If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -~--~---~-.,.-~------...,..------..----.....,...------~------

..... ' ..... ~.. "'~ --- Q

o u.s. Department of Jnstice () Ndtional Criminal Justice Reference SS'lNice Bureau of Justice Statistics =

This microfiche was produced from documents received for o inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on Victimization and Fear of 'Crime: t'his fram~ may be used to evaluate the documenOquality. " "-', ~ -,,- --"-- ~ ~'A ~ World "Perspectives ~ 1 1

J) 0 '"1111'1.

" ~" "

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART • NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS-19~3-A

~ < ,.':'-- ._~~·"._.c> ,-! ,J,tl Microfilming procedures used, to create this fiche comply with the standards sefforth in 41CFR 101-11.504. ~ _""," '. ~

, gOinfs of viewor9pinionsstatedid this,d6cumenta.re ,. ,~fho~~of~he a~t~or(s)alJd,do t1c.~treRresentthe 'o(fiJal " ,~PQSlti9nQr POlICIeS of the 11$.; DepartlTlentofJu$tic¢?

,

D ------

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports Crime against persons in urban, suburban, and u.s. Department of Justice (revised December 1984) rural aress, NCJ-53551 , 7/79 The prosecution of felony arrests, 1979, NCJ- 86482,5/84 Call toll-free 800-732-3277 (local An Introduction to the National Crime Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics , 251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be added NCJ-43732, 4/78 State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711, 7/82 to one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak Local victim surveys: A review of the Issues, State court model siatistical dictionary, NCJ-39973, 8m NCJ-62320, 9/80 to a reference specialist in statistics at the A cross-city comparison of felony case Justice Clearinghouse, Natjonal Statisti~s Corrections proceSSing, NCJ-55171, 7/79 Criminal Justice Reference Service, Federal criminal sentencing: Perspectives of Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Single BJS bulletins and spec/al reports: analysis and a design for research, NCJ-33683, Sentencing practices In 13 States, NCJ-95399, 10/78 copies of reports are free; use NCJ number 10/84 to order. Postage and handling are charged Variations in Federal criminal sentences, Prison admissions and releases 1981, NCJ-33684,10/78 for bulk orders of single reports. For single NCJ-95043, 9/84 r,opies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are Predicting sentences In Federal courts: The Capital punishment 1983, NCJ-939~5, 7/84 feasibility of a national sentenCing pOlicy, free; 11-4() titles $10; more than 4(), $20; , TIme served In prison, NCJ-93924, 6/84 NeJ-33686, 10/78 libraries call for special rates. Prisoners In 1983, NCJ-85861, 12/82 State and loca! prosecution .and civil attomey Victimization and fear of crime:: Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions on systems, NCJ-41334, 7/78 other criminal justice data are available Dec. 31,1982 (finaO, NCJ-93311, 12/84 from the Criminal Justice Archive and Dec. 31, 1981 (final). NCJ-86485, 7/83 Expenditure and employment ' Information Network, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Capital punishment 1982 (finaO, NCJ-95133, W orld) perspectives 11/84 Justice expenditure and employment In the Arbor, MI48106 (313-764-5199). U.S., 1971-79, NCJ'9259611/84 Capital punishment 1981 (final), NCJ-86484, Justice expenditure and'employment I" the

~ ,'-."._~,,--"- '" --~,"~"-~,_,,,, "'~_'4 .. __ . t' (>

, U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Contents Steven Schlesinger This book is dedicated to the memory ()f Director ' Michael J. Hindelang. Bis pioneering work , " ill, the 'study of victimization is reflected in This monograph was ,prepared Withlhe ~\Jpport , every chapter of this volume., His death is of Grant No. 78-SS,AX-0045, !IWru:ded by the, a great loss to thefi,eld. National Cr,irilinal Justice ~nfonnation and Statis­ tics Service'; 'taw Enforcement Assistance Ad­ ministration; United States Department of . () Justice, unMt the Omnibus Crime Control and Acknowledgments, ii Safe Streets Acts of (968, as amended. Points , Q IntrodUction, '1 of view or opinions stated in this document are those of authors alld do Mt necessarily represent National studies ,of ¢victimizatio~ top official position or policies of the United II ., States Department of Justice. CI 9 ~, John Braithwaite 'VictiIh~ and offenders: The Australiall experience, 3 1 Q. David Biie~ SJ,

Acknowledgments. It ll; not eilsy'to build 0 Ii ,0 Kauko Aromaa Three surveys &"violenc~ in Finland, 11 ,) collection of papers on a.single subject " j Richard" Block with ·authorS from countries allover the The impact of victimization,tates and patterns: world. The bo()k couldnot have been com- A comparison of the Netherlands and the United States, 23 o pletca without the help of manypeop1e. o Jan J. M. van Dijk q would lil;e to thank the authors who con:' The burden of crime in Dutch society, 1973-1979, 29 Carl H .. D. Steinmetz .{j tributed CUeir c§kill and expertise without pay; the translatvrs" John Moyer, Sigried (\ Pilgrinl, Irina Kramer, and Fabian Pascal; City studies of victimization (..' ( 67 the typists and secretaries of Loyola and Gideon Fishman Differential victimization patterns: An analysis \ Northwestern universities, Suztmne Scott, ' of crilllC victims in polar neighborhoods in Haifa, 45 Martha Malley, and Mary A. Zimmennan; ,~sley Skogan for suggesting 1 prepare , LuiS Rodriguez Victimization in. a Mexican city, 51 this volume, ,and Marlene Simon for her" Manzallera "constant' help and editorial, assistance; Gerd Ferdilland o Victimol~glcal research dn Germany-Victim surveys I would like to apologize. to Francisco Pas­ r. Kirchhoff and research on sexual Victimization, 57 cualof the University of Madrid. Through Claudia '< .~ no fault of his own, his stud~Pf victimiza, Kirchoff ~on.i~ Spain was not translatedl~\ time for Halls-Dieter Schwind Inves~gations of nonteported offenses, 65 mcluslOn. . p o , A;:' i " i f )U'' as" many languages . as thereiflked countries Studie" of serious victimization using p~lice records ! represented, I say thank you to YJ>,uall. '1 Micheline Baril The victims' perceptions of crime and the criminal

{! I) I also thank the Netherlands-Ame~lcaCom_ justice system; A pilot study of small shopkeepers ~ mission for Educatipnal Exchange fpt" in Montreal, 75 I granting me a Fulbright-Bayes fellowship "'Gerard/,A. Smale which opened my eyes to the possibiJ.ity of Psychological .effects and behavioral, changes in the I, ~ comparative victimization research. licasepf victims of serious crimes, 87 1 r~i Victimization surveys an~ public policy r. I Irvin Waller p , Victim-oriented social indicators, knowledge ')0 to reduce crime and its. effects, and improved use of victimization technIques, 93 " " .. \ -\"" ,dI ,,<'

,"!' f ,i ~" Q i~ .;., (J " ~ o ".~

"'/'

Q' Contents iii

o \1 f"-~"""":~"'<':---~""-

".-,,~ -.--.-.-.. -." .... ,~-". "'-.... """'>"*"''''~-~"..,,,,...... --..,,.- .. ..-,,-..,..,,,=''''''''''.-~-:;-.-.,..:;., " ,_' )-"'''''''''''''"",,''''_c,< .." '!t"f! "~'''''' . ...,...... -~"'~,. ~ ~)..., ..... n,.,." ..... """~'lP:-;:-;:'; .. ,'7;")'.:....-.....,. ,",-'>.'.d"',",""""""", •• 'J .._

,jJ Tables 2-12 SUJl1!l1ary table-Victimization 1 1-1 Approximate standard error percent rate, mUltiple victimization, 16, 4-7 Log-linear model based quanti fica- 6-15 Injuries resulting to the victims, 55 for survey estimates of numbers of tion of the extent to which certain figures 2-13 victimizations in Australia, 1975, 4 Victimization percentages, by Sex, sociodemographic characteristics 6-16 Costs to victims, 55 1-1 1970, 1973, and 1976, 17 1 Schema for an explanation of vic­ 1-2 ViCtimlzation rates per 100,000 1 increase or diminish the crime fisk, 6-17 Reasons why the crime was not tim/offender similarity, 8 2-14 34 population age 15 and over, by Victimization percentnges, by age I reported"55 2-1 and sex, 1970, 1973, and 1976,17 ~i A schematic view of the relation­ sex, 4 4-8 Results of a log-linear analysis on 6-18 A look into the future, 56 ship between acts of vIolence cov­ 2-15 'J 1~3 Victimization rates per 100,000 Victimization percentage~, by sex the 1978 Dutch victim survey data. ered by police crime statistics and and type of residence, 1970, 1973, Dependent variable: Nonvictims 6-19 Criteria for a safe place, 56 the victimization surveys reported population age 15 and over, by c· age,5 :1 and 1976, 17 (V[I]) and victims (V[2]) in 1978, 8-1 Calculated ratios for individual here, 14 37 1-4 2-16 Victimization percentages, by type !I areas of Bochum for the nonreport-, 4-1 Trends in victimization percentage Victimization rates per 100,000 ed criw{-!s (dark number), 66 population age 15 and over, by of residence, 1970, 1973, anci 4-9 Results of several log-iinear .analy- (results of seven surveys), 1972- residence in State capital cities ver- 1976, 17 J ses based on the main model in 8-2 Comparison of offenses known to 79,31 ~~s other urban ce~ters, 5 2-17 Victimization percentages, by sex, Table 4-8. In this table, several the police and those in oUr study' 4-2 Attempt at a risk analysis of per­ different int!;,!ractions will be added (Gottingen and Bochum), 70 1-5 Victimization rates per 100,000 age, and type of residrnce, 1970, sonal victimization, 36 1973, and 1976, 18 to the main model. They will be 8-3 population age IS und over, by tested on their significance and the Legal classification of thefts: Com- 8-1 Percentage distribution of reported employment, 5 2-18 Vict~zation percentages, by sex amount of improvement related to parison of those offenses known to offenses in statistical city districts 1-6 and occupation (head of house- I the main model, 38 police and those not known to po- of Bochum (all known offenses ex­ Victimizatioo rates per 100,000 lice (including attempts) (Gottingen population age 15 and over, hold), 1970, 19'13, and 1976,18 cept store theft): Crime locations, by~ 4-10 Results of the final log-linear mod- and Bochum), 70 marital status, 6 2-19 8-2 Victimization percentages, by sex, el with two interactioo terms on Percentage distribution of nonre­ residence, and occupation, 1970, 8-4 Legal classification of offenses in- ported offenses (dark number) in 1-7 Victimization rates per 100,000 I the 1978 Dutch victim survey data. } volving theft: Comparison oinon- population age 15 and over. by 1973, and 1976,19 Dependent variable: Nonvictims Bochum statistical city districts (all reported and reported offenses known offenses except sto!'.; theft): " residential mobility, 6 3-1 Rates of four crimes in the Nether- (V[l]) and victims (V[2]) in 1978, (including attempted offenses) /' 38 Crime locations, 68 2-1 Respons&& to the question on spe- lands and in the United States, 24 (Gottingen and Bochum), 71 8-3 Comparison between reported and cial safetY ,measures taken (1973 3-2 Urbanization and crime rates, 24 5-1 Victimization percentages and re- 8-5 Value of stolen goods: Comparison survey), by victimization, 12 f nonreported crime (calculated val­ 3-3 Family income and crime rates, 25 ports to the police, by residential of nonreported and reported of- ues) in the city areas of Bochum: 2-2 Responses to the opinion question area and type of crime, 46 . fenses (including attempted of- (excluding store thefts), 69 3-4 Age, sex, and personal crime rates, 25. ':,~r~eft on violent ,crime trends (1973 sur- 5-2 Relationship of residential area and fenses) (Gottingen and Bochum), 71 vey), by victimization: 12 3~5 Rutes; of household burglary, by degree of victimization, by type of 8-6 Population figures and theft occur- time of day and occupancy, 26 2-3 Nuniber of assaults recorded by '::, crime, 46 rence in!l comparison i)etween 72 police, 1969:-76, 13 3-6 Household burglaries in the United 5-3 Correlation ("I) between the vic- cities, States and in the Netherlands, 26 tim'~, background and the type of 8-7 '..,":: 2-4 Number of assaults recorded by Quarters during which thefts oc- police and percent change, by type 3-7 Theft of wallet or'purse in the crime committed against him or curred: Comparison of offenses of residential' area, 13 United States and in the her, 47 known to police and not known to police (Gottingen and Bochum), 72 2-5 Assault rates, by type of residential Netherlands, 27 6-1 Distribution of the sample, by age, area, 1970, 1973, and 1976, 13 3-8 Street assault and robbery in the sex, and victimization, 51' 8~~ '.' Distribution of unreported offenses United States and in the 6-2 over four quarters by value of sto- ~~6 Distribution ofthe population by Marital status, sex, and" N~therlands, 27 victimization, 51 len goods (including atempted of- police-recorded assault rates for If ,.J;> fenses), 1973 (Gottingen) and 1975 area, 1970, 1973, and 1?75, 14 4-1 Percentage of Dutch people age 15 6-3 Income' of victims, 52 '" (Bochum),7'? 2-7 Rate of respondents who had ex- who were victims of an offense in the period 1973-79,30 6-4a Victimization by type or crime and 8-9 Day of the week on which the bod- perienced acts of violence de- location (males), 52 ily injury occ\!rred: Comparison of scribed in the .i\lterview, 197Q, 4-2 Commuison of the extent of crime 6-4b offenses known to police and not 1973, andl976, per 1,000 age in 1977 as recorded by the Central Victimization by type of crime and location (females), 52 known to police (Gottingen and 15+,15 Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and as Bochum), 73 2~8 Percentage distribution of sample estimated ,on the basis of the RDC 6-5 SpecifiC-crimes which were repeat- victim survey, 32? ed on the same victims. 53 8·10 Six-month peri,,\dUriog which. by sex, type of residential area, oc- bodily injuries oc#rred: Compari- cupation, and age, 1970; 1973, 4-3 Likelihood of becoming the victim 1/ 6-6 Authority status of those notified son of reported an nonreported of- and 1976,15 of one or more offenses in 1976, of CrimeS committed, 53 fense~ (Gottlngc]and BOc!lUm), 73 2':9 Changes in the victimization per- 1977, 1978, and 1979, per group 6-7 Immediate victim reactions, 53 10-1 PSy~ological efrwcts of serious centages as measured and as pre- of municipalities, 33 6-8 cflm'S~.I~ , dicted by sampJeI structure changes, 4-4 LikeIihQodof becoming the victim Prec\lul(ionary measures taken after 15 of one or more offenses in 1976, victimization, 53 10-2 Result of a factor-analysis of the .i977, and 1978 in the four largest 6-9 various psychological effects, 89 2-10 Robbely from hQme or place' of t, Number ofaltematives in the vic- cities, 33 timization question to which .the re- work,;54 10-3 Percentages of victims who had al- i! '"' lIll 4-5 .. ways taken certain preventive mea- spondents gave affirmative Number of U.S. and Dutch victims 'I' ,- 6-10 Perso!ltal robbery, 54 answer, 1970, 1973, and 1976,16 per 100,000 inhapitallts age 18 or I. : Ii sures before the crime and over, 1976, 34 6-11 Armc;d assault, 54 I~ perCentages ·of other victims, who " ~ 2-11a Number of victimizations, 1973 I' () (, 6,12 started taking such measures more \+0 and 1976, 16 4-6 Percentage of respondents who Typ~! of weapon (victims), 54 ~ often ~rter the crime, 90 were victims of one .or more of- 6-13 2-11b Number of victimizations, 1973 Nutiber of victimizations, 5$ fenses (including innct:ent parties 10-4 Results of a factor-analysis oflhe and 1976 (with n.a. category, li 6-14 Vic ims' value of the stolen preventive measures, 91 ,. reclassified), 16 in "hit and roll accidents) in 1977, 'I by age and size of municipality, 34 pr9perty, 55 " i'\ iv CtJntents

C~ntellts v ---~------,___ -__1_- it.

,:\ Introduction ~( f! ,

For many years both western criminal law most purely descriptive study in which versus 1 year). American victims had less and criminology ignored victims of crime. demographic characteristics of the victim time than Dutch victims to collect insur­ Regardless of the judicial system, the vic­ were described in great detail and the na­ ance after their victimization. tim of crime was regarded as little more ture and amount of loss was elaborated. Similar questions were asked about some than a witness;' With the occasional 'excep­ Almost all development work was aimed at crimes, but each study included different tion of research on violence, the victim improving the accuracy of crime counts. crimes. Most studies include several crimes 1,/ was rarely studied. There was an assump­ Unfortunately, few causal variables were the NCS exr;ludes, for example, white-col­ tion that all we needed to know about included and beyond description, little that lar crime and fraud, but the meaning of crime could be foliild in the law or in the was policy-relevant was possible. even the same crime may vary from coun­ character and surroundings of the criminal. From 1972 to 1980, the questionnaire ~ to country. For example, in Mexico, neither law nor the questionnaire diffetenti­ In the mid-1960's, research on victims be­ changed very little. The survey was usually gan again in the United States. Since then, administered as a stand-alone study in 'ate between 'burglary and robbery. much, money has been spent both on vic­ which in-person interviews were given to a The NCS has changed very little,.ffom its very large sample. Each year, 120,000 re­ timization research and on victim assis­ inception. The other victimizatioli's:;rv~vs 'I tance. The original impetus to begin a spondents were interviewed for the Nation­ evolved in different ways 'from this found~" !J study of victims was the belief that police al Crime Survey (NCS). tion. Most surveys do not use the complex '\ statistics on crime were an unreliable mea- screen and filter technique of the NCS. II sure of criminal activity and that most Most victim surveys in other countries They opt for a simpler design with only a crimes were not reported to the police. The were modeled on the NCS. However,. the limited number of questions about each problems with official statistics had of cost of the U.S. survey was far too high crime. Many add a variety of questions cours:, been known for ~.long tim;, but in (",fo~ most other countries."A~erage co~ts. re about fear of crime and reactions to crime the mid-1960's a recogmtlOn developed in \,jVe redl~ced by c~nc~nu:atmg ~m a 1.lmlted that were not included in the' NCS. All in­ the United States that neither crime nor geographiC area, elimmatmg remtervlews, terviews were completed in person, but police, nor courts, nor corrections had been reduci~ the number .of in!erviews, and in- some studies used trained interviewers or adequately described. If there were to be a 'corporatmg the questions mto a more gen- professional polling agencies, while others war on crime the enemy would have to be eral survey. All studies, however, retained known. ' two basic characteristics of the NCS. They used college students. In some studies, the were random samples used to determine victimization questionnaire was included in a marketing survey. In others, the survey From this recognition, a technique was de­ victimization and to ask victims specific veloped to study victims of crime. The questions about the crime and their feelings stood alone. I" studies of victims completed in 1966 about it. In these studies, theory is more constant formed"a base for much future research in Comparison of the studies in this book than operationalization. The studies incor­ the United States and around the world. must be made very cautiously. The sam­ porate a common theoretical base, similar The technique used in these early surveys pies are random, but the sampling tech­ methods, and very different operationaliza­ I involved asking a random sample of the n~ques vary from study to study. All are tion of sampling and qllcstions. therefore, population about specific criminal acts different from the NCS. Compared with dire:t rate comparisons must be made very . which might have occurred to them, fol­ the NCS, the non-U.S. studies- cautIOusly. However, the similarity of rela­ lowed by further specific questions about tionship between victimization and other each victimization. All but two of the stud­ • Sample individuals rather than house­ variables is extraordinarily uniform among ies reported in this volume use this holds. Australia is an exception. the surveys and in comparison to the NCS. methodology. • Interview respondents only once rather Even with all their differences, these vic­ than interviewing members of a continuing The early U.S. studies were intended pri­ tim surveys provide a l!nique opportunity panel. \ marily to give baseline rates for the various for comparative research. All stem from a • Use much smaller samples. The largest common concern, thc'worldwide crime crimes among different demographic sample, Australia, includes 18,694 respon­ groups. The contract of the 1966 national problem. All began from a single model dents. The smallest is about 500 cases. " and ~~ve continued with similar methods. study for example, required sex- and race­ Small samples increase the, standard error specific victimization rates by crime for for estimating' victimization rates. - This ,\look is an attempt to document the four regions of the United States. Measures • lnclude criIDes that occurred aver at least wide"variety of research in countries other of the behavior of ~he victim and the role 1 year rather than 6 months. This creates than the United States which has followed " , of the victim in the criminal justice system from our initial studies of the mid-1960's. .' greater recall problems than those of the were alsp gathered but remained largely lnclusion in this book was based on three , \, NCS. ", unanalyzed. These early studies contained criteria. To be included, a study had to- '. ~;, a wide variety of questions which were All these sample differences may affect • Report victimization or its impact. constructed with relatively little theoretical comparisons. For exa~ple, I found that .. input. At the time, this was understanda­ U.S. burglary victims Were far less likely • Use data on a country other than the ~ ble. Victims had barely begun to be than Dutch burglary victims to have re­ United States. studied. ceived insurance compensation. This diffel'­ • Report research not readily available to ence may have been a reflection of the American researchers. '-' , As the U.S. survey developed into a con­ shorter recall period of the NCS (6 months tinuing program, it solidified into an al- , \ Introductioll

I'

