C)CRIME – VICTIM INTERACTION

1)Who are the victims of crime; fear of crime

2)Victim responses

3)Crime Reporting and Intervention

So far we have looked at offenders and some explanations as to why they commit crime. This booklet focuses on features of the victims of crime, who they are, how they respond to the crime committed against them and finally reasons why they might not report crimes against them.

1)Who are the victims of crime; fear of crime

Stereotypes of Victims

From your analysis of newspaper articles and the video you have watched, make a list of the features you think victims are most likely to have;

In practice, victims are not generally especially vulnerable people, and they are not always innocent. Victims are not always individuals.

Groups and organisations, corporations and the state itself are also victims of a great deal of crime, according to Frieberg (1988) they are the most common victims;

“Through customs offences, social security frauds, income, payroll death and other forms of tax evasion the state is probably the most frequent victim of crime.”

Victim Surveys

Surveys entail interviews with samples concerning their experience of being victims of crime during the preceding six or twelve months.

The first nation wide survey in the United States in 1967 involved 10 000 households and annual National Crime Surveys of 132 000 American households have been conducted since 1972.

The first British Crime Survey was conducted in 1982. The survey selected in 16 000 household from the Electoral Register with the aim of interviewing one person of 16 years or older from each household. In the context of an interview participants answer questions about any crimes in which they have been a victim in the preceding 12 months.

According to the 2000 BCS the average chance of becoming a victim of violence in 1999 was 4.2% although this risk varied according to gender and situation (e.g. young men aged 16 – 24 20.1%). The risks of being a victim are higher for men except for crimes such as domestic violence and rape. Other findings were;

The 1996 BCS reveals that trivial crimes such as theft from a motor vehicle are the most common, whilst serious offences such as assault and robbery have a very low frequency of occurrence. Hough & Mayhew (1983) estimate that the ‘statistically average’ person can expect to be burgled once every 40 years and robbed every 500 years.

EVALUATION OF THE BCS

Design
Determinism
Demand Characteristics
Reliability
Reductionism
Ethics
Ethnocentrism
Ecological Validity
Evidence
Androcentrism
Approach
Anthropomorphism
Applicability
Method
Sample
Incidence & Prevalence

Crime is not a random event. The majority of respondents in the BCS report no experience of crime (90%). However, some police report that some people may be the victims of two three or even four crimes. This leads to an important distinction between the incidence and prevalence of victimisation.

Incidence
Prevalence

Surveys reveal that burglaries are most prevalent in inner city areas, cars parked on the street at night are most likely to be stolen and it is young males who have typically assaulted others themselves that are the most likely to be victims of assault.

These personal or situational characteristics that make a person more susceptible to crime are called risk factors.

Risk Factors for Victimisation

Some social psychologists have suggested that it brings comfort to people to have faith in a just world, i.e. the belief that by and large victims get what they deserve. This goes with the idea that those who put themselves at risk deserve to be the victims of crime.

Risk Factors for Burglary

Studies that support these risk factors

Risk Factors for victims of violence

However, a study by Wolfgang (1957) indicates that victim precipitation is a more important factor in determining who would become a victim of crime.

Wolfgang 1957

Other figures on victim precipitation;

Amir (1971)
Curtis (1974)
Rape and victim precipitation

In rape and sexual assault cases there is a belief that women contribute to their victimisation by dressing in ways that evoke sexually aggressive feelings in men.

Krahe (1998)

Gerdes et al (1988)

Ross & Dinero (1989)

According to Walker (1989) the traditional sex role script incorporates the belief that men have the right to control the women in their lives, if necessary be violent means. Women as well as men are socialised into this way of thinking.

Muehenhard & Hollabaugh (1988)

Three other very important indicators of susceptibility to crime are

Geographical location.

This is a well-known important risk factor to the extent that you may not be able to become insured when you go away to university.

There are areas in the UK which are known to have such high rates of crime that insurers will charge excessive premiums and in extreme cases may not even insure a property. This is determined by postcodes.

While location is no doubt important the 1998 BCS established a number of important variables associated with location. Increased risk was associated with -

Personal attributes.

In Regard to violent crime whilst most of us are unlikely to encounter it some members of the population are more at risk. The 1998 BCS found that the personal factors detailed below increased the risk of becoming a victim of violence -

Many of these risk factors become combined in people's lives. For example, older adults living in rural areas have a less than 1% chance of becoming victims of violent crime however young adults living in cities have a 20% chance of becoming victims.

