Understanding Victim Contribution to Crime Problem

1. CrimeVictims: An Introduction to VictimologySeventh Edition By Andrew Karmen Chapter Five: Victims’ Contribution To The Crime Problem

2. Victim’s Contribution To The Crime Problem • Theories • Duet Frame of Reference—Von Hentig, 1941 • Penal Couple—Mendelsohn, 1956 • Doer-Sufferer Relationship—Ellenberger, 1955 Shared Responsibility—Victims as well as criminals did something wrong Evidence of Shared Responsibility: See Box 5.1, Page 110

3. Shared Responsibility Issues • Murder: “…victim is often major contributor…” (Wolfgang, 1958) • Rape: “…’virtuous’ rape victim is not always the innocent and passive party.” (Amir, 1971) • Theft: “Victims cause crime in the sense that they set up the opportunity for the crime to be committed.” (Jeffrey, 1971) • Burglary: “…understand the extent to which a victim vicariously contributes to or precipitates a break-in.” (Waller and Okihiro, 1978)

4. Shared Responsibility • Facilitation—victims unknowingly, carelessly, negligently and inadvertently make it easier for offender to commit a theft • Example: leave a purse visible on a car seat • Precipitation—victim significantly contributes to the event • Example: victim was having an affair with killer’s wife • Provocation—worse than precipitation—more directly responsible for the killing. • Example: victim started a fight in a bar and ended up dead

5. Frequency of Shared Responsibility Study conducted by National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence • Homicide—person who died was the first to resort to force—22% • Aggravated Assault—seriously injured first to use force or offensive action—14% • Armed Robberies—victim did not reasonably handle money, jewelry or valuables—11% • Forcible Rapes—woman first agreed to sexual relations or invited through gestures—4%

6. Frequency of Shared Responsibility for Violent Crimes Completely innocent victims cannot be blamed for the crime. They reasonably reduced risks, no negligence or passive indifference. They often harden their targets with security devices and alarms Victim is totally responsible when there is no offender—victim may pose as offender—fraud

7. Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending • Victim Blaming Characterization • Victims might share responsibility with offender if facilitation, precipitation, or provocation of the event occurred • Victim Defending Characterization • It is not fair to hold the wounded party accountable for his or her own losses or injuries

8. Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending • Victim Blaming • Personal Accountability—Basic doctrine of U.S. legal system • “Just World” Outlook—People get what they deserve Victim blaming is the view of majority of offenders

9. Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending • Victim Defending—Rejects the premise that victims are partly at fault • Victim blaming criticized for overstating victim’s involvement • Overstates events of facilitation, precipitation or provocation • Exhorting people to be more cautious and vigilant is not an adequate solution

10. Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending • See Box 5.2, page 120: “Criticisms of the Notion of Shared Responsibility” • Two tendencies with victim defending regarding who or what is to be faulted: • 1. Offender blaming: do not shift any blame away from offender onto the victim • 2. System blaming: behaviors of both parties influenced by society

11. Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft • “Is it the careless who end up carless?” Trends—Figure 5.2, page 122; Tables 5.1, page 123, and 5.2, page 124 • Most likely victim—under 25, apt. dweller, urban inner city, African Americans and Hispanic Americans, low income

12. Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft • Victim blaming focuses on motorists with bad habits • Victim defending focuses on majority of motorists who did nothing wrong • Teenagers are no longer #1 in stealing cars—organized car rings

13. Typology of Shared Responsibility • Auto Theft: • Conscientiously Resisting Victims } 55% • Conventionally Cautious Victims • Carelessly Facilitating Victims} 20% • Precipitative Initiators • Provocative Conspirators } 25% • Fabricating Simulators

14. Victim Facilitation and Identity Theft • Identity Theft—Unauthorized appropriation of personal information • Names, addresses, date of birth, etc • Table 5.3, page 129 identifies Identity Theft Type distribution nationwide in 2006

15. Laws and Law Enforcement • Nearly all states criminalized the unlawful possession of personal identity informationin the 90s • 1998 Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act • Provided for financial recovery for victim not just financial institution • Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 • Provided for one free credit report per year

16. Laws and Law Enforcement • Problems undermining law enforcement efforts in fighting Identity Theft • Many officers lack training and agencies lack resources to provide adequate response • Multi-jurisdictional complications undercut an agency’s commitment to follow through • Law enforcement agencies stymied as many instances not reported to police (sometimes not even the victim is aware of the crime)

17. Victim Facilitation and ID Theft • Risk Reduction Strategies • Lock up computer, desktop, laptop • Shred pre-approved credit card invitations • Discreetly discard receipts and ATM info • Devise clever passwords • Never give Social Security number to unknown person

18. Legal Importance of Determining Responsibility • Responsibility rests on judgments that are subject to challenges and criticisms • Whether the victim facilitated, precipitated or provoked an offender is considered by police, prosecutors, juries, judges, compensation boards, insurance examiners, and politicians • It is an issue at many stages of the CJ process, restitution consideration, civil lawsuits, and insurance settlements

19. Key Terms