>. . -r-.- ,« • I + ---' ------~------~----

National studies of victimization

Victims and offenders: The Australian experience*

JOHN BRAITHWAITE\' AND DAVID BILES

The studies are divided into four sections. of Gottingen, which includes a forward re­ In the first section, national studies of Fin­ can serve either as social indicators of a cord check to police records and a reinter­ To summarize, offenders involved in the land, Australia, and the Netherlands are re­ problem of society or can point toward 1972a; Kraus 1973; New South Wales Bu­ ported. The Australian and Dutch studies view of victims. The Kirchoffs also types of crimes of interest here are dispro­ The crimes. Interview data were gathered describe Stephan and Villmow's study of specific policy changes. The U.S. surveys reau of Crime Statistics and Research are explicitly comparative. Braithwaite and have been fairly good social indicators but portionately male, young, urban residents, 1974). on all victimizations during the previous 12 Emmendingen young adults that includes months for 10 types of crime: Biles demonstrate that Hindelang's state­ very poor policy guides. In several coun­ black, of lower socioeconomic status, un­ both victimization and offense self-reports. employed (and not in school), and unmar­ • Black (New South Wales Bureau of ment of the similarity of victims and of­ tries, most notably, the Netherlands, victim • Break and enter-Breaking into and en­ They find a striking similarity between vic­ ried. In our brief review of victim fenders holds true for both counti.'!;\/J'hey surveys have increasingly become policy Crime Statistics and Research 1972; Biles tering a dwelling and then committing or find that demographic factors such,...s 'Ur­ tims and offenders and a positive relation­ characteristics above, and in earlier chap­ 1973; Criminal Law and Penal Methods ship between social class and victimization. guides. The policy function of victim re­ intending to commit a crime in that banization and age are important determi­ ters, it was seen that victims disproportion­ Reform Committee of South Australia dwelling. Stephan in another study of Stuttgart in­ search as suggested by Waller, and demon­ nants of the probability of victimization strated in some of the other stUdies, are ately share these characteristics. (Hindelang 1973:202-4; New South Wales Department cludes both a psychological inventory and et aI. 1978:259) • Motor vehicle tlzeji-Stealing or illegally both in Australia and the United States. now being considered in the United States. of Corrective Services 1974; Eggleston a more detailed assessment of fear of crlme 1976: 15-16). using a motor vehicle or using a motor ve­ Aromaa's review of violence in Finland than in the U.S. survey. The Kirchhoffs The first national victimization survey con­ hicle without authorization. Comparative studies of many countries are • Of IOIVer socioeconomic status (Barber • Theft-Stealing without threatening or also demonstrates the importaece of urban­ also report on Schwind's study of Bochum. relatively rare in criminology. I hope this ducted in Australia has produced results 1973; New South Wales Bureau of Crime ization and age diytnbutions as factors in Part of this study is reported at the end of that in many respects are similar to those using violence or force to any person or book becomes one of many. Neither theOl:­ Statistics and Research 1974; Kraus 1975; property. the increase of c~me. The stUdy is also in­ the second section. Schwind's study is obtained in the United States. The findings Smith 1975; and Roberts 1977; ies of crime nor the method used to exmJi~ Duns~!ln • Fraud, forgery, false pretenses-All teresting for its ~btailed analysis of the se­ unique in its comparative detail. Police and ine them are so different in different provide strong support for the proposition Braithwaite 1979), riousness of viq~ent assaults. 1 types of fraud, forgery, uttering (circulat­ victim survey rates of crime are Compared countries as to exclude comparison. Th~\~:, 'that victims and offenders share many • Unemployed (Braithwaite 1978; Kraus, by geographic district in the city. Taken as characteristics. If the Australian data can ing any fraudulent document or money), The two Dutch studies add some new var­ studies presented here have shown thar-i:ip­ 1978; South Australian Office of Crime falsification of records, false pretenses, and iables to the explanatory mix, In my com­ a whole, these studies indicate a very wide timization is not a random event: Age and be shown to confirm the American findings Statistics 1978, 1980a; Braithwaite 1980). of substantial similarities between victims all offenses involving false claims, decep­ parative study, opportunity structure difference in notification percentages in urbanization are consistently key factors in • And unmarried (Martin et aI. 1979; and offenders, a strong case can be made tion, trickery, cheating, or breaches of appears as an important determinant of the different cities and even different districts victimization. The relationship between so­ South Australian Office of Crime Statistics for linking victimological studies with the trust. large difference in rates of household bur­ of the same city. Regardless of local vari­ cial class and Victimization, While general­ 1980b). more traditional stUdies of offenders. The • Rape and attempted rape-All rape, at­ glary in the United States and the Nether­ ation, however, crime severity is the most ly negative in the U.S, survey (poor people similarities between the two groups may tempted rape, and assault with intent to lands. Van Dijk and Steinmetz use a important determinant of notification. are more often victimized) is generally Australia now has a National Crime Vic­ also have profound implications for crime rape. Only females were asked about rape sophisticated method (log-linear analysis) positive in the studies presented here. Sev­ tims Survey conducted by the Australian In the third section, two more cities,'Mon­ prevention policies and practices. Bureau of Statistics (1979) which permits victimization. to develop a model of vktimization that in­ eral studies emphasized lifestyle as an im­ treal and Amsterdam, are studied. Both consideration of whether these demogra­ • Robbery-Stealing which involves the cludes demographics, opportunity structure, portant determinant of chance of This papcr sets out to show that what Hin­ studies concentrate on serious crime and. phic characteristics are also typical of threat or use of actual violence or force to and risktaking behavior. victimiZation. The reasons given for failure delang et aI. found from their extensive re­ use police records as a sample base. One crime victims. The national sample of a person or property. to ,notify the police are generally consistent view and analysis of the American The second section of"the book reports vic­ criticism of the National Crime Survey has 18,694 persons might seem small com­ • Assault-Unlawful attack by one person been its inability to assemble detailed in­ among the studies. Less severe crimes are evidence is also substantially true in Aus­ tim surveys of particular locations. Gideon pared to American surveys, but the sam­ upon another for the purpose of inflicting formation on particular forms of crime. less likely to be reported. However, the '~i1'alia-the demographic profiles of crime Fishman details a study of personal and pling fraction is higher given the relatively bodily injury. pereent

o N(Jfiollal.stlldies of victimization 3 1/ ,., \,,~, v

); I " I: I \ ... ya -..~ Bureau's------~------~------~------~,---- weighted national estimate is a ~ superior statistic to the raw figure. The 1-1. Approximate standard error percent problem. A number of callback studies (SI< 1-3. Victimization rates per 100,000 population aile 15 and over, by age RaLe. Since Aborigin~ls constitute less weighting procedure is such that raw fig­ for survey estimates of numbers dennan et al. 1967; Ennis 1967; U.S. Bu­ than 1%of the Australian popUlation, a of victimizations In Australia, 1975 reau of the Census 1970a, 1970b; LEAA . Crime much larger sample would be required to ures from different geographic areas will 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-39 1972) have shown that faulty memory is a ' 40-49 50-59 60 and permit inferences conceming race .. Racial be mUltiplied by different weights depend­ over ing on the proportion of the population of Crime Estimated Standard problem with victim surveys, even though ':": dlfta were not collected in the Australian number of error Gottfredson and Hindelang (1977) found Break and enter 155.1 2,397.2 2.164.8 survey. the nation living in that area the response victimizations percent 2,523.3 1,778.6 1.748:7 1.409.1 rate. that memory error ten1led to be random Motor vehicle theft 418.7 1,398.6 905.8 1,262.5 Robbery with violence 865.1 436.4 55.1 Socioeconomic Stntus. Both Wilson and 77.2 534.3 54.1 163.1 159.8 Break and enter rather than,systematically related to charac­ Theft 160.5 97.8 146,500 8.5 6,302.4 12,603.2 11,546.9 9,148.9 6,522.2 4,427.3 Brown (1973) and Congalton and Najman While the weighting procedure provided a Motor vehicle theft 'teristics of the victim (such as age, race, . Fraud, forgery, 2.812.8 superi"lir statistic, it does create some com­ 62.700 9.8 (19704) failed to confirm a negative rela­ Robbery with education) (cf. Skogan't975). Viciim sur­ false pretenses 860.8 3,508.6 4,818.3 4,017.0 Peeping 3,217.6 1,034.4 731.6 tionship between socioeconomic status and plexJty for the social scientist who might violence 14.200 18.6 veys have been criticized both for under­ 1,215.5 2,562.9. .., 932.9 1.164.0 3,713.3 Theft Indecent exposure 1.370.0 40.6 aggregate victimization rate in Australia. be interested in calculating a conventioh~1 609.900 3.4 counting (Maltz 1975) and for 619.9 706.2 . 542.9 323.0 222.1 Fraud, forgeiy. Rape, attempted rape 46.2 174.8 127.0 140.1 187.1 53.3 Moreover. this is the picture from cross­ test of statistical significance. Tests of sig­ false pretenses overcounting (Levine 1976). There is evi­ Nuisance calls 214,100 8.6 8,612.0 18,512.0 30,671.3 27,536.3 21.634.7 19.501.3 9,246.7 tabulations of National Crime Survey vic­ nificance have not been calculated for each Rape, attempted dence that accuracy of recall of known vic­ Assault 3,676.2 5,792.4 1,803.9. 3.205.0 759.9 1,702.7 178.0 timization rates by"education , occupation, comparison made in this paper. However, " rape 7,800 26.5 timizations declines as the gap in time Table 1-1 provides the standard errors for NUisance calls 1,612,594 ' 11.3 Y income of respondents, and household ill" Peeping between interview and incident i11creases come (see particularly Braithwaite and survey estimates. of the number of victim- 127.892 27.5 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1970a). Indecent exposure 26.366 15.1 1-4. Victimization rates per 100,000 popu!atlon age 15 and over, by residence In State capital cities Biles 1980). In some iespects, higher so­ izations of each type. ' Assault r, versus other urban centers . 191,500 13.6 Hence, U.S. data, based as they are on 6- cioeconomic status respondents have higher As can be seen in Table 1-1, the survey es­ . month recall periods, employs a method.' victimization rates. Tertiary educated re­ State timate is that 146,500 break-and-enter vic­ ology superior to the SiEgle 12-monlh Crime Other spondents are more likely to be victims of capital tirban timizations occurred in Australia during 1-2. Victimization rates per 10(1,000 recall o~ the Australiar:isurvey. Moreover, Total nonviolent property crimes but I~ss likely cities centers Australia, 1975. The standard error on this estimate is population age 15 and qver, by sex because this first Australian survey is un­ to be victims of assault. There is a consis­ approximately 8.5%. This means that the Break anc! Imter bounded, the problem of forward telescop­ 1,933.9 1,369.9 tent positive correlation bet,ween gross. standard error is 8.5% of 146,500, (that is, Crime Male Female Motor vehicle theft 1,768.8 ing is greater than in a bounded survey 917.4 369.6 757.0 weekly income of household amI vehicle 12,500). Discounting nonsampling errors, Robbery with violence 218.1 which asks respondents whether. they havoC' Theft 56.9 170.9 . tbeft victimization. (possibly because Break and enter 2.851.9 715.3 . 7,992.6 there are therefore about two chances in been a victim "since the. last interview." /' FraUd, forgery. 5.837.0 7,361.6 wealthy ho.useholds own more auto­ Motor vehicle theft 1,265:80 .7'::::"::-~;;" three thilt the true number of break and en" 262.1 false pretenses" Theft 8.854,8 5.909.4 LEAA has found that unbounded surveys 2,374.8 3,090.1 mobiles). There is a positive correlation ters in Australia during 1975 was between Fraud, forgery, Peeping 2,584.2 produce higher victimization rates than 1,595.1 1,419.8 1,543.8 between family income ami automobile fals!) pretenses Indecent exposure 134,000 and 159,000; and about 19 4.145] 1,065.4 bounded surveys, presumably because of 413.9 87.4 318.3 theft victimization in the lJIl\ted States as Rape and attempted Rape, attempted rape '-:..-\ chances in 20 that it was between 121 ,500 113.5 48.4 94.5 rape " forward telescopin¢' (OECD 1976:26). Nuisance: calls 23,586.8 well (Gottfredson'(~t~. 1978:348).' and 17I,~90. 186.4 Assault 9,509.3 19,465.6 Robbery with violence 168.0 173.6 \' 2.726.0 1,287.9 As.sault 2,305.0 The Hindelang et ~r(I~:C,te that opens this Adequacy of the data. Funding for criminal 3.n5.4 847.9 Nuisance calls 10,516.9 Correlates of Victimization paper refers to dat<{v.ttlle violent crimes: justice research is miniscule in Australia 28,170.7 Peeping 3,045.4 rape, robbery, assault, and larceny from Sex, According to the design of the re­ 1-5. when compared to the United States. The Indecent exposure 627.9 Vlctlmlzatloo rates per 100,000 population the person. In the Australian survey, the search, only Women were eligible for rape, age 15 and over, by employment Australian Bureau of Statistics, whicb has last of th~se types of crime is not rep~­ responsibiiityfur the census, is the only or­ ptlaping, and ifi,ueeent exposure victitniza-' sented as a separate entity, and the first national comparability will be fostered by (/ ganization in Australia with the resources tion. Apart from these tmee, the only of­ Crime Not In Employed focusing on objective categories of harm. , Employed Employed two have an intolerably high standard error and expertise to' conduct survey res'1!arch of fense on which women repbrted a higher work force UnemployEid full-time part-lime For example, with assault, "injuries given for rnost purposes because of the smaller a standard comparable with the American, level of victimization was nuisance calls. sample and lower crime rate in Australia. medical attention" or '~requiring hospital­ Break and enter 918.4 .,3,162.3 work. The high res'podlse rate in the Na­ Table 1-2 shows that men had higher vic­ Motor vehicle theft 2,748.3 1,150.6 It is therefore quite possible that if ade­ ization" are more useful categories for timization rates for break and enter (largely 192.9 409.9 1,317.8 706,3 tional((:rime Victims Survey and the level Robbery with violence 82.9 364.4 quate data were available, the Australian comparative purposes than "grievous bodily Theft 257;0 146.3 of training alld experience of the interview­ because men were more likely to be nomi­ 4,799.8 12.927.5 hann," "actual bodily harm," etc. N:~ver­ Fraud, forgery, 9,451.8 7,741.3 and American data might converge to show ers could never have been achieved in a nated as head of the household), vehicle a positive correlation between victimization theless, medical treatment might indicate a false pretenses :::?~~) 633.9 2,864.7 university-based survey. theft, theft, fraud, forgery, false pretenses, Peeping 4,384.4 2,659.1 1,535.8 11,395.0 and income for certain nonviolent property more serious assault in a poor country than and assault. The other local surveys by Indecent exposure 1,389.6 1,047,1 371.5 321.8 286.0 offenses (particularly automobile theft) and Even so, there were problems in this first in one where most people can afford a Wilson and Brown (1973) and Congalton I Rape, ~\lemptedrape 372.9 I 116.6 72.0 a negative correlation for certain violent of­ national survey which hopefully will be re­ doctor." ,I and Najman (1974) both confinn that in i Nuisance calls 147.2 '':.':' J 2,443.2 15,266:6 1;7,834.7 26.835.3 fenses. In this respect, the Australian data dressed next time around-problems that Assault 1,211.7, Victim surveys that are designed for inter~ aggregate men are more likely than Women I. 8,374.8 3,?83.0 1,467.6 have a long way to go. "'.", the bureau simply had not foreseen. For to be victims of crime. example, rape within marriage is an of­ national comparability can facilitate more meaningful comparisons than police statis­ Urban residence. Data to compare strictly Unemployment, Despite the generally fense in some but not most Australian ju: Age. American data tend to show respon­ er than 500. Hence, the comparison in equivocal nature of Australian findings on risdictions. Because there were no tics· that are designed for domestic purposes dents around the 20-year age group having urban versus rural residents are not avail­ Table 1-4 is not an urban-rural one but a only, but the level of comparability one abie from any of the Australian surveys. socioeconomic status, the findings about instructions to· cover the contingency of re.­ the highest victimization rate, with both comparison between large cities and small­ ullemployment specifically are supportive Nevertheless, there is Ii good approxima­ ported rape within marriage, no one really would like can never be achieved. Nor, for younger and older people having lower er cities and towns. In Table 1-4, for all that matter, can one do away with subcul­ tion in the National Victims Survey com­ of the Hi'ndelling et aI. assertion. The WI­ knows how this issue has been resolved by rates (e.g., Hindelang 1976:112). The aged crime categories except fraud, forgery, and parison between State capitnl cities and the employed have clearly higher rates of vic­ interviewers in different jurisqictions. In tural differences in typifications of ct"imes. (over 60) have the lowest rate. Australian false pretenses, the capital citle!; have high. between interviewers and responOents. rest of the population. " timization for theft, break and enter" the next survey, if it is funded, greater ef­ data tend to be consistent with this picture, er reported victimization rates. A finding However, some basic methodological defi­ peeping. and assault (Table 1-5). Most fort will be devoted to injecting more detail with the 20-24 year olds having the highest The'Stnte capitals are ,1111 large cities, that urban residence is a feature shared by ciencies of the Australian survey can be re­ striking is the difference with respect to as­ into the manual defining the terms used in rates on the majority of offenses, and the .. though the rest of thepopulatAon includes both criminals and victims is hardly of sault, where the unemployed were more medied simply by a more rigorous over-60s the lowest (Table 1-3), Again, great moment. If there are more criminals questions. Moreover, less importance will approach. three moder'l\cly large cities with popula­ than twice as likely to report victimization be atta9hed to legally correct definiti~ns Wilson and Brown (1973) and Congalton tions of over 200,000. Moreover. it should in urban areas, then of course there should than those in full time jobs and six {imes as and more to specifying categories of be­ The Australian reSearch is clearly inferior and Najman (1974) support the association be remembered .that the v~Ptim survey ex­ be more victims in urbU'::lareas. likely to have been assaulted than respon­ havior that can be recorded reliably. lnter- in the way it deals with the telescoping of youth with victimization. cludes rural localities with populations low- dents not in the workforce br in part-time jobs. 4 National studies of victimization \: National stlldies oj victimiz(,Jrion 5

1, '.'

