CHAP5.pdf

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.