Repeat Victimisation

This is a well-known phenomenon within criminology and to anybody involved in dealing with victims. One of the most reliable indicators of whether or not a person will become a victim of crime in the future is whether they have been a victim of crime in the past, although we should note that this is more true for certain crimes than others, in particular burglary and violence.

It is unfortunately true that once a house has been burgled it is highly likely to be burgled again. There are three potential explanations for the repeat victimisation of burglary -

1)Soft Targets

2)Knowing the Target

3)Spreading the News

How do the above explanations fit in with Tuck& Riley’s theory of reasoned action?

The Fear of Crime

According to the USA National Crime Prevention Survey 2000 there is a high level of fear in regards to becoming a victim of crime. The general picture the research gives us is that most individuals have a distorted view in regards their risk of becoming victims of crime.

Ito (1993) found that over 50% of Japanese residents expressed fear of being a victim of burglary, despite the fact that the likelihood of them actually becoming victims was less than 1%.

It is a strange finding that those who are less likely to become victims of crime appeared to be the most fearful, whereas those who express the least fear at becoming a victim may be the most vulnerable. A good example of this is the issue of personal assault, elderly women are often reported to be the most fearful yet they are the least likely members of society to experience it whereas young men who are statistically much more likely to become victims of assault often express the least fear (Hollin 1992).

Another interesting phenomena is that some people regard the risk to themselves as increasing when there seems to be little evidence for this. Thus despite the fact that recorded crime levels between 1994 and 1996 have fallen, 55% of those surveyed in the 1996 BCS thought that the crime in their area has increased 'a little' or 'a lot' during this time. Only 10% thought that it had fallen during this period. This could reflect real local differences in crime rates or media distortion of crime. (Mirless-Black et al 1996)

Media Influence and Fear of Crime

The main reason that is put forward as to why the public have a distorted perception on crime and their likelihood of becoming a victim is due to the influence of the media.

In general terms the media tend to focus on …………………………………….- ones that journalists feel will stimulate us- therefore crime is often reported and possibly in biased ways. The media tend not to highlight trends or levels of risk, but rather to focus on the exceptional, the bizarre and the horrific.

Crimes portrayed in TV dramas do not tend to reflect reality, but rather concentrate on …………………………………………… such as random attacks on strangers. Cumberbatch (1989) estimated that although the majority of people living in low crime areas will not become victims of crime, in any one year each will be exposed to 7000 crimes via the media.

Dorfman and Schiraldi (2000) reviewed 77 articles that analysed media coverage of crime and then matched the findings with official crime statistics. They conclude that -

Overall, the studies taken together indicate that depictions of crime in the news are not reflective of the rate of crime generally, the proportion of crime which is violent, the proportion of crime committed by ethnic minorities, or the proportion of crime committed by youths is over reported. The problem is not the inaccuracy of individual stories, but that the cumulative choices of what is included in the news -- or not included --presents the public with a false picture of higher frequency and severity of crime than is actually the case.

Race & Media Influence

Most studies that examine race and crime find that the proportion of crime committed by ethnic minorities (usually African Americans) is over-reported and that Black victims are under-represented.

Other studies find that crimes committed by ethnic minorities are covered in proportion with arrest rates, but that crimes committed by Whites are under-covered.

If news audiences are taking the crime coverage at face value, they are accepting a serious distortion. They are likely to believe that most crime is extremely violent and that perpetrators are Black and victims white. If news audiences have little contact with young people, they are likely to believe that youth are dangerous threats, in part because there are so few other representations of youth in the news to the contrary.

If the fear of crime is related to the influence of the media, we would expect those individuals who are exposed to the most TV would have the most distorted perceptions on crime. Whilst research by Gerbner et al (1977) did find a positive association between the fear of crime and the amount of TV watched, a re-analysis of the data by Howitt (1998) indicates that the association is small and is not highly significant. Thus we still have an incomplete picture in regards to the influence of the media on fear of crime.

There is growing realisation that fear of crime is not a fixed trait which some people have and some do not, but rather 'transitory and situational'

2)
VICTIM RESPONSES

Irritation inconvenience and some anger is usually the response of victims to minor crimes, but the consequences of serious crime can be far more severe, especially when an individuals safety and security has been threatened.

The APA Task Force on the Victims of Crime & Violence listed the following as potential psychological consequences of becoming a victim;

The intensity of these symptoms will vary from individual to individual and will probably be more severe for those who already suffer from mental health problems.