\« .. . " ------~------'''-""------:------',~~

(I (I I tI""'~ The unemployed did have lower rates of ' victimization for automobile theft and nui­ \\ 1-6. VictlmlzatlOI:l rates per 100,000 population age 15 end ove~. by marital status cussion here will be limited to three broad years of their Iives.~t was f?und ~h~t haY­ never went to church were notablysuscept­ sance calls, perhaps because they did not types of interpretations that have Some ing been a stab~jngor ~hootmg VICtl1!l was ible to victimization. Wilson and Brown own motor vehicles or telephones. They Crime Never Now I plausibility; Empirical work has not been the best of seve\ral pre,;hctors of self-~eport­ were only half tongue-in-cheek when they are also less likely to report being victims Separated, done that would permit a judgment as to married married Widowed divorced ed involvement:1n violent crime: "The most opted fora public space expl~nation: "Per­ of fraud, forgery, andtfalse pretenses-an the validity of any of the interpretations:' critical determinarii:\of having committe~ a ,haps non-attenders are more likely to fre­ expected finding because it is people in Break and enter 1,368.0 Yet there is an interesting phenomenon to serious self-reported assault is being a VIC­ Motor vehicle theft 1,661.4 1,966.8 6,162.3 quent hotels, theaters, and. other places of business who generally report this kind of 000.5 n1.8 72.6 1,4n.4 be explained, perhaps even a seminal find­ tim of seriou& assault" (Singer 1979:10). entertainment, thus rendenng themselves Robbery with violence 337.2 crime. Standard error with respect to rob~ Theft 1t,?,9 115.0 304.0 ing that might establish. the.great rele~ance However when Singer switched from self­ more open to victimization, whi~e church­ 8,598.6 7,088.9 bery, indecent exposure, and rape is too Fraud, forgery, 3,752.7 15,433.5 of victimology to the directIOn of mam­ reports t; official. records of seriou~ Y.iolent goers generally pursue a more clr.cumspect l high for any statement' to be made about false pretenses 1,836.2 3,011.5 338.9 5,436.6 stream criminology. It is important to set offenses, the correlation ,between victim existence, abstaining from the b~Isterous :' the rates for these offenses among the Peeping 1,187.3 1,312.1 2,989.0 6,542.5 down alternative theories ~hatcould pro­ "and offender status continued to apply for nightlife and avoiding places of 111 repute!" unemployed. " Indecent exposure 747.8 \ \Rape, attempted rape 203.6 480.4 vide a framework for future empirical work the adult years of the cohort but not for the From the trivial to the sublime, Cohen and 133.0 64.4 53.1 323.9 l\1uisance calls 7,986.0 in .the area. juvenile. years. Despite this last discourag- _ Felson (1979) have had'remarkable success Marital status. Hindelang et al. conclude Assault 21,348.4 1,093.3 69,206.8 4,003.8 ing finding, the evidence as a whol~ i.s in explaining variations in crime rates in that in the United States the unmarried are '904.0 54.0 22,109.3 First, there is the provocative expla?a~ion more likely to be criminals and victims of that victims are often themselves cnmmals. consistent with the inference that VICtI~S the United States between 1947 and 1974 crime. The Australian data in Table 1-6 in­ Differential association with criminals and criminals have similar demographic by indicators of the proport~on ?f time peo­ dicate that if the widowed are to be count­ 1,...7. ~ Victimization rat" per 100,000 populatlO!! characteristics because many victims are ple spent outside the home m different per­ age 15 and over, by residential mobility ~ght lead to "an excess of definition~ .fa­ ed as unmarried, there are problems in vorable to violation of law oyer defimtlOns criminals. For' future national victimization iods. The public space explanation does surveys, consideration should be. given to sustaining this proposition. unfavorable to vioJ et al. (1978), constitute a compelling case sault'victimization. Singer (1979) followed crime (Skogan and Klecka 1977; Sparks et Biles 1980)'; .Interestingly though, WII~on bility were those who were least likely to Another suggestive finding is that owners for the proposition that offenders and vic­ up a sample of567 of the Wolfgang et aI. and Brown (1973:84:-5) found somethmg al. 1977; Braithwaite et aI. 1979; Garafalo be Victims. Hence,h7gh residential mobil- of firearms had higher victimization rates tims have similar characteristics. FTOm that (1972) cohort. ~espondent~ 'Yere asked 1979; Mugford 1980). Ri~ktakers, .by defi­ Q, comparable ..Church attendance had a clear LJ' than nonowners for break and enter, motor simple proposition, the imagination can run whethcr they had bee,* a Ylctlm ?f a stab­ relationship with victimization. Those who nition are less afraid of flsks. So If people wild with· possible explanations. 'I'he dis- bing or shootin~ at any time durmg the 26 beco~e victims of crime because they are 6 National studies o/victimization , N(Jtiomiiswdies of victimization 7 \ i", ~; t~, 1"-. '\1 } I:) .' )". risktakers, why should we be swprised to .""~------­ r\ find that victims of crime are less afraid of Figure 1-1. Schema for an explanation of victim/offender aimllarity. Braithwaite, John, and David Biles (1979) of Justice. Washington: U.S. Govern­ delinquencY in New South Wales," Aus­ crime? "On being unemployed and being a vic­ ment Printing Office. tralia/I Journal of SociaL Issues 8:227- tim of crime," Australiall Journal of So­ Feather, N. T. (1975) Propensity to violence: People with victim 233. ciallssues 14: 192-200. Vailles in education and society, New loffender characteristics are more likely to Kraus, 1. (1975) Braithwaite, J., and David Biles (1980) York: Free Press, pp. 181-183. adopt violent role models. Young males "Ecology of juvenile delinquency in met­ "Overview of findings from the first Fielding, J. (1977) are more likely to identify with Muham­ ropolitan Sydney," JournaL of Communi­ Australian national crime victims sur­ "Female delinquency," in.P. R. Wilson mad Ali than are elderly females. Obvious­ Victim/offender ty Psychology 3:384-395. vey ," Austra/.ial! alld New Zealand J our­ (ed.), Delinquency in Australia: A criti­ Iy, i.t is not dif~cult to postulate propensity ccharacteristics Kraus, J. (1977)" nal of Criminology 13:41-51. cal appraisal. Brisbane: University of to vIolence (be It based on attitudinal toler­ ,,(youth, maleness, "Some aspects of delinquency in Austra­ unemployment, etc.) Braithwaite, J., D. Biles, and R. Whitrod Que,ensland Press. ance of violence or adoption of violent role lia," in P. R. Wilson (ed.), Delinqll,ency (1979) Francis, R. D. (1975) models) as a factor leading to violent in Australia: A critical appraisal, BHs­ "Fear of crime in Australia," Proceed­ "Migrant imprisonment rates in New crime. As far as victimization is con­ bane: University of Queensland Press. ings of (he Third International Sympo­ South Wales since federation," Austra­ cerned, we know that hostility (be it in the Kraus, J. (1978) sium Oil Vittimo!ogy, Muenster. lian and New Zealand Journal of Crimi­ "Juvenile unemployment and delinquen­ form of a derogatory remark or a jostle) Challinger, D. (1977) nology 5:206-209. promotes reciprocal hostility. Moreover, cy," in Unemployment and crime, Pro­ YoungoffelJders. Carlton: Victorian As_ Francis, R. D. (1977) Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) have elo­ ceedings of the Institute of Criminology, sociation for the Care and Resettlement "Contemporary issues concerning migra­ quently advanced an "ethos of violence" in no. 36, University of Sydney. of Offenders. tion and crime in Australia," in D. victim/offender interactions that simulta­ ~ar~di~m shift that.criminology n~eds. Vic- .J,iles, (1977a) Law Enforcement Assistance Administra­ P: Clinard, M. B. (1964) Chappell ,md.P. R. Wilson (eds.), The tion, U.S. Department of Justice, Na­ neously explains the crime and the choice future wIll be of c::;7 "Prisons and prisoners in Australia," in timl~at1on surve~sm th~ "The relation of urbanization and urban­ Australian criminal justice system, Syd­ tional Institute of Law Enforcement and of victim: partIcular va~u.e Jf. the~ mc.orporate self-re- D~ Chappell and P. R. Wilson (eds.), ism to criminal behavior," in E. W. Bur­ ney: Butterw.orths., Criminal Justice, Statistics Division. ports of m, cnme as a The criminal justice system, . . . when the attacked see, their as­ ~artlclpatlOn ~s wel~ Au.s~rali(jn gessand D. Bogue. (eds.), Contributiolls Francis, R~, and A. Cassel (1975) (1972) saulters as agents of the same kind of range ~f Ite~s on the use ?f leISUre time 2nd edItIOn, Sydney: Butterworths. to urb(lII sociology, Chicago: University A national prisoll sllrvey with particuLar spen~ m p.ubhc spa~ and mterpersonal Biles, D. (1977b) Sail Jose methods tests of known crime a?gression they themselves represent, of Chicago Press. reference to birthpLace. Report to the . victims. Statistics technical report no. 1. relatIOnshIps. "C:ar stealing; in Australia," in PaulR. vIolent retaliation is readily legitimized Cochrane, R. (1974) Criminology Research Council, Can­ Washington: U.S. Government Printing by a situationally specific rationale, as WIlson. (ed:), Delinquency in Australia: "Values and correlates of deviance;" barm, December. Office. well as by the generally normative sup­ References A critical appraisal. St. Lucia: Universi­ British Journal of Social and Clinical Garafalo, J .. (1979) Levine, James (1976) . ty of Queensland Press, pp. 101-115. Psychology 13;257-267. ports for violence (Wolfgang and Ferra­ Altliuizen,F. (1977) . .. .. j "Victimization and the fear of crime," "The potential for crime overreporting in cuti 1967:161). BIles, D. (!977c). Cohen, L. E., and N. Felson (1979) "Juvenile offenders in South Australia" I Journal of Research in Crime and Delin­ criminal victimization surveys," Crimi­ "Prisons and prisoners," in D. Biles ! "Social change and: crime rate trends: A quency 16:80-97. Alcohol consumption: Again it is Wolfgang in P. R. Wilson (ed.), Delinquency in' f nology 14:307-330. (ed.), Crime and justice in Australia, routine activities approach,", American Gordon, R.,A., J. F. Short, D. S: Cart­ (1958) who first established the importance Australia: A critical appraisaL. Brisbane: I Longmoor,E. S., and E. F. Young (1936) Melbourne: Australian Institute· of Crimi­ Sociological Review 44:588-'607. wright, and F. L. Strodtbeck (1963) of alcohol in crime. He found that alcohol University of Queensland Press. ! "Ecolog'ical interrelationships of juvenile nology and Sun Books. ! Congalton, Athol A., and Jake M. Najman "Values and gang delinquency: A study delinquency, dependency, and popula­ was a factor in almost two-thirds of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (1979) I Biles, David, and John Braithwaite (1979) (1974) of street comer groups," American Jour- homicides in ,his study (see also Wolfgang General sociaL survey: Crime victims, tion movements: A cartographic analysis "Crime victims and the police," Austra­ Who are the victims. Sydney: New naL of Sociology 69:109-128. . and Strohm, 195(5). A similar result has May 1975. Catalogue No. 4105.0. Can­ of data from Long Beach, California," lian Psychologist 14:345-355. '. t·, South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics Gottfredson, Michael R., and MichealJ. been found in AustralIa (Bartholomew berra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. American Journal of Sociology 41:598- Biles,'David, John BraithWaite, and Valer­ and\~~seatch. Hindelang, (1977) 610. ' 1968). The assumption is ,that alcohol con­ Ball-Rokeach, S. (1973) v f ie Braithwaite (1979) " Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform "A consideration of memory decay and sumption loosens inhibitions against devi­ "Values and violence: A test of the sub­ Lunden, W. A. (1964) "The mental health of the victims of' Committee of South Australia (1973) telescoping biases in victimization sur­ ance, both in the form of crime and culture of violence thesis," American Statistics on delinquents and delinquen­ crime," International Journal of Offender First report: Sentencing and corrections. veys," Journal of Criminal. Justice pr?vocative conduct that mightprecipitate SocioLogical Review 38:736-750. i, cy. Springfield, IlL: Charles C. Thomas, TherapY.and Comparative Criminology Adelaide: South Australian Government 5:205-216. came from others (see WolfgangI967:83). Barber, R. (1973) pp. 152-154. 23:129-114. J Printer, pp. 202-204. Gottfredson, Mi<:hael R., Micheal J. Hin- U?der the influence of alcohol, people "An investigation into rape and attempt­ Maltz, Michael (1975) ". Braithwaite, J. (1977) . Dunstan, 1.. A-. P., and_S_-E.~obertli._~" ._ ed rape cases in Queensland. "; Australian - g~!!!ngAmQ NiGQ!~!t!l--.P!!ri~i (~QS,) (1918) -.~ '~Crime- statistics; "A, mathematical ~per~ ~ght have a greater propensity to risktak­ "Australian delinquency: Research and (1977) . . Sourcebook of criminal jll"fice stlUis­ mg, and might be more "vincible" as tar­ and New Zealand Journal of Crimtnol­ spective," Journal of Criminal Justice practical considerations," in P. R.Wil­ Delinquency and socioeconomic status: tics-I977. Washington: ".S. Depart­ gets for (Hindelang et aI. ogy 6:214-230. 3;177-194. c~~ 1978:~06). son (ed.),Deltnquency in Australla: A An ecological analysis of Melbourne. ment of Justice, LEAA. ~o~eover, It IS assumed that people with Bartholomew, A. A. (1968) Martin, J., M. K. Rook, and P. Filton critical appraisal, Brisbane: University of Occasional monograph no. 1. Mel­ Hindelang, M. 1. (1976) vIctim/offender characteristics are more "Alcoholism and crime," Australian a1ld (1979) Queensland Press. . bourne: Caulfield Institute of Criminal victimization ill' eight American likely to indqlge in alcohol consumption, New Zealand JournaL of Criminology Trends in prison population in Victoria. Braithwaite, J. (1978) Technology. cities. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. perhaps particularly at times when they go 1:70-99. Victoria: Department of Community "~nemployment and crime: An interpre­ Eaton, J. W., and K. Polk (1961) out into public space. Biderman, Albert; LouisC'lC'~,iison; Jennie Hindelang, M. J., M. R. Gottfredson, and Welfare Se(Vices, February. tatIOn of the international evidence," in Measuring delinquency: A study of pro­ McIntyre; and Adreanne Weir (1967) J. Garofalo (1978) Miller, W. (1958) Unemployment and crime, Proceedings Because it is somewhat more complex than Report on a pilot study in the District of bation department referrals. Pittsburgh: Victims ofpersonal crime: An empiricaL "Lower-class culture as a generating mi­ t!te p~evious two, this third set of explana­ of ~he Institute of Criminology, No. 36, lJniversity of Pittsburgh Press. foundation for a theory of personal vic­ lieux of gang delinquency,"JournaL of Columbia on victimization and attitudes Umversjty of Sydney. tions IS represented schematically in Figure toward law enforcement, field surveys I. Eggleston, E. (1976) timizatif{lI. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Social Issues 15:5-9. 1-1. Braithwaite, J. (1979) .' I Fear, favQurot affection: Aborigines and President's COmmission on Law En­ I; Johnson, Joan H., H. B. Kerper, D. D. "Mugford, S (l980) Inequality, Crime, alld publiopolioy. t 1 the criminal law in Victoria, South Aus­ Hayes, andG. G. Killinger (1973) The three explanations considered here forcement and Administration of Justice. , "Fear of crime: The role of the mass me­ London and Boston: Routledge and Ke­ tralia mld WesteriFAustralia.Canberra: The recidivist victim: A descriptive ground~d as they are in a modicum of ~m­ Washington: U.S. Government Printing dia," paper to Conference of Australian ganPaul. Australian National University Press. study. Criminal justice monograph 4(1). pirical work on victim/offender similarity, Office. v u . and New Zealand Association for the Braithwaite, J. (1980) Ennis, Phillip (1967) Huntsville, Tex.: Sam Houston State d.eserve systeD?atic investigation. It is pos­ Biles, D. (1973) Advancement of Science, Adelaide, , Prisons, education and work. Brisbane: Criminal victimization in the United University. . May.' .. ' SIble that movmg from separate studies of "Aborigines and pnsons: A South Aus­ Australian Institute of Criminology and States: A report of a national survey: Kraus, J.(1973) criminals and victims to studies of the vic­ tralian stUdy," Australian and New Zea­ Mukherjee, S;, and W. Fitzgerald (1978) University of Queensland Press. Field surveys 1I. President3(COmmission "UIt~'~y<;.tion and patterns of juvenile In search offemale criminality: Are tim/offender nexus' could be the kind of Land JournaL of Criminology 6:246-250, '-J '\j . on Law Enforcement and Administration women bad. enough yet? Canberra: Aus~ , tralian Institute of Criminology. , 8 Natior.al studies of victimization " ,. n o National studies afvictimizatio/l 9 HI, t" tf ;~ r, 0 }' """'"-'::--~ ....-..,..,.---""." ~~~---~--~ --~---

{j Three surveys of violence in Finland

KAUKO AROMA A* ______~?7-~~--"-~------() U New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statis­ Shaw,. C. R., and H. D. McKay (1969) Sullenger, T. E. (1936) tics and Research (1972) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Social determinants ill juvelliledelin­ Aborigines ill prison: Census 1971. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. quellcy. New York: Wiley. The Finnish victimization surveys ties. The work on development, on the In 1973 and 1976, the number of victim­ Sydney. Sherwin, R. C. (1968) Sutherland, E. R., and D. R. Cressey A paper on "Everyday Violence in 'Fin­ other hand, is appropriate for a~pecialized ization incidents occurring during the 2- New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statis­ Social class values and deviant behavior: (1970) e research institute. The victimization mea­ year period was also asked: tics and Research (1972) land" (Aromaa 1971) reports the, first in a . An empirical test) of some theories of de­ Crimillology .. 8th edition. Philadelphia: series of Finnish Surveys on victims of vio­ sure used in the studies reported here has, Crime in our cities: A comparative re­ How many different times have'such in­ linquency. Ph.D. dissertation, University J. B. Lippincott. lent crime. These interviews were carried accordingly, changed over time. The' 2- port.. Sydney: Statistical Report 6. of Connecticut. year times pan covered by the original mea­ cidents happened to you during the past U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970a) out in December 1970, and the study has 2 years? New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statis- Short,I. F. and F. L. Strodtbeck (1965) "Victim recall pretest (Washington, sure has been cut down to I year (12 tics and Research (1974) ,_ been replicated ,twice, in 1973 and 1976. Group processaredgang delinquency. D.C.): Household survey of victims of Similar studies have been conducted in months), and the survey sample has been In addition to these basic questions, some A thousand prisoners. Sydney: Statistical Chicago: University of Chicago 'Press. crime." Mimeographed. Suitland, Md: improved. (The field work was turned over details of the victimization incidents were Report 3. three other NordiC countri~s (cf. H(ume and Singer, S. 1. (1979) U.S. Bureau of the Census, Demogra­ Wolf 1974). 1\'1 Denmark (Wolf 1977) and to anqther'survey organization, using a dif­ asked, varying from survey to survey. Gal­ New South Wales Department of Correc­ "Victims and offenders: Another look at phic Surveys Division. ferent sample design; see Siren 1980.) lup~s standard background variables (age, tive ServIces (1973) Norwa~i (Hauge 1975) replications have their relationship," paper at meeting of U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970b) . been made; in Sweden, the next step after sex, occupation, type of commune*) could NSW prison population 1973: A statisti­ A fourth round of Gallup interviews, American Society of Criminology, Phila­ "Household survey of victims of crime: the initial ~ survey following the Finnish scheduled for 1979, was not carried out. be used in the analysis. cal report. Sydney: Research and Statis­ delphia, November. Second pretest (Baltimore, Maryland)." model consisted of an independent pilot The time series is thus broken off; but it tics Division publication no. 3. Skogan, W. G., and W. R. Klecka (1977) Mimeographed. Suitland, Md: U.S. Bu­ study aimed at proViding a starting point will be continued, slightly modified, in The samples New South Wales Department of Correc­ Thefear of crime, WaShington: Ameri­ reau of the Census, Demographic Sur- tive Services (1974) for a new series of national statistics (cf. 1980; Late in 1980, the Central Statistical can Political Science Association. veys Division. , Persson 1977). Office of Finland will conduct a large vic­ The sanlples used by Gallup in the market Census of prisoners 1974: Prisoners' so­ Skogan, Wesley G. (1975) Wilson, Paul R., and Jill Brown (1973) timization survey, planned in cooperation .surveys in question are designed to repre­ cial background. Sydney: Research and "Measurement problems in official arid Crime alld the community. Brisbane: The use of victim surveys originated in the sent the resident Finnish"speaking 2 popula­ Statistics Division publication no. 12. United States. The earliest survey was with the Research Institute of Legal Policy, survey crime rates," Journal of Criminal University. of Queensland Press. and knowledge of this contributed to the tion age 15 or over; the Swedish-spealdng Nye, I.. F. (1958) Justice 3:17-32. done in 1966 (Ennis 1967). The Finnish Wolfgang, M. E. (1967) decision to cancel the 1979 round of sur­ province of Aland, with 0.5% of the entire Family relationships and delinquent be­ Skogan, W. G. (1976) "Victim-precipitated criminal homlcld&," series reported here and parallel studies in population, is not included in the samples. havior. New York: Wiley. other Nordic countries have, however, no veys. The larg~ survey will cover some Sample surveys of the victims of crime. ill M. E. Wolfgang (ed.), Studies ill 10,000 respondents, and the questions con­ The samples are stratified, being an appli­ Organization for Economic Cooperation Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. homicide, New York: Harper and Row. direct foreign models. Like their American cation of the method suggested by Deming and Development (1976) Smith, G. (1975) , counterparts, they are a reflection of the cern victimization both by violent crimes Wolfgang, M. E. (1958) and property crimes. In addition, the (1960). The commune samples are srrati- Data sources for social indicators of vic­ Leisure, recreation alld delinquency, Patterns ill criminal homIcide. Philadel­ discussion of crime waves and the reliabil­ died by province and the proportion of the timization suffered by individuals. Paris: ity and interpretation of indicators of OECD physical safety indicator items will M.A. thesis, University of Queensland. phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. be included in the questionnaire. industrial population in the commUne. Elich OECD Social Indicator Development South Australian Office of Crime Statistics Wolfgang, M. E., and F. Ferracuti (1967) crime. Recent research seems to be direct­ commune of the country has a chance to be Programme, special study no: 3. ed to"lard indicator development and pro­ (1979) The subculture of violence: Towards an included in the sample; this chance has n Porterfield, A. L. (1948) , " Crime and justice in South Allstralia: lmegrated theory in criminology. New ductior.1, ·parallel to work concerned with The Instruments been weighted with the size of the popula~ "A dread of serious crime in the United Quarterly report for the period ending 31 York: Tavistock. developing a national statistical serli?s on tion of the commune-areas with a large States: Some trends and hypotheses," crime victimization. All three Gallup surveys to be analyzed in December 1978. Wolfgang, M. E" and R. Strohm (1956) this report were conducted as parts of mar­ popUlation thus have a higher probability American Sociological Review 13:44- South Australian Office of Crime Statistics "The relationship between alcohol and of being included in the sample than areas 54. A good example of the trend toward indi­ ket surveys by Gallup of Finland, Ltd. The (1980a) criminal homicide," Quarterly Journal of with few inhabitants. The sample of indi­ Reiss, A. J. (1951) cator development is provided by the ac­ following question was asked each time: Robbery in South Australia. Adelaide. Studies 011 Alcohol 17:411-425. viduals (see below) in each commune \vas "Delinquency and the failure p,r;personal tivities of the Organization for Economic South Australian Office of Crime Statistics Wolfgang, M. E., R. Figlio, and T. Sellin Cooperation and Development (OECD) People often talk about crimes of vio­ selected· separately for each survey round and social controls," America,; Socio­ lence. On this card, some types of vio­ (l980b) (1972) Working Party on Social Indicators~1 The from the population register. It is not likely logical Review 16:196-207. Statistics from cOllrts of summary juris­ Delinquency ill a birth cohort. Chicago: lence are described. Have you in the that many persons are selected more than Savitz, L., M. Lalli, and L. Rosen (1977) work has reached the stage where the cen­ diction. series II, no. 4, March. Unversity of Chicago Press. tral indicators for measuring phYSical safe­ past 2.year period been victim to one or once. City life and delinquency-Victimiza­ several of these kinds of acts performed Sparks, R. F., H. G. Genn, and D. J. ty-:-:-inc;!ugipg YlctimizationcbKv.iolence"",;.~~~ tion, fear of crime. alJflgallg member.' by apersOlryou-know otby astranger.~ Dodd (1977) 'have been designed (see Tornudd 1980). Conducting the Interviews ships. Washington: U~-S. Government Surveying victims. New York: Wiley. (If more than one is mentioned, ask:) Printing Office. These indicators were applied for the first time in Finland late in ).98Q. Which of these incidents was the most The interviews have been made in four­ recent one? person clusters. The sample selected from l the population register provides the persons Has The time series Most who serve as starting points for collecting happened recent ! 1\ the four-person .cluster. The interview at­ This report presents tables from three Finn­ Threatening I I 0 I ish Surveys on victimization by violence. A Tried to prevent from tempts are begun at the starting address; from here, the interviewer proceeds to the time series (1970, 1973, 1976) is gr.'idually moving, grabbed 2 2 I taking form. In the long run, a standard Pushed, shoved 3 3 statistical series of this type will most suit­ Slapped, hit without *Commune, as used throughout this paper, re­ fers to the local authority area; it is a govern­ t ably be produced by the statisticsauthori- leaving visible marks 4 4 I mental unit. A .ruml commune is, in effect, a Hit, resultl!1g in bruises 5 5 rural municipality. It is similar to the New Eng­ *Kauko Aromua is senior researeh officer, Re­ I Wound or bruise caused land Township and ~the Dutch Municipality de­ i search Institute of Legal Policy, PL269. 00531, not requiring medical Helsinki 53, Finlund. scribed in the next paper in this volume. [Editor] !. attention 6 6 Injury caused requiring

