8/18/2015
1
Prepared by Emily Berthelot, University of Arkansas at Little Rock ©
2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE ONGOING
CONTROVERSY
OVER SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY
1. To understand the distinctions between victim facilitation,
precipitation, and provocation.
2. To be able to apply the concepts of victim facilitation, victim
blaming, and victim defending to burglary, automobile theft,
and identity theft.
3. To be able to apply the concepts of victim precipitation,
victim provocation, victim blaming, victim defending, and
system blaming to murder and robbery.
4. To realize what is at stake in the debate between victim
blamers and victim defenders.
5. To be able to see the institutional roots of crime, which
overshadow the victim’s role.
Learning Objectives
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
6. To become familiar with the competing theories that attempt to
explain why some groups suffer higher victimization rates than
others.
7. To recognize how the issue of shared responsibility impacts the
operations of the criminal justice system.
8. To debate the appropriate role of risk management and risk
reduction strategies in everyday life.
9. To appreciate the difference between crime prevention and
victimization prevention.
Learning Objectives
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
2
Victim’s Contribution To The Crime
Problem
Shared Responsibility— certain victims as
well as criminals did something wrong.
Theories
Duet Frame of Reference—Von Hentig,
1941
Penal Couple—Mendelsohn, 1956
Doer-Sufferer Relationship—Ellenberger,
1955
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Shared Responsibility
Repeat victims, chronic victims, and victim
careers: Learning from past mistakes?
Are these individuals making the same
mistakes over and over again?
Clouded judgment due to drinking
Failing to safeguard personal property
Isolating self from bystanders who could intervene
Spending time with dangerous individuals
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Frequency of Shared Responsibility for
Violent Crimes
Victim’s Levels of Responsibility
Completely innocent victims cannot be blamed for
what happened to them. They reasonably reduced
risks, no negligence or passive indifference.
Victims of property crimes often harden their targets with
security devices and alarms.
Victim is totally responsible when there is no
offender—victim may pose as offender and commit
fraud.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
3
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
Victim Blaming Characterization
Argument that victims bear some responsibility
along with their offender if facilitation,
precipitation, or provocation of the event
occurred.
Victim Defending Characterization
Whether it is accurate or fair to hold the
targeted individual accountable for own losses
or injuries inflicted by the wrongdoer.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
Victim Blaming
―Just World‖ Outlook—People get what they deserve.
Bad things happen to evil characters and good things
happen to good people.
Personal Accountability—Basic doctrine of U.S. legal
system that encourages victim blaming explanations.
Crime-conscious individuals should review their lifestyles
and routines to increase personal safety.
Victim blaming is the view of majority of offenders.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
Victim Defending—Rejects the premise that
victims are partly at fault.
Victim defender’s criticisms of victim blamers:
Victim blaming overstates victim’s
involvement/carelessness/shared responsibility.
Overstates events of victim facilitation, precipitation or
provocation.
Exhorting people to be more cautious and vigilant is
not an adequate solution.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
4
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)
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
See Box 5.2: ―Early 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 the social environment ; neither
the victim nor the offender is to blame.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
System Blaming
Linked with victim defending
If the lawbreaker is viewed as a product of
his or her environment, and the victim is too,
then the actions of both parties have been
influenced by the agents of socialization—
parental input, peer group pressure, subcultural
prescriptions, school experiences, media images,
religion
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
5
Shared Responsibility
Facilitation—Victims carelessly and inadvertently
make it easier for a thief to steal (least serious).
Precipitation—Victim significantly contributes to
the violent outbreak.
Provocation—Worse than precipitation; victim
more directly responsible for the crime (most
serious).
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft
―Is it the careless who end up carless?‖
Most likely victim—under age 25, apt.
dweller, urban inner-city, African
Americans and Hispanic Americans, low-
income
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Trends in
Motor Vehicle
Theft Rates,
United States,
1973–2013
NOTE: UCR figures
include thefts of
taxis, buses, trucks,
and other
commercial vehicles.
Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
6
Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft
Victim blaming focuses on the proportion
of motorists with bad habits (i.e.
carelessness about locks and keys).
Victim defending focuses on majority of
motorists who did nothing wrong.
Teenagers are no longer #1 in stealing
cars—organized car rings/chop shops
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Typology of Shared Responsibility
Auto Theft:
Conscientiously Resisting Victims
Conventionally Cautious Victims
Carelessly Facilitating Victims
Precipitative Initiators
Provocative Conspirators
Fabricating Simulators
} 75%
} 15%
} 10%
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Victim Facilitation and Identity Theft
Identity Theft—Unauthorized
appropriation of personal information
Names, addresses, date of birth, etc.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
7
Victim Precipitation and Provocation
Subintentional death those who got killed
played contributory roles in their deaths by
exercising poor judgment, taking excessive risks,
or pursuing a self-destructive lifestyle (Allen,
1980).
justifiable homicide if the security officer
resorted to deadly force in self-defense.
Suicide by cop (Klinger, 2001).
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Frequency of Shared Responsibility
Homicide—person who died was the first to resort to
force: 22%
Aggravated Assault—seriously injured first to use force
or offensive action (fighting words): 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, but then retracted before the
act: 4%
Study conducted by National Commission on
the Causes and Prevention of Violence
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
System Blaming
Victim-blaming and victim-defending arguments
bridge the gap between theoretical propositions
and abstractions and how people genuinely think
and act.
These arguments get caught up in the details of cases
ignoring the social forces that shape both criminals
and victims.
Whenever partisans of the two perspectives clash,
they inadvertently let the system and culture off the
hook.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
8
System Blaming Arguments
Homicide: glorification of violence in the media as a
source of entertainment, conflict resolution, and
policy-making.
Robbery: gulf between the well-off and the poor,
and the over-importance of material possessions.
Burglary: organized nature of fencing as an incentive
to thievery
Identity Theft: numerous data breaches expose
personal data to thieves regardless of efforts by
customers
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
s and Enforcement
Nearly all states have passed laws to compel
organizations that maintain databanks to notify
people put at risk when a breach of security
takes place.
Many law enforcement agencies still lack
experts in forensic computing and remain behind
the curve when it comes to detecting intrusions,
figuring out who did it, and gathering evidence
that will stand up in court.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
s and 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.
enforcement agencies stymied as many
instances not reported to police (sometimes not
even the victim is aware of the crime).
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
8/18/2015
9
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
Box 5.5 provides additional preventative measures
and red flags for identity theft.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
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
responsible 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.
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more