non-violence and violent conflict behavior: most violence is
not that serious.
o Equally perpetrated and suffered by man and woman in heterosexual
relationships.
2. Gendered violence research = violence between partners results from patriarchal values
in society → initial interest in wife beating and other forms of violence against woman.
Use of police data, data from for instance battered woman shelters & crime victim
surveys: Intimate partner violence is…
o Frequent → possible majority of woman experience intimate partner
violence but much less frequent than in family violence research.
o Victims are most often woman; perpetrators most often are man.
o Violence has serious consequences for the victim and is likely to escalate.
Micheal Johnson reconciled these two perspectives.
Intimate partner violence is NOT a unitary phenomenon.
The 2 groups of researchers generally use different (biased) sampling strategies
which tap different types of partner violence. These types differ in their
relationship to gender.
→ The types of violence are defined by degree of control (!!) not by characteristics of violence. If one
considers the behavior both people in the relationship, one can identify 4 basic types of individual
violences:
2