,,- >~ "'~-..~" ,,,..... '-,,,...,-... '"""'~""" ';<-;<. 're.'·" ". _. ,. '~" . ------,--- .. ,;~

neighbOring households until the four inter­ views are completed. The respondents are i ~ot chosen randomly. Instead, theyhilVe to 2-1. Respollses to the question on special safety measur"s taken (1973 survey), by victimization 2-3_, Number of assaults recorded' 2-4, Number of assaults recorded by police and fulfill sex an~ age criteria given separately. 11 by pol/ce, 1969-76 Victimized during " percent change, by type of residential area for ~ach starting address. The purpose is to /§ create a final sample wh~se age and sex Have you taken any special' the 2-year perloQ safety -"neasures because before the interview Percent change Structure corresponds to that of the whole' of the possibility Year Number Cities and Rural Yes No Year boroughs (U) communes (R) U R U R populatip;n. If the respondent fulfilling the of an assault? (card) Number Percent criteria IS not contacted on the first call, a P~rcent Num'ber Percent victimized i, 1969 9,954} 21,126 1969-1970 16,115 5,011 second attempt is made later. After the sec~ 1. No measures 1910 11,172 1972-1973 20,049 2, Carrying a knife 168 55 1.312 77 ; 5,602 +24.4 +11.8 ond unsuccessful call, the interviewer 11 1971 11.831 Co 1975-1976 18,631 5,823 3. Carrying agun 4 1 4 0 50 ~" -7.1 +3.9 +15.6 +16,2 moves on to the next household. 5 i 1972, '4. Carrying another weapon 2 6 0 45 . 12,496} 11 4 14 25,651 The interviews are 'conducted by Gallup's 5. PractiCing self-defense 1 44' 1973 13,155 6. Avoiding places you 31 10 31 2 50 n~twork of professional part-time inter­ 1974 13,656 2-5. Assault rates, by type of residential area, 1970, 1973, and 1976 suspect as being dangerous (,> 7. Using a taxicab 81 27 29& 1975 13'114} ~lewe~ covering the Whole country. The 8 1.7 22 24,457 mtervlewers were not specifically trained 8. ObtainIng a dog 3 32 2 20 Number of Size of Assaults c, 30 1976 11,340 Type of assaults for the victim surveys. The questions on . 9. Other measures 2 population per 100,000 16 ;15 1.6 1 . 50 residential recorded age 15 or popula!ion Percent vi?lence ",:ere included on a questionnaire " area Year by police older age 15 or older change Total 304 1969:145). For this reason, the samples are w~th questions from other clients, mainly 107 1.710 102 15 not suitable for describing subgroups of the WIth a market survey foclis. ' u Cities popUlation who would be especially inter­ 1970 8,513 1,792,675 475 and 1973 10,356 2,118,392 489 +2.9 The number.ofinterviews completed in ,)sting with regard to violent incidents. boroughs 1976 8,661 2,124,119 408 -16.6 -14.1~ ! each of the surveys, are-- 2-2. Responses to the opInion question on vlolent.crime trends (1973 survey), by VI~t1mIZatlon Therefore, it is not likely that the data ana­ The recorded nUmber of assatlJlts lyzed here would provide a representative Rural 1970 2,659 1,686,746 158 Men Women increased during the 1960's, with Victimized during communes 1973 1970 December picture of the violence situation in the 2.799 1,559,373 179 +13.3 ~ 487 478 an annual average of 8 percent. the 2-year period , 1979 2,679 1,443,794 186 +3,9 +17.7 (~ 1973 November and before the interview whole couo'))'. Instead, a study of this type How much do you assume that describes (J1~ situation from the viewpoint December their number has changed during Yes No 979 1,035 ' the 1970's? (card) of average citizens, people who do not r~p, 1976 December 464 Number Percent Number Percent Percent' or he is more likely to recall even minor. This calculation uSes 2-year periods to 475 victimized resent the marginal groups in society ~na incidents and to define them as violence make .it comparable to the 2-year period The interviews were carried outon the 1, Decreased who are easy to contact. This gives a 6er­ 2. Unchanged 2 1 10 for the, survey, used in the victimization surveys. "~asDnable trouble" principle-'-the inter­ 6 1 17 tain special flavor to the findings: the)' may 3.. Increased, but slower than 2 55 3 10, We may assume that many people have at In a Nordic comparison (Hauge and Wolf VIewer \Vas not obliged to ..secure a confi­ In the 1960's be assumed to illuminate specifically tbe c 11 least some incidents of victimization to tell 19741', the countries were ranked identical- dential ipterview situation'1' Tbere is often 4, Increased about as fast as 4 54 3 17 risks of the UOrdinary pl'flzen" and his or In the 1960's about if they are willing to try hard to re- Iy by both the victim, survey data and by somethiqg embarrassing in th~ victimiza, 41 her perception of those, risks. * tion incident which is very 'likely to keep 5. Increased faster than 13 254 15 14 member and take the question literally. Let the crime statistics of the police. This has In thl;! 1960's the respondent from mentioning the inci­ 240 As a matter of fact, even questions of the" us once more consider the w.ide scope of been interpreted as an indication that both ." 6. Don.'t know 79 1,189 70 17 dent unless the interview is made under ab­ 4 1 147 .. kind used here, which seemingly deal with th.~ interview question. Perhaps we may sources deal at least roughly with the same 9 3 actual concrete incidents, yield infonnation also assume that in reality so many people phenomenon, regardless of their obvious solutely copijdential circumstances. The Total " 304 colortid by the respondent's subjective per- have experienced some of the listed inci- dissimilarity. This state of affairs is, never- problem ~s s~ch is a classic one in survey 100 1.7Hi 100 15 research; Its Importance has simply not ception of the incident and its wider frame- dents that th~Jtime and trouble the inter- theless, still quite far away from a situation been noted in our earlier victim studies have a theoretical possibility of being in- household The rest of th "'1 t work. It is not possible to make any viewer an~t erespondent spend on the Where the victim surveys and the crime Thi . , . cluded in the sampl b t . " . . e.laI ures were- estimates here of the relative importance of < interview, ayd especially in going over the statisticsfor a given country yield a harroo- . s Issue as well as the standard problems ve unlike . e, u m ,.practice It IS~:' caused by the following: (1) nobody was /It o..f fault.y recall and other me.m ory errors' . ry. Iy th/lt they are reached b)'. . ... ,_..home.(hlll£nf_thA.,~ •• \",(!>.\,,_,,-.,~.,,=.. ==~=c =~ t~:.:ubj~ct~~e .:~~~e~~_i~!~~;~_".~,.re!u!t.s.~~ period .~n. ~.u~~t~n, ~~s.~~~a!e.~.~vit~..!.~".=!1~~~~!m~s~:ie!. ~~._== .. _~==~.= __ ""~ __~ (mcludlng the so-called telescoping effect) mtervieWe[S ... ~=,=~~... =~===''''~---io~rth); (3) fu~·;;;;;;de~( ~'::su~~t ~::t~ct- ' 1' . l'wn,rthde •• , VVIl"Il~VVC·<;UII~luCnnC-WI?e propomorO( atlinnatlVe answers. (Tile. Table 2-4 shows the urban-rural distribu- de~lt wi!h in earlier reports, probably have Such facts tend to reduce variatiop in the ed even on the second call (one-fifth); and ' range o~ e~ents c.overed by the tenn "VIO- study by ~\parks ~t al. (1977) of ~ondon IS tion of the olice assault fi ures iven in an IdentIca/.•. effect,iJn the results .in all three final data. This tendency is strengthened (4)ot~er reason~ (e.g., the house had been lence," It IS ~osslble to assume that ou~ . an exa~p:e of thiS: Here; exceptional ef- Table 2-3 a~d their chan e~ overgtime. ''Be~ mt;asure, W.hl,ch mostly covers rather tn~lal fort was spe~t on l,~provmg recall of the tween the 196!)':"1970 ba;e period and surveys! thus hardly impairing year-ta-year '.' eve~ further by the procedure used for re- demolIshed, the reSPOndent had died),- ep~sodes ~I.tll avery low dama~e lev~11 IS resel\f~h penod: ThiS stud~ also f~u~d an 1975-1976 the number of recorded as- compansons. llacmg su~h per.s0ns who for some reason As a result of this rocedure, the final s _ qUIte senSItIve to the attitude m re- exceptIOnally high proportIon of VICtlms.) saults equally in urban and rural . j g~neral incf(!~sed ca~not be mterv~ewed: If.a ~espondent ful- vey popUlation, to ~ misleadin I" ue~, ~ar~ to ~ematter studle:. Thus, r~sp~~h The comparalJility of the data for 1970, areas. IIut between the two latter periods, About the speCial chara~ter fillIng the sa~plm~ cnten~ IS not contacted tent, consists of people who ~~~gt~ ex • a! sw 0 arc. very muc WI. 1973, and 1976 shOUld not be impaired by 1972-1973 and 1975-1976, the urban fig- of the samples used or cannot b: mtel!'Iewed for some other contact at homeJ"(cf.Uhl adS h ~n ~~?~elm~l y Q vlolebnce ordcnme . 'd e Of those problems. The instruments, the tech- ure decre/lsed, and the' rural one increased reason, the mtervlewer moves on to the . . . . n c oner t art~ m~ 0 n:- In samples designed in the described man" I mem er an 0 men Ion mCI en ts VIC- . . . . "", neighboring household. This procedUre is 3A . . t· . t' th th h " d'U t mcal procedures, and the measure are slIghtly. ner,. some specific population segments are lmlza IOn' an ose w 0 are III I eren identical.. followed until t11e interviewer'S quota is survcyof personal victimization cannot 10· toward the matter. Tables 2-land 2-2 shed ObVIOusly underrepresented. Institutiona­ filled. cate P$csons who have died, who are ina hospi- Table 2-5 reports relative assault figures I some tight on this question. They can, lized pen;ons (e,g" prisonea, residents of tal, or who .cannot participate in an interview for 1970,1973, and 1976. (The assault o!d people's homes, inmates ofmental hos­ Based on interviewer reports for the 1973 because of a victimization. The proportion of l~ however, also be tead the other way round: Expectations-trends rates are given per loo;QOO popUlation.) pItals and other hospitals or of treatment survey, it was sometimes necessary to ring suc~ persons, however, is so small that their in- \ that the fact of haying been victimized in- from. pollee .data Looking at rates as opposed to absolute elusIOn or exclusion in thi! .research population ftuences the respondent's Qverall ,attitude !nstitutions for alc()polics) are not included as many as 40 doorbells to collect a cluster (/fable 2,3 shows the number of assaultS re- ' numbers presents !i·somewhat different pic­ he of four interviews (Aroman 1974b:5);, it, ' ""can hardly have IIny effect on the relative fre­ If toward violence, and it may also lj.F~statisticSdH~re~-,~_Jp~pa.rt,a?sc!ut~figures~aiid=sume~of.the timizalion rlltes in the different populati,on Age 1970 1973 1976 1970 1973 1976 ·1970 1973 1976 =='=poite([oy1ocation of the assault but the observattons based on rates (see.Table 2-6) J~~ II 50 sUbcat\~gories remained constant at the ! ~~'- II victim surveys (as many others) are based do not refer to the same population bas~ as 40-49 13} 16} 14}.9 38 , ~28 1~ 35 . 1970 I\~vel. The check W~lS performed .I!)y 15-21 1,1 1~:~ 6.6 7.3 I" 7.6 .6.9 6.9 14 ..1 13.5 14.2 primarily on the respondent's residence. the surveys. The ~opulation ba~e used In 30-39" 15 '. 20-29 18 19 23 usingth~ [oIlOwings.ubdJ.YiSio.ns: (a) urban- .~ "'1.\\\.. :1' II 13.4 ~~:~ ~~:~ g:~ ~~:~ ~tg ~~:~ ~~:i ~~:~ Earlier survey reports .(ArO'm!laJ971129; the rates reported In Table 2-6 lS the ;whole 10-19 IS 27't 53 3.1.'} 46 24}40 rural; ~b) occupatio~al c~legOi1l,garmer . 50+ '''\,11 __-I1!1~ __15_._1_1_6_.0 __ 15_.3 __ 1_7_.9_~15_.3 __ 1_6~.1 __33_.0-,,-_3_1-:-.3 __ 31_.4~ 1977:appendix) show. that the cliffe,rence is popuhitioo, wl}ere~stl}esu:vey base that (}-9 16 ' 26f 15 ug 1 not unimportant .. Victimization~ of persons part of the populatIon. t~at IS at least IS c/pllar); ,," ;il'\:' 1 ______...:.... ______,---, group,15-21,22-j34.35-49,50+).il"pOPula~\i·on'labor_w;hite (c:1' 9 Total I[I!-~I 50.048.649.4 50.0 5104---..~ 50.6100100 10Q who reside in rural areas often O'ccur in (;);/:1) ~ears oJ.d.Due t~ VariatIons, for example, cities. In the 1970 data 30% of the victim;:'\\m the SIzes of age cohorts and other fea-. ' thkfurther: Figure 2-1 presenis aschemat- each c· cula(ion, the ~ssible change/Jin)l L.-.------jII~1 the pro ortions ization incid~Jlts of rur~1 respondents hap~{~{!~res of the J.>opulation structu~e, vi~timjza- ic de~cription of the relationship betwe.en o~;me~lh(lWOmen \I/e,h! >, i'--:"Ji . " . " "",, ",,..l.tlOn rates calculated from the intervIew alsQ en)n!o " 2-9 •. the vlletlmlz.tlon percentages 8S !I1easured andls these two data sources. Although based on "" ta~ ~9c~un~r l.r.n~r!ier sht~9};es.jJ cfiangel'~ J P~lcted these f5 r Criteria, lor '1~~dl~ldmg t r!pat a by ~mp~ Itruct .. chlnges I' ,/ (j "This caution means also that the .propensity to data for different population categoriesmayJ' a comparison of thedistributionli by the make apolice1eport-"OT the probability that as- give a picture of the changes thatls quite damage .Ievclof the PO'llce-recordedas- h.ave b~ n. fOlln. d. {to'. b~/collflec. ted Wi.lh.large ,'r-. " . . . lr-- 'I If saults !are recorded-remains const;lot. In .. each . different from theQne given by overal/fig- saults (measured in the fir$t and as yelonly variatio s in vielJmiza1i~!llrtes. ~ /; . II AI I damage levels ., ~,Damag~levels 4-!~_' ___ surveyround (1970, 1973. and 1976), an equal ures, even ""hen the total pppuilition of the experimental crime damage stati.slics for Table. 2 show~J! the ~illm.. ·,!n,~e. distribJ.llti.:b. n. for Peri enlage: fletim~ Actually il Percenipge victli~S '~~ctuaIlY proportion (14%) answered affinnatiyely When country remains relatively constant. as .has '" "I 1.\de!iIm,lned ?ychanges meas. ured deterll].lhed by cl.,~al1ges r,p'easur~ 1974) and of the Victimizations Jound 'in j each ye~r betw Ibn mrn*r,d wome~1 (jl1) in in f~mple sr'c.ture vietimlza. tlon if In sal1)p!e.slr:ucl,~..re . ~lctimlzallon asked Whether or not the police w\lre infonned. been the cl1se in Finland during the 1970's. the survey, the figure does not claim to i If this result is taken at face value, the matleris· . urba.n a. tJ (b.... }i y.. ' o. c. Year 0 (pfil'CElntl' (percent.) I:' . ; I! . (percent) Q present exact proportiO'ns but .rather to r rura~l.areali. el.. cu~. !a~.I.?nal (perc~(nt) clear, butwhethe~ this is justified rem~ins an Altogether, a comparison of the survey category \ and qc) by agf.j.ii he pro~orhon of II II 1/ J'/ ~! open question. .. . . data with the crime statistics of the police sketch roughly the mutual covcl'agcof the D twO' different indicators. urb.an re. ~O'nd rt Is h Is ql~arly gro:.Jini! This 1970 '~1~5:.·.t·11 ~1~7:.961· I,I.',! ,II .~4·.:;~0·. 'I",,·" . , ~5:.~0 rests on a shakY [ound\ltion, To .iIIumin&te is renect d nl " by ~he iJebreasc Q( ~,Ie pro, 11173 I, ~ c portion 0 ~thC .ann/'ll- p~T~lation~h~i. the .in~ 1976 I 1'1: 1\ 14 National studies .of victimizatioll . [5 \\ Ii I 'I f\ I Nat/orltll st~.:.ties of Vict;);!liZGtlOIl I I '\ }I \1 \ {J I :jj; i'Ii II °0 '>' I c, lil_ ,1';/' :\ I! ; 1 :~~==,~,,--_-,;/c __i -~~~ -----~-- -- ~------

Number of victimizations. Table 2-10 is in­ tended to supplement the results in Table 2-'10. Number of alternatives In tha victimization question to which 2-7. It shows how many different damage the respondents gave an affirmative answer, 1970,1973, and 1976 2-13. Victimization percentages, by sex, 2-14. Victimization percentages, by age and sex, 1970, 11173 and 1976" 1970, 1973, and 1976" levels the respondents mentioned. This variable Was originally (in the 1970 data) Parameters Men Women Men Women constructed io provide a substitute measure of the negative Year 1-8 4-7 Number 1-8 4-7 Number Age Vear 1-8 4-7 Number 1-8 4-7 Number for the number of incidents, which was not Number of alternatives binomials' included in the questionnaire used in the Year 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total (Number) a b 1970 18 6 487 12 2 487 15-21 1970 49 16 63 23 7 74 first survey (cf. Aromaa 1971; 1974a). In 1973 <\ 21 6 979 9 3 1,035 1973 40 17 133 23 11 139 1973 and 1976, the number of incidents 1970 851 103 26 7 7 1 4 1,000 (974) .16 .59 1976 24 7 464 12 3 475 1976 45 17 69 18 9 65 was included in the questionnaire. Howev­ 1973 849 108 24 7 7 4 1 1,000 (2,014) .17 .59 22-34 1970 21 146 17 3 115 1976 824 121 30 18 5 1,000 (939) .19 .55 !i er, to enable a comparison of all three sur­ 'The victimization percentages are given In two 1973 26 9 304 9 3 309 veys, the substitute variable was also categories: 1-8 Includes all violence (damage) 1976 31 9 136 15 3 156 G constructed for the 1973 and 1976 data. 'The parameters of the negative binomials fitted to In principle, It provides a good parsimonious tool for levels as defined In the interviews; 4-7 are dam­ the empirical distribution. (see Fisher 1941, Feller description and comparison; In practice, the param­ age levels lj.:..7, the more violent Incidents. 35-49 1970 11 2 131 10 1 124 The proportion those mentioning many 1943, Colemari 1964, Aromaa 1971, 1974a, Siren eter b measuring the degree of cumulation or het­ 1973 15 3 219 6 1 278 of 1976a). The parameters have been determined by erogeneity of risks (both interpretations are 1976 17 6 115 14 3 .,103 different damage levels has decreased from making use of a collection of tables on the negative posslble-cf. Aromaa 1974a, Sparks at al. 1977) Is persons are recruited into the .victim cate­ binomial, edited at the Research Institute of Legal )!o 1970 9 2 147 5 174 year to year. Simultaneously, the zero class particularly affected by chance variations in small gory out of the non victims) and not so , I~O+ 1973 13 2 323 6 309 Policy. The parameters are presented here mainly samples, especially with low values of parameter a (no victimization incidents) has decreased muchtlfe tail of the distribution, people 1976 13 1 144 3 151 and the I-class has grown. The size of pa­ to keep up a tradition advocating the usefulness of. (the Intensity parameter). In American research, with many victimizations. the negative binomial In regard to this kind of data. see James Nelson 1979. rameter; a (the intensity parameter) of the Ta­ "See Table 2-13 note for description of two vlcllmlzath:ln categories used. negative binomials fitted to the empirical National victimization rate: Summary. ble 2-12 summarizes the results of this sec­ distributions has correspondingly grown, tion. The visible changes are as expected: whereas parameter b (the cumulation or 2-11a. Number of victimizations, 19731nd 1976 the victim rate and the average seriousness 2-15. Victimization percentages, by sex and type of residence, heterogeneity of risks parameter) has re­ of the incidents have increased. Part of the 1970, 1973, and 1976" mained constant. Parameters of the change-although only a minor part-is The number of damage levels variable does negative nevertheless explained by the change in the Type of Men Women , Number of victimizations not fully correspond to the number of vic­ binomials, structure of the samples due to migration residence Vear 1-8 4-7 Number 1-8 Year 0 4-7 Nut~ timization incidents. A respondent may 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :r<0 11 12+ n.a. Total (Number) a b and urbanization. have experienced many incidents of the Cities and 1970 24 6 231 17 2. ':cJ2~fso 1973849 82 25 10 7 The average number of incidents men­ boroughs 1973 same damage level; and somebody may 8 o o 2 7 5 1,000 (2,014l .17 1.25 28 8 516 12 4 544 1976824 82 36 17 7 7 2 7 15 1,000 (939 .19 1,48 tioned by the victims has fallen slightly, 1976 29 7 ' 273 13 3 278 have experienced several levels of violence but the percentage of those victimized at in one single incident. The interviews re­ Rural 1970 13 5 256 6 2 237 I I\!ast twice has grown: the shift away from communes 1973 13 5 464 vealed a number of both types of respon­ 5 2 491 the zero class focused on classes 2 and 3. 1976 16 7 191 .10 4 197 dents. However, tabulations from 1973 and 2-11b. Number of. vlctimlutlon!!, 1973 !!n!!~1976 I (with n.l. category reclassified) The share of victims mentioning at least 1976 data show that the two variables are . four victimizations has again fallen slight, 'See Table 2-13 npte for description of two victimization categories used. closely connected. The first variable, ~ Parameters ly, from 19% in 1973 to 15% in 1976. though, when compared with the question of the directly asking the number, shows a negative l at victimization at any level ,(including the NUmber of victimizations ~ Victim rates in different entire range of violence as defined in the 2-16. Victimization percentages, by type of marked tendency to underestimate the num­ binomials I t reSidence, 1970, 1S73, and 1976' ber of incidents. It is, of course, possible Vear 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10" 11 12+ Total a b population categories interviews, damage levels 1-8) and looking

. . . r. P 'nno,,/,,"" ",I,,, __ at~l~ly~h~l!'0re }i?l~~n~!~?idents reported ~_-"-,--,-,,-,-=.:::_.:c-'-. __ -"-.-.- -_ that the latter exaggerates the number of l w . -·:T7P~H:;f ~.- - Changes m-propQ!!!ims 0l-f_,!r-·_· ...... - {damage IcvC!s 4=7 m wlilch the respon- actual incidents. Especiaily high-valuesof iS7~l -"-8490; 8S=----2i "'--~,i- --S- 8- i o ~"'O==2=~~"'7=~=(OOO'=~{7=~~22'~ ," residence Year 1-8 4-7 Number 1976 824 92 40 18 7 mentioned inci.dents dents were at least or hit). The -;.~ the variable are dubious. in this sense. 7 1 2 7 1,000 .19 1.19 ofvictimi~atiollfrom ~lapped II I !970 to 1976 III some P?PUlatl~1I categor- trends discernible in 1973 are continued in Cities and 1970 20 4 481 The responses where the number of inci­ /eS. Only now that the time senes has three 1976 In addition no decreases can be boroughs' 1973 20 6 1,060 dents is missing (n,a.) cause a problem, for 2-12. $ummary table-victimization reta, muHlple victimization poi~ts is !t possible .to begin to. develop a found in 1976. The increase in the gross 1976 21 6 551 they are affirmative answers which only feehng of the meanmg ?f the size .of t~e result is dist~,buted among almoSt all age Rural;( ., 1970 10 4 493 lack the precise indication of the number of \ c.hange~, W~en comparmg t~~ pOlllts m and sex categories-only the victim rate Of the Victims: \ commUne!! 1973 9 3 955 incidents. If they are left outside of the dis­ Average hme With thiS type of data! It IS. ~ot easy among those age 50 or over is an 1976 13 5 388 tribution, as is done in Table 2-11, thepa­ number of Percentage Average even to assess whether a given dtfference exception dlffe~ent should be conSidered "large" or "small" . rameters of the negative binomial are Average of those damage level o 'See Table 2-13 note for description of two affected· in a misleading manner. If these Victimization levels of nllmber of with at least of the (keeping in ,mind that practically all differ- Table 2-15 subdivides the respondents by victimization categories used. Year rate violence Incidents' two Incidents Incidents answers are instead~placed into the classes ences that are likely to emerge remain be- sex and reside~ce. It s.hows that the mo.st. low any levels of statistical significance-.- recent growth .In the VIOlence figures ongl- determined by the "auxiliary" variable used 1970 149 tics may be accurately reflected in the in­ 1.62 2.73 although strictly speaking signi~cance tests nates countrysld.e, equ~lIy among rural men above, concerning the number of different 1973 151 1.54 terview data. 2.72 45 2.82 are hardly appropriate for this kmd of and women, ThiS findmg fits rather well damage levels mentioned by the respon- 1976 176 1.47 2.58 48 2.91 "", '''''''''''''dellt, the distributions are changed. This data). with the picture given by the police statis­ Table 2~17 presents victimization rates over 'JJ tics (see Table 2-16). Despite the plausibil­ time by se~, age, and type of residence. adjustment also shows that the degree of *The average of the class age 12+ has been determined as 20. The changes are scnltinized in the standard, ity of this result, note that these data are Increases in victim rates arc found cumulation (or heterogeneity) of riskS has manner: victim percentages are compared . based on residence of the victim not loca­ among- not grown (as indicated by parameter b of in diffcrent subcategOries of the population, The addition, i.e., tne shift away from t~he ing with a slight increase in overall victim­ tion of the incident. However, since the the negative binomials) from 1973 to 1976 determined according to a few common young urban men (all violence levels); zero class, is centered on classes 1-3; the ization risks: it is quite likely that if there scene of the incidents for rural victims was when measured directly bY"the question I background characteristics: sex, age, .resi~ and all ruml respondents (aU violence tail of the distribution has not changed. is such an increase, it will concern mainly i a city about equally often in 1973 and about the number of incidents experienced. ! dence, and occupation (see Tables 2-.'13 levels as well as those levels where the Such a shift seems plausible if we are deal- the. first victim categories (because new 1976. the trend shown in the crime statis- and 2-14). The analyses were done looking \, >. victim had at least been hit), '-", 16 National studies of victimiza!ion ,~ II @ National studies oJ victimizatio/l 17