Criminal victimisation can also have effects on physical health. For example in the USA there has been research into the permanent disabilities from gunshot wounds among the young. In the UK many joy riders end up in hospital.

Victimisation has a financial cost;

Finally there is a wider impact of victimisation on families (this is secondary or indirect victimisation).

Factors affecting the consequences and victim responses

Age of the victim

The consequences of child abuse can be very severe and this severity may arise in part because of the cognitive conflicts and dilemmas the persistent abuse by the adult imposes on the child. Freud has documented the effects of unresolved childhood conflict on later development.

Self Blame

(1986) found that the tendency to blame oneself for the victimisation, either ones behaviour or character was strongly associated with poor adjustment.

However, Frazier (1990) found that three attributional factors were important in the adjustment of rape victims.

Poor judgement / Societal Factors / Victim Type

Of these three, societal factors were most strongly associated with depression after the rape.

These results contrast with Meyer & Tatlor and show that blaming others may be a psychologically counterproductive as blaming yourself.

Evidence suggests that successful adjustment is associated with having a feeling of control over ones future life and a view that the event could have been avoided, i.e. having an internal locus of control.

Locus of control

Victims with an external locus of control (they feel that events/situations control them more than their own abilities) may cope better since they may regard their victim status as 'just one of those things' that happen in life. They had little/no control over the events and therefore do not significantly worry about future events or that they could have done anything to prevent the crime.

Whereas those with an internal locus of control may feel that they are to blame in some way, they could have controlled what happened or could have prevented it, thus making adjustment to their current situation harder. Self-blame may become a concern. Dryden and Gordon (1990) suggest that such individuals may be in need of psychological interventions that will help them to appreciate that the world is not as ordered and controllable as they believe and therefore that sometimes irrespective of what we do, or don't do, we may become victims of crime.

Whilst locus of control may effect how we feel about being a victim, it could also influence our responses to prevent further crime being committed against us. Those with high internal locus of control may engage in activities that could prevent crime since they see themselves as in control of their life and its events, however those with a predominantly external locus of control may feel that it is a waste of time engaging in crime prevention activities since they can make no significant difference as to whether they experience repeat victimisation.

(Take a Locus of Control test here)

Type of Crime

Resick reports that robbery victims show a similar pattern of response in terms of anxiety, lowered self esteem and adjustment to work as do the victims of rape, but they improve more quickly.

We will look at the responses to three types of crime in detail, sexualassault, sexual abuse and burglary.

Sexual Assault

In cases of sexual assault the trauma experienced by victims may last several months and appears to follow a recognised pattern.

Resick & Markaway (1991) report an initial reaction of shaking, trembling, confusion and restlessness which might be quite intense for the first week following an assault. Victims may also experience depression, fatigue and problems with social adjustment. Levels of anxiety and fear remain high but other symptoms may subside after 2 – 3 months. Some psychological problems may continue for several years for some individuals, often because of self blame and self protective avoidance strategies which can lead to difficulties in intimate relationships.

Summary of Effects;

However, even lower level offences of a sexual nature can have serious consequences.

KEY STUDY RIORDAN (1999) – INDECENT EXPOSURE
Outline of the study
Design
Determinism
Demand Characteristics
Reliability
Reductionism
Ethics
Ethnocentrism
Ecological Validity
Evidence
Androcentrism
Approach
Anthropomorphism
Applicability
Method
Sample

Child Abuse

Wyatt et al (1992) report that adult women survivors of child sexual abuse may experience revictimisation, suffering further incidents of sexual assault, rape or unwanted pregnancies.

Roesler & McKenzie (1994) found that male survivors can experience disturbed adult sexual functioning which seriously impairs self – esteem and can damage personal relationships. There is a high incidence of sexual abuse in the histories of many offenders.

Smith and Betmnovim (1994) describe 5 categories of possible effects following sexual abuse;

Support for these categories comes from two studies;

Usher & Dewberry (1995)

Silbert & Pines (1983)

The degree of trauma experienced by survivors of sexual abuse differs between individuals and being believed and supported by other family members can dramatically reduce the severity of the effects. The main predictors of serious consequences appear to be an element of violence (actual or potential), blaming the child, penetration, abuse by a father or step father and long term abuse (Mannarino et al 1992).

Burglary

Virtually all victims of burglary are distressed by the event and many require clinical support and treatment. Months after the crime they may feel a sense of paranoia, suspicion and a sense of disillusionment. Some victims report resorting to moving house and burning furniture to escape the sense of pollution and violation.