I';; /II II II II ------(j o

f" - ..... ---~----

II'p

o According to these tables, it seems. that the " trend found ill 19,73 has continued as far as 2-17:·' Victimization percentages, by sex, age, and type young urban men are concerned, but a new of residence 1970,1973, and 1976" . barrassiog incidents rather than other kinds. development from 1973 to 1976 s\!ems to 2-19. Victimization percentages, by sex, resIdence, and occupai!on 1970, 1973, and 1976' A large proportion of events that occurred 'be the rise among the rural population, Type of r.,-' . Men Women among family members and acquainta~ces {J young and old, and men as well as wom­ residence Age c,------Year 1-8 4-7 Number are quite likely to remain unrecorded 10 the en. The result is not in conflict with the 1-8 4-7 Number Men Women Occupational interview, lInd there is no reason to believe picture provided by the crime statistics ex­ CIties and 15--34 1970 Residence cate~ory Year 1-8 4-7 Number 1-8 boroughs 34 11 114 26 5 109 that this would not be the case with regard cept on the part of the rather young urban 1973 37 14 251 17 1976 7 253 Cities Labor to other incidents that are felt to be embar­ men. 41 11 128 18 5 125 1970 25 9 100 15 2 124 1\ 81)d 1973' " 26 8 290 rassing, shameful, or otherwise not respect­ r 35+ 1970 13 3 286 When we add occupation to the analyses 14 3 llr.c:=~10 141 boroughs 1976 26 5 140 11 4 148 able. The instrument would, then, tend to /Y 1973 21 3 (see Table 2-18), some increase is found in;;::::::::'/ 1976 265 291. find primarily "honorable" incidents; other 19 3 145 r~"9~ 1 153 White­ 1970 26 5 111 22 3 101 all occupational categories, among men="/ Rural coU~r \, 1973 32 kinds of experiences would tend to be kept 15--34 1970 8 212 13 4 246 and women alike, with the exception of communes 24 "12 95 10 ~4 80 1976 35 10 123. 15 1 117 secret. \,\his maybe especially true with re­ 1973 22 8 187 9 white-collar women. The increase is small- '1976 4 .195 Rural Farmer gard to the details of the story, e.g., the 26 13 77 15 5 96 1970 10 4 lOB 6 1 101 1:, est among men classified as belonging to " communes population 1973 11 3 role of a).,eohol, etc. The number of inci­ 35+ 1970 184 5 1 196 c,labor occupations. 6 2 161 4 1 157 1976 15 5 73 6 68 1973 8 " 1 dents and the information on haVing been 2 277 3 1. " 296 victimized at all may be relatively unham­ Table 2-19 specifies the location of these 1976 9 4, 114 5 2 Labor 1970 13 4 114 6 3 110 101 1973 pered by this bias. If this is true, the find­ changes on the urban-rural 'dimension. 14 6 202 4 1 221 " 1976 15 11 82 13 7 92 ing concerning the correlation between the Even here", white-collar women fail to 'See Table %-13 note for description of two victimization categories used. Whlte­ 1970 21 15 34 4 26 responder)ts' general freqlle.ncy of alcohol show any increase. In the rural popUlation, "r------______,_, ______.--, collar 1973 17 6 78 11 7 74 c,,':Jnsumption and the victiiTIlzation density though, the result isvety unreliable be- 2-18. Victimization percentages, by sex and occupation 1976 10 3 36 8 37 nGlY ue more valid than the descriptions 'Of cause of small cell frequencies .. The victim (head of household), 1970, 1973, and 1976' the details .of the "most recent" incident, rates among the labor popUlation have re- ·See Table 2-13 note (or description of two which is now suspected of containing a mained almost unchanged in the cities; but viclimi2:atlon categories us,ad. large bias towards respectability. 5 in the rural popUlation their victimization Women "The farmers IIlIlng In urban co,mmunes have Occupation Year 1-8 Number tlons (1970: 20 men, 25 women; 1973: 14 men, 12 rate has increased by all the criteria used 1-8 4-7 Number been omitted due to the small number?' observa- women; 1976: 10 men, 13 wom!!n). " , -- {This analysis has been replicated with here. In the farming popUlation, the in­ Farmer similar material from 1976, reported by Si­ 1970 9 3 128 crease is limited to men? popUlation 1973 7 126 ren (l98(»). The findings followed the same 12 3 198 4 relationship was similar :-vith regard to' the intoxic/ltion of the respondents, and these 1976 14 208 lines as sketched above. One additional tikse tabulations show that the increase of 5 83 9 81 mild cases as well as to the serious ones. in turn indicate an increasing ,v.ptimization Labor e', measure for alcohol consumption was used: victimization among urban men focuses on 1970 19 7 214 11 Also among women, the explanatory power risk, i.e., being intoxicated increases the 1973 21 _ 3 1234 the frequency of hangover days exper­ the white-collar occupations; here, the in­ 7 492 9" 3 507 of the alcohol variable wa& stronger with victimization risk. (2) The measure of alco­ 1976 22'" 7 ienced by the respondent. This variai?,le crease found in the compaiison of 1970 (, 222 12 5 c· .regard to serious incidents. 240 the hol consumption and the victimization showed somewhat better correlations with and 1973 is thus continued. Among the ru­ Whlte­ 1970 25 8 col/ar" 145 18 2 127 When the analysis was' continued with measure both reflect the same complex the victimization rate, especially with re­ ral respondents, an increase is found o 1973 28 8 289 1976 13 5 320 breakdowns by age, it became'()bvious"lhat phenomenon which we may call lifestyle, gard to the cumulation tendency of victim­ 31 9 159 13 1 among men in' the farming population and . 154 lage should regularlY¢be accounted for: ItS. way of life, etc. Therefore, it is not sur­ ization incidents, than the general among both men and women in the labor "See Table 2-13 note lor description 01 the two vlctlmizatiein categories used, effect on the victimization rate is very " prising if they show a relatively high posi­ consumption question analyzed in this re­ popUlation. A decreasing trend is discern­ ·Clerlcal occupations; students, profess'Rnals, etc, clear. Age is also a very important source tive interrelationship. port. These'results may be considered as ible among urban women and also among of variations in lifestyles. As an illustration hifacI, both interpretations It~ be as- giving additional support to the above u:b~n ~e~ in laboroccup:~~~,Also ~~ sumed :y~ry~ll1allJl!!.antillilLQtll1<="OJ~?_~~-==YQung~age~2L),~.Whog~"Victimization of this we mention that a high share of the sumed to hold true in differe!1t1pst\lnc;:~~, .. interpmtation.) ====--=,"''-. -----,----,-'__ yJct!r11l7.at!illbpercenmgeg"'''~lu''.n'':spun--- e.g., onlynrufa bottle of beer or a httle rates were hIgher than theIr alcohol con- .. ··TilCtdentsrepoffecri>Yjuvenile' responoen,\s ··"~and offenslmuftineouslY -: The descriptions ,., rdents in white-collar occupations show wine. Which one of the estim~tions given" sumption levl)l WO!lld have led one to Ii,) occurred at public dances and similar occa- of the "most recent" incidents also obtained Summary and discussion i' some decrease, but the number of observa- on this card would be most suitable in your expect. sions. They also have a lot of leisuretirne, in the interviews seem to indicate that the t tions is so small that it is hardly pnssible to case?" cThe following alternatives Were and a large proportion of it is spent in cir- alcohol variable only infrequently measures According to national surveys of Finland Ii make any attempts at interpreting them. printed on the card: The cumulation of victimization incidents, cuni'stances with an increased level of the number of risk·,increasing states of from 1970, 1973, and 1976, the gross rate Notes on alcohol cOllsumption and victim- 1 daily on the other hand, did not vary much with disturbances. dntnkenness: very few respondents ad- of violence victimization of the average; u ization by violence. The 1973 question- 2 a couple of times a week the level of alcohol consumption. A con­ \ , ~ mitted to having been intoxicated when nonmarginal1>opula~jon of the country ini­ naire also contained an item connected 3 once a week nection did exist, but it was not marked. \ An analysis of the combined meaning of victimized (the perpetrator, in contrast, was tially remained rather constant, but subse­ with the respondent's lifestyle: the frequen- 4 a couple of times a month The cumulation tended to. be stronger in age, social status (by occupational cate- said to have been drunk in 80% of the quently increased from 1973 to 1976. subgroups with a high level ,of alcohol con­ gory), and sex Showed that the analyze~ cases). More typically, the alcohol variable Breakdowns into population sutJgroups cy of alcohol consumption. It does not pro- 5 about once')a month 1 vide a direct way of looking at the 6 about ondnn two months sumption than elsewhere. The cumulQ(lon correlation was highest.for the mo~, serJ- would seem to reflect a kind of general so- show that, while the incn:ase from 19;70 to correlation of states of drunkenness and 7 3-4 times a year of victimization incidents within subcate­ ous incidents (levels 4-7) among young cial activity. The typical victimization inci- 1973 was. limited to rather young urban victimization rates, because the analysis is 8 .once or twice a year gories of the popUlation followed an inter­ °working-class men. The co~~}ation w~s dents found in this surVey s~nHd to lack men, between 1973 and 1976 it is dearer" concerned with the general frequency of al- 9 less than once a year esting rule: the victimization (lites as well similar but weaker 'among yoUng men 10 any 'Systematic connection with the vi~tim's in the rural popUlation. Simultaneously, the cohol consumption and not with states of 0 never .~ as the cumulation tendency of the incidents ! oU1ertypes of occupations. While frequent own alcohol use p,atlerns or states of m- 1970-1973 trend is continued in a mild intoxication .. The alcohol consumption were highest,among,tho$e who used alco­ t alcohol consumption is related especially to toxication, a findlni~ which is inconsistent Ofushion. 'the rural increase from 1973 to question was the same which has been The le"el of alcohol consumption and the hol very frequently (daUy or twice. a i,fr more serious victimizations among men, with what is otherWIse known about vio- 1976 is not dearly limit,ed to any of the used in several Finnish alcohol consump­ I the correlation was. clearly stronger With re- lence victims. () population sl!bcategories scrutinized but ap­ victim density ~ere .,closely related when week). ,It gard to the less serious victimizations (lev- tion sUl:veys (e.g., Makelii 1972): "How subcategories of the popUlation were com­ pears among bath the farmer and the labor A high frequency of a els 1,,3) among women. The interpretation is partly convinc- often on the average do you c~onsume beer pared. This was true roughly for any com­ drin~~tjndicated ~ove population, the. young, ancl, to some ex- high victimization rate. "Among men, this e ing. It does, however, also give rise to cer~ or other alcoholic beverages? Try to ac­ 0 tent, also the elderly of both sexes. " bination of age, sex, type of residence, and was true for the morl; serious inci'dents r These findings may possibly be end pro- tain suspicion. It is not ou~ofthe question count also for those times when you con- occupational category, except for the very (violence l",v~,ls 4-7); amon,g"wQ!!len, the ducts of two different types of chains of that the interview situation is so delicate 6 sFor n more detailed presentation of these find- I " ih=~ events: (I) The measure of alcohol co~n- that the violence question pick~ out nonem- 00 ings, see Aromn~ (1977). I, 18 National studies o/victimization sumption reflects the number of st~teS' of (.:0

National studies of victimizatiol1 19 ,. ,) 1 ) I Iy ·,,1 ,.,~ :1 t~ ',I :.l Ii These general results may be estimated to it '1 that an important proportion of assaults re­ known). The data used up to now involve 1 be roughly in harmony with the picture de­ if uhriksi joufumisesta [Alcohol consump­ corded by the police originate in such pop­ the constant danger of interpreting .mean­ if ferundersokning" [Victims of property rived from the police statistics .. The police /.l tion and victimization to violence; corre­ ulation subgroups. If this is true, the ingless chance fluctuations (cf. Siren ·f crimes and violence-,-A report of the statistics led to the expectation that the sur­ M lations in a national sample]. Helsinki: relatively small changes seen in the crime 1976). A victim survey of 1974], Promemorieor vey results--if these two different mea­ a 'l Research Institute of Legal Policy, publi­ statistics need not be repeated in the victim l~ sures concern at least roughly the same cation 22 (stencil). fr'ClII SCB 1977:7. Stockholm: Statistiska surveys at all. Instead, the surveys may When trying to assess the meaning of our :j Centralbyran (stencil). phenomenon-would in urban areas show an ,I .I Coleman, James S. (1964) yield results conflicting with the crime stat­ findings, in order to avoid erroneous im­ 'j .. Siren, Reino (1976) initial increase in victimization followed by ,~\ !llfrodUclioll 10 ma;hemaiical sociology. istics trends. Also, the violence indicator pressions, we should stress that the results J Tapahtumaintensiteetin vaihtelu-ja vah­ some decrease and in rural areas a rapid in­ used in the victimization surveys refers-if only concern changes in victimization rates " Toronto: Collier Macmillan Canada crease followed by a slow increase. f ,~ (Free Press). vistushypoteeseihill liittyvistii todennii­ taken literally-to a markedly larger scope (and those with all of the cautions men­ ,;: koisyysmekallismeista[On the probability Deming, W. Edwards (1960) From evidence gathered previously, victim of behavior than the police statistics, expe­ tioned earlier). They cannot be used for I ,I mechanisms connected with variation cially if incidents with a minor damage making inferences of risks of victimization. Sample desigll in business research. New surveys seem to' succeed best in measuring ~~ t ! York-London: Wiley. and reinforcement hypotheses of event incidents in public places, where the victim level are considered. Slight fluctuations in Becoming a victim is obviously determined intensity}. Helsinki: Research Institute of I :1\ Ennis, Philip H. (1967) and the perpetrator are not previously the "dark number"* of these incidents may by not only the living environment of the I Legal Policy, pUblication 17 (stencil). g ~ Criminal victimization ill the United known to each other. Surveys are not so thus cause significant changes in the crimes individual, but also his or her lifestyle and Siren, Reino (1980) Viikivaltagallup 1976 I States: A report of national survey. Field successful in uncovering violence that takes recorded by the police without any visible the way his or her time is spent (cf. Aro­ ,1 [Victims of violence: Results of the 1976 maa 1977). surveys II-A report of a research study place between intim\ltes, in the family, and change in the survey results. q national surveys]. Helsinki;" Research In­ submitted to the President's Commission at home. The police statistics do not man­ The survey approach also fails to find a A study of risks ought to pay attention to ·1 stitute of Legal Policy, pUblication 40 on Law Enforcement and Administration (stencil). age well in tbis area either, but there is large number of victimizations that actually changes in ways of life. An illustration of reason to suspect that the victim surveys of Justice. National Opinion Research have taken place. TherefQ(e, the vi~timiza­ this principle is provided by the following Sparks; Richard, Hazel Genn, and David are as bad or even worse for this task. Center, University of Chicago, May tion rates found in the surveys are likely to example: Between two rounds of measure­ 1967. Dodd (1977) The police crime statistics do not measure be rather sensitive to fluctuations in the ment, certain people might have begun to Feller, William (1943) Surveying victims: A study of the mea­ the same elements as the victimization sur­ ideological climate in regard to violence fear victimization, to such an extent that "On a general class of 'contagious' dis­ suremellt of criminal victimization. New veys. The police statistics classify the loca­ and crime policy matters. The same victim­ they totally avo~p all circumstances where tribution," Annals of Math. Stat. 14:389- York-Toronto: Wiley. tion of the incident, while the survey data ization rates-assessed by an "outside ob­ they might be at' risk. (The changes in 400. Tomudd, Patrik (ed.) (1980) deal C.;itinly with the location of the vic­ server"-may, due to variations in the ways of life may of course be based on Fisher, Robert A. (1941) Measuring victimization. Manuscript tim' s ·r~\idence. In addition, the popUlation ideological climate, yield quite different es­ something else than fear of crime; with re­ "The negative binomial distribution, in submitted for pUblication by the Organi­ gard to the example, this is unimportant.) samples used in the surVeys are biased in timates of rates in the survey approach and Contributions to mathematical statistics," zation for Economic Cooperation and Development. that they do not represent several popula­ also in the crime rates measured by the po­ Victimization surveys would doubtless New York (originally published in An­ tion subgroups with exceptionally high vic­ lice statistics. It may even be claimed that show tnat the victimization rate of this nals of Eugenics, vol. XI, 1941). Uhl, Ken}leth P., and Bertram Schoner timization risks; in these subgroups, the survey in part measures the. degree to populatioil category decreased by the sec- Hauge, Ragnar (1975) (1969) multiple victimizations are probably excep­ which the respondents feel the violence is ond measurement round. Knowledge of the "Offer for lovbrudd" [Victims of crime], Marketing research. Illformation systems tionally common.6 Research data suggest , important, actual, interesting, or disquiet­ background of the finding would, neverthe­ Tldsskrift for samflllillsforskning, alld decisioll making. New York: Wiley. less, have a crucial impact on the way Wolf; Preben (1972) ing. If the violence measure applied in the in:~' ;' ; 16:322-333. 6Earlier in this report, the comparability of inter­ surveys covered only incidents with 'a very which this finding would be interpreted. Hauge, Ragnar, and Preben Wolf (1974) Void i Danmarbog Finland 1970171- view data from the different years was assumed high damage level, this measurement prob­ Many kinds of changes in ways of life may "Criminal violence in three Scandinavian En sammenlignin~iaf voldsofre [Personal to be high by arguing that "the materials, the lem might be assumed to be relatively in­ be reflected in victimization rates. To im­ countries," Scandinavian Studies ill violence in Denmp:tk and Finland technical procedures, and the measures are iden­ significant. In the present case, its prove understanding of the survey results, Criminology 5:25-33 (Oslo-London: Un­ 1970/1971-1\' r.:6mparison of victims of tical." A word of warning is, nevertheless, nec­ importance may be quite large. a few central lifestyle indicators should be iversitetsforlaget-Martin Robertson & violence]. Projekt Noxa. Forskningsrap­ essary: when comparability over a relatively included in any standard questionnaire used port nr. 1 til Nordisk SamarbejdsrAad long timespan or between different cultures A separate cause for concern in these stud­ Co.). in victimization surveys. The alcohol-use for Kriminologi 1971172 [Scandinavian (e.g., countries) is considered,the problems of ies is based oli the small size of the popu­ Moser, C. A, and G. Kalton (1971) measure applied as an illustration in this j Research Council for Criminology, nonresponse and of the D Arkipiiiviill viikivaltaa Silomessa [Every­ 1974], Reports from the Social Research logy, Boston, Massachusetts, September already considered a major pr'dcHcal problem in series grows longer and possible emergent day violence in Finland). Helsinki: Insti­ Institute of Alcohol Studies, no. 84 . 5-1I, 1976. our largest cities- at least in the capital city of consistent trends become discemibl~, inter.. tute of Criminology, series. M: 11 Helsinki), and the chances of contacting people pretations may be justified even if all dif- (stencil). I (May 1975). Helsinki (stencil). at their home;s are also diminishing because of .ferences considered separat

National studies of Victimization 21 1 The impact of victimization, rates and patterns: 11 A comparison of the Netherlands and the United States -- I . ~

RICHARD BLOCK* to If II From 1960 to the mid-1970's, many devel­ can be made simulta~eol\sly. Criminals and violence (Bonger. Jongman). Amsterdam. I oped countries were engulfed in a wave of noncriminals are compared either directly however, has been traditionally seen as dif­ !) crime against person and property. Fear of or through comparison of crime rates for ferent than the rest of the country. While crime became a major public concern espe­ groups who differ on particular not entirely crime ridden, its population cially in urban areas. Most countries that characteristics; has been viewed 2'1s riotous .with little re­ participated in World War II saw the after­ spect for the Ja'1{o>~ police (Punch). math of the war and the postwar baby High arid increasing levels of criminal be­ booin reflected in crime statistics. While havior are anearuniversil! phenomenon of This pa~r is a comparative study of pat­ the wave hit at a different time in each most developed countries. Yet in American terns of victimization in the Netherlands country, crime rates increased rapidly in criminology, explariations of crime increase and the United States, It is primarily de­ the 1960's, peaked in the early or mid- and especially of patterns of crime have scriptive;, but it does suggest some possible 1970's, and stabilized into the 1980's been culturally bound to the United States. explanations of obvious differences in these (Gurr 1977; Archer 1976). Some criminologists have searched for uni­ patterns. versal explanations of crime in western so­ Trends in crime rates are very similar in cieties with no consideration of culture or many countries, but the actual pattern of history. The two victimization surveys crime and the types of crime committed are The basic sources used for this comparison not. Thus, the United States has for many Patterns of crime in a society are a reflec~ tion of the history and culture of the snd­ are the Dutch National Crime survey of years been known for its high level of 1977 and the U.S. National Crime Survey goal-oriented violence. Even with the in­ ety and of the opportunities avaiJ~,l,tfor i! () criminal behavior at a poi'!tj:r~fime. Unfor­ of 1976. In comparisons of the two sur­ creasing crime rates in other countries, the veys, the U.S. survey will generally be United States' preeminence in rates of rob­ tunately, historical studi

o r, ,- 0··· National studi(!s 'bf victimization ' 23 '" Preceding page blank. ·CJ> ,';:

I

el with a particular demographic character­ 3-3. Family income and crime rates istic.· The initial referent of the Dutch 13-1. ~~tes of four crimes in the Netherlands rI , and In the United States .- survey is forever, but then a year time pe­ Q ~ Purse or wallet Street attacks riod, 1977, is df the numerator for f ,I Dutch victimization rates. Burglaries per 100,000 households 6,482 , 1,253 D-4,OOO 8,084 4,9154 1,322 3,546 2,347 5.67.3 0-9,000 Wallet or purse taken per 100,000 persons age 16+ 927 2,100 ! 4,000-7,500 6,792 8133 824 1,986 1,755 1,208 9,000-18,000 In the U.S. survey, all household members Street assaults per 100,000 persons age 16+ 1,309 2,257' 7,500-12,000 6,674 1,410 896 1,910 1,698 1,584 . 18,000-27,000 stteet robb.eries P!lr 100,000 persons age 16 + 243 194' I 12,000-15,000 4,974 795 707 2,330 1,273 /' 3,743 27,000-33,000 age 14 years and older are interviewed. 15,000-20,000 5,516 1,202 970 2,338 1,237 ,,' 2,205 30,000-45,000 Those and. 13 areintetviewed by proxy. I If 'Estimated based. on most recent stre!;ll attacks 20,000+ 7,236 2,086 1,017 1,757 1,221 2,634 " '45,000+ One of these respondents is chosen to list and fbtal number of attacks during the year. TOlal rate 6,592 1,320 944 2,065 1,570 1,886 Total rate crimes against ·the household. In the Dutch Number of survey cases 3,910 133 1,142 229 1,913 202 Number of surVey cases survey, only one person age 16 or olderis interviewed per household, and that re­ 3-2. Urbanization" and crime rates spondent is interviewed about personal and. II 3-4. Age, sex, and personal crime rates household crimes but not about .crimes oc­ Burglaries Purse or wallet Street attacks curring to other household members. Thus,' per 100,000 taken per 100,000 per 100,000 I Purse or ,wallet taken Street attacks in the Dutch survey,. victimization rates for hou~l!oids persons pge16 + persons age 16+ .. ' ' ~ Number of male per 100,000 persons age 16+ per 100,000 persons age 16 + Number oflemale Female Male Female survey cases households and individuals have the same D survey cases Male denominator. In the U.S. survey, victim­ Netherlands Age U,S Netherlands U,S. Netherlands U.S. Netherlands !l.S. Netherlands U.S. Netherlands U.S. ' Netherlands ization·,rates for households have a denomi­ Amst. Roll. Hague , 2,516 4,914 4,443 Other cities 100;000 + 2,407 3,333 5,092 16-17 3,268 138 1,836 3,623 3,560 11,340 5,660 8,695 2,074 9,2711 3,230 97 nator approximately half that of Middle large cities 901 2,028 2,985 18-24 10,274 417 1,022 4,076 2,514 3,473 4,351 13,189 1,920 3,656 10,260 547 individuals. Smaller cities 880 2,240 1,520 25-34 12.164 1,020 518 2,745 1,404 2,476 2,573 6,568 1,224 1,496 13,388 1,938 Rural cities 939 1,389 1,465 35-44 . '9,398 722 276 2,354 868 1,430 1,425 2,770 880 874 8,984 1,258 The U.S. questionnaire was designedto:'b~ Rural areas 569 853 934 extremely flexible. The household is the \'1 45-54 8,B68 585 259 ~,367 721 2,077 1,071 1,709 629 1,088 9,698 1,011 689 277 1,015 707 1,697 887 1,741 544 1,272 9,192 707 basic Uliit of data collection,' but within .United States. 55-94 7,210 500,000+ 7,818 1,513 2,877 , 65+ 7,418 1,002 283 798 509 1,796 714 598 214 1,397 9,824 969 each householdthere is a separate ques- . 100,000-500,000 8,474 1,147 2,087 Total 58,600 4,573 543 1,966 1,276 2,253 2,173 3,979 989 1.579 64,576 6,522 tionnaire for each reported crime. To allow 50,000-100,000 7,846 1,098 1,872 for detailed analysis of patterns of victim- Oth.er city 5,564 777 1,249 izationa very large sample is used- . Not a city 5,684 715 1,038 At a more basic level, thc,Netherlands is chower). ,Until the 1920's in the United • Age qlld sex. 0/ victim. Most studies of 30,000 nouseholds in each 6-month panel. far more densely populated than the United States and the. 1930's in the Netherlands, assaultive violence have .fQundthat younger The complexity of the questionnaire's 'Combines robberies and assault. States, In 1976, the pOpulation density per . rates of serious violence were apparently people and males are more likely to be structure plus the huge sample make analy­ square mile in all of the Netherlands w~s higher in rural than urban areas. both victim and offender than older people nearly triple that of American Standard and females. In Table 3-4, these relation­ sis of this data set both complex and time ask specmc questions about theft of'~"'llllet • Family income. In both countries the able. Differences in assaultive. violence are Metropolitan StatisticaJ Areas (302 per ships can be clearly seen for U,S. respon­ consuming. or purse, other than purse snatching, or 0 more difficult to explain. ' burglary rate is mildly curvilinearly rel"ted' (' .'.,' square mile). By American definition,' most dents, Among both men and women in the . about street attacks., Thus rates for. these to family income. Families of the highest ,The Dutch. questionnaire has a far simpler J)emographic difference In the probability of the Netherlands would be considered United, States, there isa consistent and crimes were created on the basis of the de~ and lowest·jncome have.'thehighes( rates structure .. Approximately 11,000 respon~ o/victimization. All membersofa society urban.

() Nqti311ql sllldies 0/victimizatio1l 25 '> 24 Nqtiollal studif/so!victimizatiofl o

o

o '

() ::; ------~---

1 I :'~; Once a burglary occurs, the Dutch house­ greater in the Netherlands than in the Unit­ violence was far less than in the United American women. American women of all \' ages are more likely to have their money 3-5. Rates of household burglary, by tlmo of day.and occupancy holder is likely to suffer a larger loss than ed Slates. As an American coming to the States. As can be seen in Table 3-8, there taken than American men, but at several the American householder. As seen in Ta­ NetherIandsin 1978, among the earliest ,. are both differences and similarities be- I II Total tween the Netherlands and the United ages. Dutch men are' mor.e likely to suffer a Day Evening Night ble 3-6, there is .little difference in the culture shocks I felt was the scarcity of theft than Dutch women. This probably re­ U.S. Netherlands U.S. NethEirlands U.S. Netherlands U.S. Netherlands i probability of any loss. However, if 105S Cash substitutes. Auhat tLrne, Dutch credit States in the seriousness of street assaults. does Qccur, ..the 10$5 to ihe uotd! house­ Dutch assaults Were less likely to be gun suIts from two factors: (1) lack of 'female ! cards were almost unknown. Stores which hold is likely to be greater. honored American credit cards were meant attacks ·than American assaults .and were particip!!tion in tne. Dutch' workforce and Someone home 160 45 126 99 168 324 455 468 primarily for tourists. Checks as known in haJJ as likely to be attacks with other (2) the continental custom of men carrying I The greater loss suffered by the Dutch No one home 2.320 189 1,160 216 1.160 99 4.638 513 weapons as American assaults (19% vs. a purse. Thus, the United States and the household is far more likely to be(compen­ the United States did not exist. The only 38%.) However, the resultant injuries from Netherlands are both different and similar sated than the smaller loss sllstained by the availabl<1, cash substitute was 19uaranteed Total 2,480 234 1,286. 315 1,328 423 5.093 981 the crime were amazingly similar. Nearly in the. probability of criminal victimization. U.S. household. While the amount recoV­ check. These were available only to the I three-fourths of the victims in both coun­ American rates of household burglary are ered from insurance, if any, is about the highly creditworthy. Thus, the typical tries were not injured. American victims far higher than Dutch rates. The rates of same, both the percentage of Dutch house­ Dutch person must can)' far more cash 3-6. Household burglaries In the United States and In the Netherlands were someWhat more likely to require purse theft and street attack are higher in holds which are insured and the pCicentage than the typical American. While there are medical attention than Dutch victims but the Netherlands, and rates of street robbery which are coinpensated is higher than in no surveys of the amount of cash carried, U.S. Netherlands possibly slightly less likely to require are about the same. Patterns of relationship it is clear from Table 3-7 that the Dutch the J.1nited States. The overall rate of hospitalization. between demographic characteristics and household burglary is about five times as victim of purse or wallet theft was far Percent reporting no loss 22 26 more likely to sUstain some money loss rates of victimization are similar in tlle two Median loss overall 140 267 great in the United States as in the Nether­ The most serious street attacks, those re­ countries. Urbanization is positively related Median loss, if any 250 487 lands, but the rate of burglary with a non­ and that that loss was far greater thl\n the sulting in death, are excluded from victim­ to victimization. Age is generally negative­ Percent loss GT 250 OW 39 52 compensated loss is 9.4 times as high, typical loss suffered by an American. ization surveys. There is no continual PercenUoss GT 250011, if any 5Q 79 Thus, both the probability ofpayoff and ly related to victimization. Family income measure of th0':death rate from homicide in has either no relationship ora curvilinear Percent Insured 47 66 My general impression of lifestyle llnd the size of the payoff are likely to be far the Netherlands, but it is probably very' the\ynit~ greater in the Netherlands than in the Unit­ relationship. Percent who recovered something . 12 46 household security .precautions in low. My own research in Amsterdam indi- ' ~! Percent insured who recovered })' 26 75 " ed~!States and the Netherlands closely, ~~r­ ed States. cates about 15-20 violent deaths per year. Burglary in the United States and the Neth­ Median recovery, if any 735 011 940011 responds to th. e r~a. lity of the bUfgI.a~y! tes Street dssaults and robberies. As shown in In a typical American city of the same size erlands. Burglary induces fear because of OVerall household burglary rate ',) 6,482 1,253 of the two countnes.· Homes both mh:m­ Tabl~ in 1975, there were about 168 violent Nonrecovered household burglary rate 5.704 676" sterdam and The Hague and in rur(( areas 3-1, given.the violent reputation of its potential for violence and because of the deaths, Part of the difference in number of were protected with locks Which, by the United States, rates of street assault are impact of home invasion on the individ­ surprisingly higher in the Netherlands. killings may be due to gun availability; "$1.00 "" 2.27 011. American standards, Were e~ceedingly in­ ual's concept of his or her own domain. Rates' of street robbery in the two countries however, large differences remain to be **Assumespercent burglary recovery is same as most recenl. secure. These were often invalidated or un­ Yet, studies of burglars have shown that explained. used during the day. During working are very similar. Intheory, anyone is sub­ they do not want to confront their victim ject to a street assaUlt, Thus, there is no and generali}Fchoose tW-gets to minimize United States, most .officially known bur­ home; 4% work more than 20 hours a hours, DUlchbusiness and offices are very Comparison of Dutch and American street glaries (63%) are against households (UCR week .. In 1976,45% of married American well protected With porters checking all obvious difference in the opportunity for robbedes should be made very cautiously the probability 'Or confrontation. Recent re­ street assault. However, some difference in search has described a relationship between 1976). women with children age 0-18 worked and anterooms and with store detectives and because there were only 16 Dutch crimes 32% worked outside the home more than electronic surveillance. In major cities, for opportunity does exist.· Part of the differ­ in the sample survey. It appears that differ­ "guardianship"and burglary; Themost This difference in reported target in the 35 hours a week. examplej bank tellers have no cash. How­ ence in rate of assault between the two ences and similarities are much like those likely targets of property crimes are those two countries probably reflects a difference ever, most stores close at mid-afternoon countries may result frOm the great density for assault. Guns and other weapons are which are relatively unguarded. Thus, most in opportunities. In 1977, most Dutch of the Dutch popu)ation,andpartmay Thus,it is likely that Dutch homes are oc­ Saturday and reopen Monday afternoon. In more likely to be present in the United of the recent increase in burglary rates in stores" factories, and offices could legally stem' from the greater pedestrian use of the United States has been a result of a cupjed .a far greater percentage of the day, the United States, homes are far better pro­ be open no more than 37-112 hours per streets in .the Netherlands. Public transport great increase in daytime burglaries (Cohen and are therefore less easily available for tected by locks but less well protected by week, and moonlighting ("black work". in is much more widely used in the Nether­ 3-7. Theft of wallot or purse In the United and Felson) .. Cohen demonstrates that the burglary than U,S. homes. Table 3-5 dra­ people than in the Netherhlfids. American Dutch) was often criticized. Thus,.not only lands than in the United States. Fewer peo.­ States and in the Netherlands . overall .level of officially known. burglaries matically illustrates these differences in tar­ stores, offices, and factories are occupied a were businesses, factories, and offices un­ get availability. There is no difference in 1 pIe, especially in central :cities, have access is inversely related to the percentage of far greater percentage of the day thali in likely to be operating at night, but they I to .a car, and the nature of Dutch shopping, U.S. Netherlands women in the labor force. burglary rates between the two countries the Netherlands. also were unlikely to be well guarded. for occllpied homes. In both countries, nearly dally in street markets and small Compared to the Nethedands,. U.S. stores ThUS, there are three differences between Percent reporting no The rate of burglary reported to the police these are rare. However, burglaries of un- !I stores, results in more contact than in the loss ..27 4 in the United States is higher than in the and factories are open long houts,. moon­ ,occupied homes are nine times more Hkely the pattemsof burglary in the United United States. Madran loss overall 0 200fl 60.5011 lighting is widely practiced and accepted, States and in the Netherlands. (1) The most Mecjian loss. if any 45 Oil 65.011 Netherlands .. In 1976, 5,670 burglaries ,:" in the United. States than in the Nether­ When higher rates of have been were reported to the police per 100,000 and a much greater percentage.of women lands. Daytime burglaries of unoccupied. readily available targets for burglars\\n the viorei~e Percent loss greater than have a paying job. Thus,occupancy of of­ Netherlands are commerCial;' those in the found in European cities than in the United 100 Guilders ($44) ,20 34 households in the United States and.3,051 homes are ]2 times more likely in the States, shocked ,-\mericlmcriminologists Percent loss greater than fices and factories is greater,and occupan­ United States are homes; (2) American . In the Netherlands (Maandstatistiek';' Mei United States than in the Netherlands. have argued that the ferocity of European 100 Oil, if any 27 35 1977). However, in the Netherlands, there cy of houses is less than in'the,Nether­ households are far more likely to be vic­ are two and a half times as many officially lands. In the Netherlands, the structure of If Cohen and Felson's obserVation of tims of burglars; and (3) American house­ changes in opportunities for burglary over reported burglaries as there are in the vic­ . labor makes cOIl1lJlercialorganizations a holds are far less likely to recover burglary 3-8. Street assault and robbery In the. United States. and In tho Nethorlands tim Survey. In the United States; the nllln::' ····likely target ofilttack, while in the United time Can be extended to comparisons . losses than their. Dutch counterparts, I. . across countrie&, their findings arc strongly ber of victim sUrvey burglaries exceeds the States, homes are a more likely target. would think that the feeling of an aU-per­ Robbery Assault number of burglaries .known to the police. supported by this comparison of Dlltch and vasive threat of burglars would be far In the United States, 73% of the population 3 U.~. . Netherlands U,S. Netherlands American households. greaterin the United States than in the This difference between the two countries " age 20-65 was in the labor force in 1976. results from a difference in the burglar's In tl?e Netherlands, 59% of this pOPldation Netherlands. Percent where gun present 30.6 1~.5; 14.5 t.8 target choice. In the Netherlands, stores, 3This does not imply that it should be the ~- was in the labor force. Women are far less n./e'i oifpurse. orwa.. llet. While e"idence of Pllrcentwhere no weapon present 35.8 Q 50.0 57.0 78.9 factories, and offices are the targets of . sponsibility of women to stay at home in ()rder ;t. 'Percent where Offender known 17;4 50.0 57.4 70.9 likely to work in paid occupations in the to prevent comes. o .differences in 0pp011unity for theft of a __ Percent with no Injury 60.3 64.3 73.4 77.2- most officially known burglaries. Only c) Nethei'lands than in the United States (560/0 wal\J or pu/:Se are far weaker than' for bur~ Percent wlt.h Injury; but no mecjlcal attenllon ~4.3 2.8.6 16,9 18.1 () 15% of the repartee! burglaries are against vs. 31 %). Sixteen percent of Dutch mar­ glary. it is likely that...b,~Qu1IIi.P~obilbi.lity"" "Percent requIring medical attention '15.47.1 9,6 3.5 households (Maandstatistiek 1975). In the ried women.with children work outside the "$.~"""""""c-1)f;i'8Wllf:d"and·'fh'e'·'fi'mount of reward are "1,. _p_e_rc_e_nt_r_eq_u_lr_ln_g_h_Os_p_lt_al_lz_at_lo_n-:-______-- ______.1____ ' _1;_2_.--1

, ,_' . _, ,,' .~'..:':r("':O;l>!i':l>~~,~·:·~;,~:",,:-v\~i,k~i"C.,)~,,~.'l>~"\' .. ", Natkmal studies of victimization 27

.. \ « . " . - . /( '! • '--.------~---,'_- '-r,~ /i; 11:\ ;: 1 . ,\/ ,,' II Jil: ' \ )i 'I r '\I I 1/ Ii ~>-~Ll::~~of crime in Du~bh i y ~ 7-~' ;T'""T"""~ , Ii 1K A7 H, D, ""INM!" , States than in the Netherlands but the rec If "~ t i" ~ARL sO/t'et 1973-19~9'" Ii an attack are very similar in the two coun­ sultant patterns of injury are,nearly identi-" Li=g. [Aggressive tries; however, .a gun is far mO~e likely to criminIiIi~r;-= 'i cal in the two countries., No infonnation burg]," Rijksuniversiteit te Groqin~ibn. be involved in the United States than in the , was available in the Dutch s:f\rvey about Bovenkerk, F., and L. Bront (1977)' 1,1,1 ,,'.',,1,,1 /! I' fi Netherlimds. \. I '~ '. ~~~I' ______....,j amount of money stolen in each robbery, De raJelralld van Amsterdam Pfh¢ frayed II -'-~-.-J. II I I' ,I/ I' III I,':' . . . edge of Amsterdam]; AmsteJ'dl~mfl Boom lone but if it is assumed that the amount stolen If much of the difference betwe~(n the IJ,1,974'.,i . . lo.,f. ,.the aUtl,,:lors of lilis paper • IJsefulnesslof a vlctir:' survielY s:ome genera!tzations about the population MeppeL ii, (I is similar to that when a wallet or purse is Netherlands and, the United Statt!s is deperl~ plablisheia an thcle in the Dutch weekly victim is a way "of the eif Limburg. stolen, cash loss is probably higher in each dent on opportunity structure, is i~ possibl!r Brearley, H. C. (1932) ! ;1 t ~ su~{ey me:as~ring til the violent crime. ,brime rate Wj, 9 use (If police re- A,s the bicycle theft example indicates, vic- robbery in the Netherlands than in the to predict changes in patterns of crime as I, Homicidf} illithe Ullited States::, Gihapel lluerm~ttiaire I tre!!d~, i~ th ut makin~ United States. Opportunity theory would. these, structures change? It is prot/able that Hill: University of North Car9Ii~!a Press. The artli.l a~ lied thati:cnmmology was (cords. Offeniles that are n9t rePi,brted to the :tim surveys do not provide infonmition predict that Dutch robbery rates would be daytime burglaries of unoccupied/houses; C(mtral Bureau, Vool' Statistiek (:1 177) ~tying tel get Ipy with t~le use or st0r.gaps. / police or thol1e which, for one reason or~olely 011 the number of offenses commit- higher than those of the United States. The account for a major proportion o( the dif,: ,Statistisch Zakboek [Statistical; 1Ii Even the str~lghtforwll!rd questIOn, How I another are Inot recorded by th'em are also:ted. They also shed direct light on the pro- probable reward is greater in each theft. ference between the two countries in rates ,POCketbook],' 1/ :1 I !much violent' crime is Jhere in the. Nether~ ; taken i~to ac,bount. " II 'portion of such offenses reported to the Ct.ihen, L. E.".a,nd M. Felson Qp?8) i.1ands?"" could not be a,rswered satlsfacton- I I police alid the proportion officially record- That they are not indicates that it is neces­ of burglary. Therefore, the rate of house': lily, The, dataavailablel'from the Netherlands ..•• The of a victim sud1ey may be ed by the police. The types of infonnation hold burglary should vary inversely with\ Social and crlme A usefulnei~s sary to go beyond simple theories of ra­ challg~! rat~;ltjte/lds: l,icentral Bureau of Stajistics only indi~ated,: illustrated bYiI!reference to the",/igures now obtainable through victim surveys may be tionality and look at the history and culture unemployment and directly withiemploy~ .routine act{Vn')' ~pproaC~I. ~~Ia!inpaign­ 1 i(and s~lll indicate) the; number of ~untSh- '1 available on :he increase in tlJe offense of briefly summarized as follows: of the societies before predicting patterns 'ment of women. Given the current Ameri­ U~ba, na umVet.}ilty of IlhnOls~f" I able offenses P, rocessed by the polICe and '.1 bicycle theft Itluring 1977. Thle police stat- li,i of criminal behavior. can pattern of increasing une~ployment' , FerdlQand, Theodb~ (1969) :11,:1 ' courts. I· II istics, the Ceiltdll Bureau Of, II,I! I, Percentage oj the natlonal populCltion imd female l~por force participation and Crimes oj vi,?lence~, National!!:lctommis- publis~ledl;>y 1/ Statistics, shqiweda drop of 0.8% in the II age 16 and older who are the victims oj Summary and conclusions work hours, fates of household burglary: .sion on the Ca,uses ~nd Prev!~!,\tion of If we wish to know the real crime situatiol] number of th~lse offenses. TI'te results of p certai1ltypes oj offense ill q particular year: should remain about constant in the Unnted Violence. Washingto~U.S .:i!Jovernment in the Netherlands (the article concluded),:! the 1977 survey, however, show Thl's percentage pennits us to estimate the This comparative analysis of the United vict~fI1 II States. The Netherlands, too, stiffers fri?m Printing Offi(:e. '~I!II we must ask a sample of that the percentage of the Dutch popUlation: totlii number of offenses committed. By States and the Netherlands has found both :h~population ,I higher than nonnal unemploymt!Ot;, ho\\iev­ Ferdinand, The(,d!:Jre (1973r~~{ , whether they have been VictIms of an of- /" age 16 and oIlIer who had a bkycle stolen: down the sample .according to differences and similarities in crime pat­ I bre,~king er, in the Netherlands unemployment rrlay "The criminal patterns of B~i?ton since I fense in the preceding year. The article; actually rose iI~ 1977; in ~hat year 5.9% of' vadou$: criteria it is also p,Qssible to calcu- terns. The major differences between the result in a decline in female labor forcf~ 1849!l" AmericanJoul'lIal ofrl'~OciOlogy, ! two countries are the number and impact of I continued: ,:, the population\lhad a bicycle srolen, while;1 late thel percentage of the various popula- participation, and perhaps a de(;line in ,the July,:!pp. 84-99. .1.! . In the United States, a start Was madell in 1976 the fil!:6re was s,i!.%. The confiic~: tion groups that have been the victims of household burg1aries. Household burglaries number of householg burglariC$. Fiselier) J. P. s. (1978) It! several years ago' with the use o.f s. uc hi)'. ,! be tween th e PJ''111 Ice' s ta ti' SInt'cs a d the VI'ctl'rn', ,11.' Victimization rates can be cal- are far more probable in the United States, SlachtoJfers van lielictell [V;i~tims of an,~of""'.nse. Patterns of Dutch cash are': victim surveys. The U.S, authontles 111- survey resu It s I ~te exp alOe 'I and the impact of each burglary is likely to sub~titl\tes i I' b I' d by a'nothar' culatedl.,, for those living in certain munici- CQlne). Utrecht: ARS Aeq~fLibri(Eng- I tend to repeat such sampling at set in~br- finding of the Sl1~ ey: the percentage; of I palities or provinces, for the male and be far greater~ I argue that most of the dif­ changing, In 1980, the first un,verSal " II, : , lish sumhlary)., vals. In the Netherlands a similar sur"ley persons who. d sto!en andll female halves of the popUlation, and for ference in rates results from patterns. of oc­ Dutch credit cards were introdjlced. As the Gurr, TedR. (1977) I h~~ ~! bi~ycles II is currently being carried out by J. S. who file pohce a?d an age groups and social classes. cupancy and guardianship: lfomes are Dutch credit system approacne~ the AriIen­ "Crime trends in modern dc:inocracies pi/ ;!t~d notlfi:l~ ~Igned variou~ likely to be occupied a greater percentage can, purse thefts will probably I becom~ less .. Fiselier of the Criminological1nstitu~ir of officlaH;OmpI3l,?t f~rm 9wa6s sTlghmfi~an~IYtth 2. Pe';~elltage oj victims oj all offellse who profitable and decline. since 1945," Intemationali,A~mals oj of the time in the Netherlands' than in the Crimillology16 (l and 2):!~iI:i-85. Nijmegen with the ~id of a ~rant frorr. "lower in 19~7 1t1lan 10 1 7. e flSe m:it~. notify tIle police: It is alsb possible.to 'j Y e ore United States, while businesses ar,e less " It is unlikely that patterns of crime in the Jongman, Riekent (ed.)(197~P • the Ministry of Justice. If thIS surve),' IS number ,of blc ,11. the~ts was there"r r1c- study ~he characteristics and mo!\v(;S of , repeated with any degree of , ,it compamed by, a ,drop 10 rate 01,' who fail to report to, likely to be occupied than. in the United Netherlands will ever be similar to those in Klass-ele'~lefl{en ill de Re~;llt~1ga~!g [C~ass regUlar~' t~e SUC~I pers~mij victimi2.~~!?ins States. ' will be possible in futUre t,o detenni,!e . thefts ~ecorde? ~;y th.e po!tce. C0!1~eqU7·nt- the ponce. In this area, too, local anoga- the United States, They will become mOle ele~e~ts 10 le.gal. proceduli9]" RlJksum­ alike as the nations become more similar. versltelt teo Gronmgen. /1 II II /l the shift in crime in the Netherland with Iy, police statlstl~ts"showa downward II tioniil differences can be identified. The. ,: While guardianship is the basis' of thedif­ (( an .acceptable degree Of... certain.ty. ,Ffpr !Tend, while in re'rIilY there was a, n ,f which the populatiofl has witl( ferences in burglary opportunities, .reward Differences in history and culture will re" Philips, s. H. (1938) ,J II II .' exp~Ct~tions the moment, the only data avallable:/ are mcrease. \ I, regatct to action by the police and judicial" is probably the basis of differences in rates main even as opportunities for crime He~passionnelf/~ m~sdri4H iWederlalld [ he those from a mini-in. vestigation Another concrete Ixa, mpleo\ the, :'usefulness authOritIes are of particular interest here. : of theft of walIet or purse. The Dutch per­ change. However, this comparative analy­ [Cntnes of passIon 10 tk1.' '~I~ei herlalids], ~y t1 NIPO. * of safety, or .tI.le lack of It, I, n of vI'ctl'm survey" ~iS a yardstick for mea- Ii l, ,I' I ii il r. I son is likely to carry more cash than the sis .has pointed. to some probable rea.ons 0 Amsterdam. ,)! I i 9 4) p,ub!tc places (van IJk I 7. ,II: SUrillg the crime ra, te relates to the d. ecades- 3. F;lerdellfage'l wpersons d' IV lOreII'port at"l oJ-I'i American, and this difference is reflected for both the crime patterns of each country Punch, Maurice (I 979) Ii I 1 , . l!~,. ~ . Jellse tOi,;the po ice an sign a :/ both in the probability of any loss and in and bases for their differences. Policing the inner cit)': ~,1~ituIV.Y of Am­ Since then, Fise.lier ;5. rep. 0.. rted i sur- old debate on ~ er or the percentage ,:,v~lttellan, s~~lte- h~. ~n \~lse wh~tl. no~ cr~me ~e~r(j'his ca~ ~\,ovlde Ii the amount lost. sterdam's Warmoesstraat. Arhsterdam: J vey in the fonn of a dpctoral theSIS (lt - figures for t.he prov nce of Llmb?rg are mdlq:atHlil of .th.e. char.a.ctenstlcs of offense.s I' Sh 1 oe~nng'li'11'1 Ii. I lier 1978). Moreover, 1,~verY year sin~!e u~usuD,lly l11gh. In t~e past, ~tl1dleS of and I(hosp reportmg them that playa part III I Thus, differences in rates of property crime References ' 'I Il Stachhouwer, J. D, F. (1939) i ! ' 1974, the Research an~' Dncumentat~bn cnme.as recorded by the pohce or the.. the ~Iecision as to whether or not an Offil,iall can probably be explained by differences in Archer, Dane" and Rosemary Gartner Criminaliteit prostitute ~r'l: d1elf\ ,/Oord bij Center of the Ministry:pf Jl,lstice (RifC) courts hav~ repeat~d~r ~ho~n that t?e mCI- poIio:e mhort is prepared. In this way, th,~ target availability in the two Countries, (1976) lmmigralltell in AmsterdGl,iljlll(Clfiminal. ity, 'has commissioned tne to out a dence of cnml 10 Limburg. IS far some .light on unofficial poli- Rates of street robbery do not differ,but it l~lPO ca~ vlOI~nt r surv\~y s~~ds I "Violent acts and violent times: A com­ prostitution, and individu~llmqrality of nationwide survey of th,e Dutch publ,ic's above. th~ national a~tlrage. OccasIOnally, cy oil POh."ce reportmg. 1'1 might be expected that they should. Differ­ parative .approach to postwar homicide Amsterdam immigrants] (13 ~gliifh Sum­ expeirience with crime. ';/t is now poilsibh~, far-re~chmg concluslO?s ~bout t.';;.d.egre: I:' ! ences in rates of street assault are not ex­ rates," American Sociological Review g mwy), Utrecht: Dekker aQd1i v,\yegt. trend,therefore, to say somet.fi1,I·n .,. about tqle crime OfCiVtliZ, ?tion. ,and/or C~,JllflB}-cOnQ~.tl~ns 10 Limltatil~ns on use of victim survey plained by any obvious differences between 41:937-963 (December). Van Dijk, J . .J. M. (1977). II .', S in the NethetIand,s during the pastthat.provmce have bee \, G1lfllWn fron~u.ch H" '! I k the, two countries. 13erents, Dirk (1976) few I·)rears on the basis oJ snmple surveys find lOgs , However, e 1,sU ts a t2% VIC- , 'c-~}) "pe geweldsgolf schijn of: ~ard\' Werke­ l th e I f h as a\iryar'~~"st c i Patterns of victimization are also similar in Misdaad in de middeleeuwen, [Crime in lijkheid" [The waveofviol~'nce Appear­ " rathel tha, Ii OQ th, e basis i)., f nplice and. court tim ~tirv~ys to d~te have,\ repeat~d~ shown It W? ?~d ~I~ wrong to t?ink th~t the results several ways. Most importantly, basic de­ the .Middle Ages]. Rijksuniversiteit te ance or bard. reality] in De ~,\edl\t·gde recorl~s. The availaqili~yi,'of\:Jle ~esults of a t1~at m.Llmbu,rg I~ genel)~ and m~~ of vI9pms,l;lrveys proVIde a completely true Utrecht. mographic relationships betwee~victimiza­ BUrg..e.t [the Burd,ened Citizeir], I d. by paraIl,cl annual survey m(!the:\Umted States tn.cht, .ltS capital, 10 partl\rular, (VIOlent) pictu9r of ~\~e crime rate. Th: results of . Bonger, Willem (1969) E. Van der Volk, Utrecht: Sped m make!: international comf\arispns of the re- cnme Isnotu:eably low,. )ye can by no , vi,cti surVI:,,(,'Ys als.o hav.e theIr defects. tion rates and urbanization, income, sex, ll1 'and age differ very little. Only iii patterns Criminality alld eco.nomic conditions. Publishers, pp, 16-33. ,i 1 suits r',ossible. 'i ;\. means rule out the posslbl\\lty that there IS ,I I f of purse or wallet theft is there a signifi­ Abridged by Austin Turk. nloomington: Van R,ooy, H. (1949) I '1' II: Ii more, serious (violent) crill\\e .in Limburg , FIrst, We 1l1'\:r deal 109 WIth the resu ts 0 a cant difference between the two countries, Indiana University Press, Crim.'·lIalitiet Van stad e. n lalld: Nlvme. gen *Trnnslated by John Moyer. ii, l! . than the s~n:eys sho,": (Offi~lnses .with a survey of a l)opulation sample, Even with Buikhuisen, W., R, W. Jongman, and T. **Jan J. M. van Dijk and Crud Hi! D. Stemrnetz very low mCldence WIll go pmctlCally unre- il\ , and this probably reflects opportunities ell Omstreeken ICriminalitYQf citly and '~ available. Patterns of injury resulting from Schilt (N.D;) countryside: Nijmegen and surrou\~dings] a, re colleugues unhe ~e~~~rc~',.a~(' DO. cume~ul- corded in victim surveys, since only a sam, _ lIn this article~\ the'\villingness of the public to \ Onderzoek: Aggressive ctiminaliteitin , (English Summary). Utrecht: Deklten tion Center (WOOcy of the ~Im~,ry of Justice pIe is taken) but the results cast doubt on notify the politte ,and the official reporting of the '\ and Van de Vegt. in The Hagu. e.. 'I" 'I ,. _____ . \. police are deal( ~ith only briefly. Further infor- 28 Nation£ll studies oj victimization *N.I,P.O.: Nederlnnds Institllu\ Wor PlIblieke. *A mining area in the ~o~th o~itheI COU?try. . 5,6,mation 7, onand thesel Sbr topics van Dijk will andbe foulldSteinmetz, in sections The Opinie [Dutch Institute for Public,;Opinion and Causal. argllJ?lent~ are Similar .tt~i U.S. diSCUSSions RDC vicJim slII{teys, 1974-1979. Market Research]" ' ': of Appnlachl8n Violence. [Edlt1111r] , l\ d' if.... 29

NatlOlla \,ftll les 0 VICt1llllZat101I \1\ \

\n .-":t- \« .. '. ------~-----'

()

careful sample selection, there is a chance that a particular popUlation group with ex­ 4-1. Percentage of Dutch people over age 15 1/ Figure 4-1. Trends iii victim.~zailion percentage (results of' ceptionally high or low victim rates will n who were victims of an offense, 197~79 i) not be proportionately represented in the I[ Percellt sample (e.g., persons of no fixed abode). 1976 1977 1978 1979 Such a flaw in the sample can affect the fi­ ?,re.- .~-. % % Moped Threatening or nal result. the It 'Damage to property violent behavior 5.0 5.9 6.8 7.7 In the street There is another qui~;~ different .reason why innocent party in collision 9.7' the results of victim surveys do not give a with motor vehicle 3.0 3.0 Innocent party involved In 4.5 7.1 6.3 8.0 6.4 completely true picture of crime. Most "hil-and-run" accident Dutch citizens have insufficient .legal Bicycle theft 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 U1' 4.0 3.0 4.5 5.4 5.9 5.7 7.5" knowledge to be able to decide iii. every Moped theft 7.0 10..0 0 6.5 4.0 4.2 4.5 case whether.or not a particular incident Threatening o( liiolent 3.~ behavior in the street constitutes a punishable offense within the Pocketplck[ngl .. 1.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.2 meaning of Dutch criminal law. At first Purse snatching 1.0 1.0 1.7 sight, this would appear to cause consider­ Theft from a private car 3.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 Indllcenl assault in the 2.0 2.0 1.7 3.0 2.3 2.3 3.4' able difficulty. Some of the incidents listed street by the .respondents as offenses would not Burglary In a dWelling 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7' be regarded as such by the police or the Theft of private car 0.5 courts. The question arises, however, 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 whether the views of the police and the 'The differences from 1978 ar~ significant at a O.OSlevel. courts on what constitutes crime should be decisive. Such a question is even more ap- (±40%) who did not report the incident to propriate if the attitude of, say, the police the police gave as their rel,lson that they take "crime" to mean incidents interpreted as to what constitutes an offense is partly "didn't think it necessary." We may ask as such by the public. As a rule, such. inci­ dictated by pressure of work. Some police whether the incidents referred to by this dents .Will also be regarded as punishable offenses by the police and the courts, al­ officers. appear to take the view that be- category of victim should be counted as of- though minor dis&epancies are possible. ca~se a bicycle has disappeared it has not fenses.·In the case of bicycl(1, theft, howev- o necessarily been stolen and that, according- er, we consider it righUn principle that To sum up, we postulate that the results of ly, the notification received need not be incidents nofreported to the police by the a victim survey are prone. to the errors and made the subject of an official report. victims because they themselves "didn't uncertainties specific to a national sample However, from the victim's viewpoint his think it necessary" should still be counted. survey. Since a sample is involved, the dif­ N~tlonal victim rates since 1973 or her bicycle has disappeared and has not True, the respondents in question did not weighted so as to make them comparable ferences found between the victimization 3 and 1976 can also be detenllined by been re!urned and has therefore been stot\,~_ rate the events very seriously. but they rates in 2,separate years or between two The main findings of ~he RDC victim sur­ with the other figures. The victim rates o.PInpiilnIlg the various percentages of the for the offenses of bicycle theft, motorbike len. Th.IS seems ~o us more relevant. for -) nevertheless answered yes to the question population groups must be tested for statis­ vey describe the percentage of the national P:"If'UI"""!~1 that were the victims of one or theft, car theft, and theft from cars are cal­ measur~ng the crone rate than the VIews of of whether their bicycles had been stolen. tical signlficance. Every attempt hi,ls been popUlation Who were the victims of 1 or 10 offenses during those years. more of the::ItJ types of offenses listed in culated on the basis of the number of own­ the pohce. In other wor~s,. we hold that al- In the case of offenses such as threatening made to meet this ,requirement in 'present-, I the years 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979, 2 ers of such conveyances. Table 4-1 shows though the results of a VIctIm survey may behavior or indecent assault * however ing the findings in this report. When study­ i the preceding calendar year. These victim­ thl'~ likelihood of becoming a victim of I or be colored by the ideas of the public as to one "'wonders whether incide~ts listed w'hich ing the victim rates, it must be borne in ization percentages indicate the risk the lithe victim percentages for 1973-79. Of the ml]re of these 10 offenses in the Nether­ what c?nstitutes an offense and what does were unknown to the police because . mind that they relate to OCcurrences which I average Dutch citizen ran of becoming the 10 types of offense, several are higher in l&nds was 18, 18, 19, and 23% respective­ not, thIS ".e~ not be regarded as a draw- ±65% of the nonreporting victims "didn't constitute offenses in the eyes of the vic­ victim of 1 .or more of the 10 offenses re­ 1979 than 1978-victim percentages for ly,. while the likelihohd of becoming the back. A VICtim survey, therefore, measures think it necessary"** should in fact always tims. Victimization percentages for the of.: ferred to during the year conceriled .. As the damage to property (?9%), bicycle theft victim of 2 or more offenses during the . tille.level of crime, in Dutch society ~y indi~ be regarded as offenses. Those concerned fenses of threatening behavior and indecent t survey Was carried out for the seventh time (32%), theft from a private car (48%), and saIne years was 4.0, 4.3, 4.0 and 5.0% re­ 'burglary in a dwelling (42%). In particular, )\f cating the proportIon of the population who probably did not regard the incident as an assault may even relate to some extent to in succession in January 1980, victim rates. s~)ctively. During each 12-month period 1 -,.,y believe that they have been the victims of offense either_ In our opinion, the victim OCcurrences which the victims themselves are now available for the years 1973-79. the Jncrease of this last offenseis"reinark­ ou\: of 4 or 5 Dutch citizens became the an .offense. rates. for the latter two offenses-threaten­ did not equate with "real" crime. Sixteen and seventeen-year-oIQs were in­ able because up to 1979 thisJype of crime victim of 1 of the 10 offenses listed above, o cluded for the first time in 1977. The vic­ had shown stable rates. The increase of the In the example of the missing bicyCle just ing behavior and indecent assault-should o and lout of 25 the victim of 2 or more of " violent types of crimes is fortunately much 5 given, we assumed that the victim reported for this reason be approached with special ~im rates for the previous years were these 10 offenses. lower and not statistically significant. 4 a bicycle theft to the police. If, incsuch a care. With this limitation, however, the 2For a g~neral explanation of th¢ design Ill\d im­ Figure 4-1 presents graphically the changes case, the police refrain from making the victim rates appear to us to be an altogeth­ Whether the burden of crillJ~ on Dutch so­ in the victimization percentages since er true indicator of "crime," provided we plementation of RDC Victim sUfveys, reference notification the subject of an official re­ . may be made to vanDijkand Vianen (1977) ciety was greater in 1979 than in 1978, 1973. The graph shows that most types of port, we still consider it right to include .1 and van Dijkand Steinmetz (1979). The most *1 kriow of no precise American trarislation for 3The results of the 1977 survey show that the the incident in the survey .findings as a bi­ recent vic!im surveys took place in the period S As the tenth offense, "failing to stop after an cycle theft. There is, perhaps, room for "indecerit assault." The category covers sexually" ! victim rates for the 16-17 age group are practi­ j' from January 9 to February.14, 1978, and in the accident" was included instead of "innocent par­ doubt if the person whose bicycle has dis­ offensive acts. It includes rape and attempted period from January 1 to February 28, 1979. In cally identical with the rates for the 18-25 age ty in collision with a motor vehicle." rape, but the bulk of the incidents involve rather .i, group. The. results for the previous years were appeared fails to notify the police. The vic­ both years, more than 10,000 people age 16 /) limited physical contact. Perhaps it can be dti~ years and older were questioned (1978, 11 ,095; reweighted so that the proportion of 18-25 year tims of "bicycle thefts" not reported to the scribed as any physical intrusion ofpotentia1ly olds in the sample would equal that of the 16-25 police may include persons who themselves 1979, 12,489). Since former RDC surveys re­ sexual nature-pinching, armgrabbing, etc, vealed that the big cities were often underrepre­ year olds in the 1977 sample. doubt whether their bicycles were stolen. [Editor] 5% reliability margins have been calculated Replies to the question of why the police sented, additional surveys were conducted in ~he 1978 and 1979 in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and with the aid of Ule formula for multistage sam- were not informed may provide some in­ **Most of those responding "didn't think it nee­ The Hague. This made it possible to limit/he pling, 1.96 ~ See C. Cozijn, "Enkele Kantte­ formation in this regard. Some of those ess1U)''' reported that they "settled" the incident , amount of rewc:ighting necessary. ~ themselves. keningen bij het Artikel van Knoi," Mens ell o Maatschappij, vol. 52, no. I, 1977. 30 National studies of victimization "I'

National studies of victimizati01l 31

(\ ,r '-"' _____'_' __ N_·~,,_

o

tapose another survey finding to this statis­ offense were fairly stable in the 1973-75 tic. Almost 1 in 100 of those questioned 4-3. Likelihood of becoming the victim of one or more offenses In 1976, period. 6 A few types of offense showed a 4-2. Comparison of the extent of crime In 1977 as recorded by the Central BUreau had sustained an injury requiring medical 1977, 1978, al1d 1979, per group of munlclpalltles~ slight rise in 1975. This rise persisted in of Statistics (CBS) and as estimated on the basis of the ROC victim survey attention as the result of being the innocent ------~------~-----_____...;;o,',~+::~.:-.:~ 1976. There appears to have beenQaHother party in an accident involving a motor ve­ 1976 1977 1978 1979 ,c..~Jt % leveling off in 1977 and 1978. In 1979, Police records, ,) hicle. Motorized transport, then, causes in­ % % % . most types of offense again showed higher (municipal, . nocent victims to lose far more time­ national, and Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The "Hague , " 28 29 28 percentages. Overall, during the last 7 ~ , through injury than the much debated I :...~ 33 frontier Survey Population 100,000-400,000 21 20 years most of the offenses in the victim "strret terror"'\of juvenile offenders. ",.- '24 27 police) estimates Ratio 'of municipality 50,000-100,000 19 17 17 20 Police statistics Victim survey (1) (2) 20,000-50,000 survey have shown a steady rise. 211 ,::--' 16 17 17 20 The average financial loss occasioned by 5,000-20,000 12 12 13 18 5,{)00 The most evident increase since 1973 is in Theft, unauthorized taking of a pedal'cycle Bicycle theft 104,815 399,262 3,8 the offenses listed in the survey varies ap­ Less than 8 8 11 13 bicycle theft and wallet theft. ':1t should be Theft, unauthorized taking of mO(.,'Bd. and Moped theft 26,386 " preciably from one type to another. The to­ 46,585 1.8 National 18 18 noted that we can form no coilclusions as Joyriding with moped (art. 37) tal cost of petty crime (bicycle theft, 19 23 Theft, unauthorized taking of motor vehicle Theft of a car , 13,387 13,973 1.0 to the actual total numb~r of wallet thefts and joy-riding with motor vehicle (art. 37) moped theft, theft of and from cars"mali­ 'Not muniCipalities In the American sense; see Richard Block, "The Impact of victimization, rates and in the country on the basis of the victim­ Malicious damage (art. 350-354) Vandalism or 41,738 491,943 11.8 cious damage, burglary and pocket pick­ patterns: A comparison of the Netherlands and the United States," in this volume. izatio!1 sJJrVeys, because many of the vic­ damage to property ing) in the Netherlands can be estimated tims are foreign tourists and therefore Violence against the !XI~on (art 300-306, Threatening/Violen.t 10,496 234,724 22.4 overall at nearly 500 million guilders (in 141,285) ~ Table 4-3 shows that the victimization per­ would not be included in the survey. There behavior In public " ~" 1979, $1 =Dfi. 2.1). Spread per capita Sexual offenses (art. 242,"..13, 246, Indecent assault in 7,252 149,015 20.5 centage increases :liong with the increase in Likelihood of becoming the victim has also been an increase in the violent 248 and 249) '\~"" public IJ over tqf! Dutch population, this wOV~~ of one or more offenses In Burglary (art 311.5) ,~.c the number of municipal inhabitants. The Ii crimes of vandalism (damage to property) Burglary In a 30,245 60,221 2.0 mean an annual loss of Dfi. 50 per person, differenc(y"o1ltween the largest and the 1975, 19n, and 1978 In the four and threatening behavior in a public place. dwelling or about Dfi. 150 per hou&ehold. (This largest cities Failing to stop after an accident (Road Hit-and·run 16,999 57,726 3,4 smallest municipalities appears to have les- Theft of private cars, burglary in a dweU­ Traffic Act art. 30) accident takes ,no account of the cost of offenses in ing, and sexual assault show a compara­ which companies or public institutions sened somewhat in 1978. Because there is 1976 1977 1978 a noticeable difference between the victim- % ~I't %, tively stable picture. Moped theft feU \ifter were the victims.) Total C~251.318 1,453,549 ization percentages for the' three major ~.,;:: the law prescribed the wearing of protec­ 5.8 t; In the last two surveys, those who replied cities and those for the other municipal- Amsterdam 34.5 40.7 34.2 tive headgear, but it is not yet clear wheth­ i; .that they had been the victims of indecent ities, it seems worthwhile to consider Am. Rotterdam 21.8 18,7 19.5 er the effect of the crash helmet will fault of their own, are hit by a motorist for 1977 with the survey estimate of the iJ assault in a public place O( of a sexual as­ d d d Th H The Hague 25.2 21,7 27,3 ~.l persist, because the number of victims of who fails to stop. In 1975, 1% of the pop­ number of offenses committed in the same ster am, Rotter am, an e. ague Utrecht 21.3 27.3 26.4 ~~ ulati,pn were victims of this type of traffic 8 sault indoors were further asked whether it separately. Other mUnicipalities 15.4 15.5 16.8 II this offense has again risen since 1976. year:; (j amounted to any~hing more than being Ii offense. In 1976 the figure was also 1%j in Utrecht, the fqurth largest city in the coun- '... ',',' . u The category "Innocent party in collision 1977,0.9%; in 1978 again, 0.9%; and in Table 4-2 shows that the survey estirtate of seized .. This appeared to have been the n try, will also be included in the compari- [::;alternatlVe, since .n can be used to co~pare I; with a motor vehicle" requires special com­ 1979, 1.2%. It ,appears therefore that the the number of thefts of cars is practically case in'a quarter of the outdoor incid,ents the same as the number of police-recorded son. Table 4-4 shows the pereentage of the ~ dire~tly the experI~nces ~f the populations "'I ment. There are two reasons for including extent of this traffic offense has remained and a third of the indoor ones. This shows \' thefts of cars. Theft of a car is preeminent­ inhabitants of the four cities who were vic- of different countrIes (Clmard and Jurger- this category of incident in the survey. constant. that most victims of indecent or sexual as­ tims of one or more offenses in 1976 Tas 1979). For this reason, a committee of t: First, it seemed logical to compare the ma­ ly an offense of which the police are,noti­ sault were not victims of rape or IItt~mpted }l The last three surveys contained questions 1977 and' 1978. Both the level and ;end the Organization for Economic Cooperation !.l terial damage resulting from crime wJth the fied, apd the police nearly always make rape. In such cases, therefore, we m~y on tb,reatening or violent behavior and sex­ such notifications the. subject of official re­ of th~ victim percentages for the four larg- and De~elopment in. Pru:is c~nc~rn~d with fi damage resulting from road accidents speak of "petty sexual violence," to' oistin. cst cities vary widely. The consistently low developmg standardized SOCIal mdIcators l! caused by others. The findings show that ual assault indoors. Research abroad has ports. For other types of offense,however, guish them from cases of tI1Je or attempted ); rate for Rotterdam is partiCUlarly interest- has recommended that su~h survey.s should motor vehicle accidents have kept pace shown that information given on these the recorded component forms only a frac­ rape." i" ing. Even when the victim rates for the 17 be used to m~asure the .cnme rate m with the growth in crime. In 1979, howev­ types of offense is relatively unreliable, be­ tion of what thepubJic regards liS constitut- I, 9 largest municipalities are compared, that of OECD countries. 'ro thIS end, a su~ey :; I er, motor vehicle accidents decreased. cause the respondents are often unwilling ing such offenses. \) to discuss them with the interviewer. 7 Of Local crime rate Rotterdam is .still significantly lower. The form has been de~lgn:d and. tested 111 a The second reason for including this cate­ The table also Shows that in 1977 Dutch survey findings show that Rotterdam (along number of c~~ntnes, mcludmg the Nether~, those questioned in the survey, 0.9% indi­ The prime object of the victim survey is to gory of question in the survey is the desire s~'6iety faced 1.5 million cases of crime. In with Maastricht) is the safest city in the lands (van DIJk 1978). cated that they had been threatened or information on the crime rate at the to obtain, by means of a supplementary 1979, there were about 2 million cases. obt!li~ physically assaulted indoor!) during 1977. national level. However, the size of the Netherlands. The relative safety of Rotter- , Meantime, it would seem wOI1hwhiIe to as- question, some idea of the percentage of In Most of these cases are not particularly se­ 1978 and 1979, these"figures were 1,]% sample is such as to enab~e us, with some dam is far less evident in police statistics. 'certain whether parts of the National Crime the population who annually, through no rious. Since mauy Dutch people associate and 0.9%. In the three last surveys, ap­ reservations, to draw certain conclusions In fact, the percentage of offenses reported Survey carried out in the United States an- proximatelyO.5% answered yes to the the idea of crime with serious offenses In­ to poIicein Rotterdam is considerably nually are comparable with the RDCvictim volving violence (Cozijn and van Dijk about local victimization percentages. The 6In a postal survey carried out at the end of ql,\estion of whether anyone had acted inde­ Dutch municipalities* may be divided into higher than in, for example, Utrecht or survey in its present form. In consultation 1973 by Dr. J. P. S. FiseHer, some 5,000 per­ cently towards them indoors~ against their 1976), most RDC publicatigjls use the term ~: :!~mrL:lInd sPlaller units. Amsterdam. Of every \0 offenses commit- with the present authors, the American y:, sons were asked whether they had been the vic­ will and in an aggressive manner. As stat­ "petty crime" to denote these less serious ted in Rotterdam, 6 are reported to the po- criminologist Professor Richard Block of tims of any of a list of offenses in 1973 or ed, there, are grounds for regarding these but widespread types ofcrime. About I in !:"For th~ pt1fPoses of qur project, they have lice,. as com~ared to 3 or 4 in Utrecht and Loyola University in Chicago has weighted 1972. The sample used in this survey differed in 1,000 of tHose questioned in the survey ap­ figures as a minimum estimate. been subdiVided into six groups, using this Amsterdam. 0 o the results of the American and Dutch sur­ two respects from the RDC sample: all inter­ peared to hav~ sustained an injury requir~ viewees were older th,l!Il age 18 and lived in mu­ criterion. Table 4-3 indicates the percent­ veys for 1976 in order to facilitate their The percentag~ of victims in the sample ing medical attention as the result of a age of the inhabitants of these sill. categor­ nicipalities with a municipal police force. can be used to estimate the total n~mber of A comparison with the United States broad comparison (Block 1979). Table 4-5 However, the adjustments to be made for com­ violent crime in a public place in the pre­ ies of municipalities Who were the victims offens,c::s committed in the Netherlands. Ta­ ') shows some of the results of this compara- parison purp\1ses to the figures obtained are on ceding year.' While in no way denying the Or one or more offenses in 1976, 1977, From a scientific point of view, the com­ ble 4-2 compares the police statistics esti­ tive study. J" balance very slight. The 1973 victimization per­ seriousness of such crimes, we wish to jux- 1978, and 1979 respectivCly. parison G'f internatiQl1al crime statistics is mate of the number of offenses recorded ~.!;/ centages calculated by Fiselier are on a par with virgin ten:itory, owing to wide differences" The table shows a considetable difference those c~lculated by the RDC for that year (bicy­ 8See van Dijk and Steinmetz (1979), chapters 5 ';Municipality In the Netherlands represents a di­ in legal definitions and the organization of in victiinization rates between the Amed­ 7For an account of this table, see van Dijk and to 8. cle theft, 4%: moped theft, 6.3%; theft from a vision unlike that used in the United States. See the police and legal systems. The yictim­ can and, Dutch populations'tor the two of­ car, 1.9%; sexual assault, 0.5%: burglary, 1.5%; 'Steinmetz (1979), lIPpendixes XVII and XVIII. ~hisfigure includes, of course, the economic Chapter 3 by Richard Block for II description. ization survey can provide an interesting fenses Iisted~burglary and threatcning theft of a car, 0.4%). The 1972 figures were as and environmentlJl crimes Qf w\1ichlarge groups [Editor] follows: bicycle theft, 4%; moped theft, 6.4%; of ordinary citizens are also frequently the behaviQrln a public place. The likelihood !OSee van Dijk and Steinmetz (1979), chapter 5'; of being burgled was abtlut Seven times as theft from a car, 2.3%; sexual assault, 1.1%; 1/ victim. and theft of a car, 0.4%.

32 National studies of victimization National,studies oj victimization 33 ------

_,,~...... ______••_=' <.:l...~"

i

( Ig r ------',',------:'-1 ...... ------;~ pensioners. On the other hand, living in a the risk coefficients are statistically of help be formed, by calculating the victim rates great for an AnlCkan househdldas for a ~i ') \\ large community appears to produce three in predicting victimization. for each type of offense. Such detailed 4-5. Number of U.S. and Dutch victims per 100,000 Dutch one. Contrary to expectation, it ap­ times as high a risk for all age categories analyses reveal that most types of offense inhabitants age 18 or over, 1976' il Table 4-7 shows that age is the main risk­ peared that the rate of victimization of :i as living in a small Village. Accordingly, are strongly correlated with age. It is " threatening behavior in a public place was 'I increasing and risk-reducing characteristic i! an extremely high percentage of victims is ~choolchildren (age 16-18) who are mostly Burglary per 100,000 households United States Netherlands (risk coefficients of 0.41 and 2.22). Apart actually higher among the Dutch popula­ encountered among inhabitants under age the victims of wallet theft. Very high vic­ from a person's age, the likelihood of his Number of victims 6,482 1.253 tion than among the ,U. S. population. The If 25 of the three large cities (48%). The tim rates for the offense of bicycle theft are " or her becoming a victim is also affectcd rate of victims who sustained physical in­ lowest percentage is found for retired per­ encountered among the age group 16-24 Threatening behavior in a public jury was alse higher in the Netherlands. 1 by the sizc of the community in which he (schoolchildren and students). The inci­ sons living in the smallest communities or she lives. Besides these two factors, be­ place per 100,000 Inhabitants When the details are examined, however, (2%). dence of indecent assault and threatening longing to the upper social classes also the nature of the threatening behavior o behavior is similarly high among that produces a higher risk. Finally, regardless Number of victims 1.309 2,257' shows wide divergence. In the cases re­ ! The victim percentages shown in Table 4-6 group. On the other hand, burglary, moped of age, place of residence, and social class, Number of victims against whom ported by Americans, firearms were much could be further broken down by sex and theft, and car theft are distJibuted relatively firearms were used 190 41 men run a slightly higher risk than women more frequently involved. At the conclu­ social class. A table devised in this way evenly among the age groups. Number of victims from whom of becoming victims. money was &(:'!en (street robbery) 243 194' sionof this article, a further attempt will I would indicate whether the characteristics The offenses which are most class-linked be made to interpret some of the differ­ of municipality size, age, sex, and social The synopsis of the various multipliers pre­ are wallet theft and burglary. The upper 'See Richard Block, "The impact of victimization ra'~s and patterns: Acomparison of the Netherlands and ences shown here between the victimiza­ class independently display any relationship sented in Table 4-7 can be used to approxi­ ~ social classes run a slightly higher risk. the United States,' in this volume. tion experiences of the American and with the victimization figures. Such a ta­ mate the victimization risks for all aMany multiple victims, There appears to be little or no connection Dutch populations. ble, however, would contain almost 120 combinations of age, municipality size, so­ between the risk of being the victim of a entries and would be very difficult to read,. cial class, and seX. 12 The risk for the pop­ r crime of violence and belonging to a par­ For this reason, we have also analyzed the ulation group "aged under 25, living in 'I A victimological r,i.~k analysis ticular social class. 44l. Percentage of respondents who were victims of one or more offenses 1977 results with the aid of a log-linear Amsterdam, Rotterdam, or The Hague, up­ (Including Innocent parties In "hit-and-run" accidents) In 1977, I,.inks between demographic characteristics model using the ECTA (Everyman's Con­ by age and size of nlunlclpallty per social class, male scx" can be calculat­ The victim rates for men and women are and--victim rateS. To determine whether tingency Table Analysis) program devel­ ed by multiplying the average victimization fairly close (in 1977 and 1978 the differ­ there ~a link between certain demographic oped by L. A. Goodman (1971), The ,Amsterdam 50,000- 20.000- less than risk of 5.15 by the multipliers of the four ence was smaller than in previous years). " Rotterdam 400,000 50,000 20,000 charactd~stics and the risk of becoming the particular feature of this technique is that ,it categories involved. The risk for this popu­ The most obviously sex-related offenses The Hague inhabitants inhabitants inhabitants " victim of an offen-se, cross tabulations can ignores the relation between a single vari­ lation group is accori.lingly 1 in 0.41 X are threatening behavior and indecent as­ Age .. Number % Number % Number % Number % be made examining victimization across " ablCt,1;uch as age and the dependent vari­ 0.51 X 0.70 x 0.87 X 5.15, I in 0.65 saulUsexual assault. Men are more com­ categories of characteristics' such as age or able (in this case, victimization) and (60%) .•A Similar calculation reveals that monly threatened or attacked both in public less than 25 422 48 711 33 839 26 317 16 sex. Table 4-3 showed that victim percent­ instead considers each combination of cate- . women age 65 or over living in a small places and indoors, while women are more 25-40 396 40 905 22 1,43S 16 588 13 ages increased with increased 'urbanization i gories of variables-c.g., the 16-25 age village and belonging to the middle class frequently molested or indecently assault­ 40--65 622 lS 1,111$ 17 1,4n 11 622 6 of the municipalities where the respondents J', group, male, working class, inhabitant of a 65+ 396 9 465 7,· 523 6 264 2 have a victimization risk of approximately ed. A man runs a higher risk of being the lived. Other tables showed that the victim large city-separately to sC,e whether there ±4% (l in 1.15 X 2.22 X 1.75 X 1.22 innocent party in a car accident. Apart percentages dropped sharply as the respon­ is any relation with the dependent variable. X 5.15, or 1 in 25). The risk for the first from sexual assault, the only offense for dents' age increased. Moreover, men arc For the average Dutch person, the likeli­ popUlation grou-p is therefore many times which women run a slightly higher risk is 4-7. Log-linear model-based quantlflcetlon of the oxtent to which certain victims slightly more often than women. soclodemographlc characterlatlcs Increase or diminish the crime riSK hood of becoming the victim of an offense " ",as great as for the latter group. In this purse or wallet theft. " The higher social classes a.re victims con­ 'iiqillysis, attention has been paid solely to >------is 16%, or I in 5.15." For each of the 14 A theoretical risk analysis. siderably more often than the lower ones.* the relationship between the 4 main socio­ CriITIi~ology Z-values categories,a log-linear model was used to has traditionally been strongly criminal-ori­ demographic charactcristics and whether or Risk (significant at .05) The interpretation of such differences be­ calculate the eXtent to which belonging toa ented; i.e., investigation related mainly to coefficients (1.96) not a person has been the victim of I or tWllQn the various popUlation groups with particular category increased or diminished the assumed typical charactt(ristics of the regard to the crime risk gives rise to a the risk of becoming a victim irrespective mare of the 12 offenses included in the Not a victim" 5.15 30,3' offender. Like the classic detective, the number of complications. It is possible, for of other characteristics of the persons con­ ,survey. In interpreting the results, it must criminologist first asked who had a motive Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague 0,51 -S.O' • 'be bome in mind that the relation between Population of 50,00G-400,000 O.SO -2,S' example, that the higher vIctim rates cerned. In other words, for each category a for committing a crime and then who had the demographic factors and the victim municipality 20,000-50,000 0,90 -1.1 among inhabitants of the large cities result factor was determined that, when multi· the opportunity to do s9 and who had the 5.000-20,000 1.60 4,5' co partly from the comparatively low average plied by the average victimization risk, ' rates may differ by type of offense. less than 5,000 1.75 3.2' ,necessary means. * Th~se who satisfy these age of that popuiation groUp. To ascertain would provide an estimate of the victimiza­ Men are slightly more often the victims of three conditions are ~laced on a list of whether living in a large city in itself (i.e., tion risk for that particular category. Age less than 25 0.41 -8.5' the 12 offenses than women, but this is, ob­ suspects, in keepin&,:with well~established 25-40 O,SO -S.O' disregarding the age factor) entails a higher If the victimization risk for a particular viously not so in. the case oqudecent as­ tradition./- 40--65 1.38 3.8' crime risk, the victim rate,s for young men " category, i.e., population group, is twice sault. A more accurate picture of the crime " I' 65+ 2.22 7.1' .In this section, v/G attempt to formulate the living in a large city lllay be compared the average victimizatjon risk, the multipli­ risks of the, various population groups may with the rates for their contemporaries in victimoiogical ~f.!flection ofthis key crimi­ Social class Upper 0.70 -4.3' er is 0.41, The victimIzation risk for this nological. question, viz.: "What conditions the provinces. Table 4-6 gives a synopsis population group is then not I in 5: 15 Middle 1.22 3.?' of thevidimpercentages oflhe 16 popula­ IlThe result of the analysis implies that the risk- " must an ordin&ry citizen satisfy in order to lower 0': 1.17 1.9 (16%= I ) but I in 0.41 x 5.l5, or II tion groups distinguishable on the basis 0(1 increasing or reducing effect of each category is be considered a potential victim?" The par· the ' criteria of municipality size (4categotL 1+5.15 roughly the same for all possible combinations aile I to Ihr!questidn of motive is to what Sex Male/female 0,87 2,5' of the categories of the other variables. This (1.15) ies) and age,(also 4 categories). 1 in 2.11 (32%). Table 4·7 provides a extent do~s a person have characteristics summary of the multipliers for the 13 dif­ means, for instance, thnt ,the class "under 25 that would render him or her an attractive. /' year:; of og .." will hnve- roughly the samc cffect Table 4-6 shows clearly thatq1uni<::ipalitY ferciitcatcgories. itaiso shoWS Whl~h of target for certaih categories of G1Ibnder. /f Note: The average risk Is 1 In §.i5. Tn!'! C:;Qefficlents 7h§$~ Qutc--ames are based on t: rrrOdal with an sIze and age each affect the victimization on the victimization risk for nil types of Illunici­ by whiCh the ratio figure 5.15 must be multiplied are acceptance level of p>.05 (X2 :n.6 df:79). See Possible imswe,l'$ are the possession of lux- ,/ risk independently. In all types of munici­ pality ,and social cluss and for both .sexeS. There Indicated for each characteristic. The far right col­ Stainmetz (1979) for a detaIled explanation. liThe anlllysis was carried out on unwe!ghted are three exceptions to this rule. Of 120 combi­ ury articles (e.g., jewelry, antiques, or eX-f umn indIcates whether the rIsk coefficients are sta­ pality, the"victimJzation percentages for data. This means that the nationjll victim rate is pensive cars) or the possession of certain tistically sIgnificant. nations, there arc three for which the victim rate J young persons are five times as high as for slighily lower thun \the rate previously differs significantly from that calculated with the / , mentioned. aid of the multipliers. Subject to this, the Z-vat­ *Several Dutch criminologists are also novelists. *Self-designated socinl class. [Editor] ues for th,ese internctions were not high, [Editor)

National studies of victimization 35 34 National studie.s of victimization

I:"' , I)

______------~------~,,------.a--~~,J 0, ' personal characteristics. We 'call such char- (\ of auy form of natural or official security her victimization risle may, nevertheless br,: cycle to or from work in the evening 1 acteristics the attractiorl factor. Obviously, Figure 4--2. ' Attempt at a,rlsk analysis andlor protection). high because of a high value for the attrac­ hours~and with hi~ .or her psychological of perlional victimization tion factor (e.g., because she orhe pos­ characteristics'{§J~!he people are by nature this factor does not depend merely on 'pos­ A risk, diagram comparable with that dis­ r) sesses a collection of paintings). inclined to take more risks than others, or session of particular articles or characteris­ cussed here is to be found in Hindelang, Empirical Conversely, a person with a very low at­ become fnore readily involved inargu­ tics but equally onJhe extent to which a Indicators Garofalo,and Gottfredson (1978). In,the 'Risk factors Aspects traction factor--e.g., a tramp-may stilI ments, etc.) It is, "Clear that a more sophisti­ person displays such goods or characteris­ "lifestyle/exposure model" developed by Attraction "Possession of Income, purchasing have a high victimization risk because of " cated risk ,analysis of personal vi\!timization tics. A person who hangs his antique " them, attention is paid primarily to the GO­ valuables behavior, furnishing , constantly being in the vicinity of potential must have a multidisciplinary character. clocks in a roomJacing the"street has a,'J of home, cash cial aspects of the proximity factor and the offenders. " C higher attraction factor for burglary, than rather Ihan checks "exposure factor, i.e., to the number of one who does not. The latterll,lay be <;alled o S8l(ual c Young women meetings with potential offenders in unpro- To test the validity of the risk analys.is for­ Testing the risk model by means the effective attraction factor. characteristics tected situations as a result of certain styles mulated here, studies will have to be made of the 1978 victim survey examining the links between the three fac­ The risk is further determined by the extent Symbol value as Adolescence of life. In approaching a theoretical risk The ]978 victim survey gathered informa­ tors and the victimization risk. To measure to which potential offenders are physically rival \:i (provocative behavior) analysis, we consider that victimological tion on some of the lifestyles and home attractiveness, of tholle concerned and geo­ the values for the three risk factors, it will given the"oppOi'tunity of committing an Of­ Proximity Living in Vicinity , Living in large city, circumstances, which the theory outlined be' necessary to gather detailed information fense. Does a person live in a municipality -of offenders ' in poor sociai' area graphical proximity of potential Offenders above would posit are connected with the on both the home circumstances and life­ or district where many potential' offenders must be distinguished as independent fac­ victimization risk . Visiting places Entertainment habits, tors. Certain lifestyles which sharply' in~ styles of the persons to be studied, For , live or/which, at any rate, is frequented by frequented by shopping habits, ,I them? offenders use of public crease the risk in a large city need not do burglary, for in~tance, it is important to "For example, a question was included " transport so ina village. know what valuables a person has at home, about the frequency with which people go It is known from research in America that how often the home.is left unattended, and , out in the evening. The analysis revealed the perptilrators 'of crime try to miIiimize Exposure Technical Accessibility of The theoretical considerations of Cohen prevention dwelling, bicycle, how accessible it is (technical prevention that an active life outside the home-i.e" a the distance between their home and the and Felson (l978) which centers on the 'I car, etc., (locks, being also considered) in order to deter-" ,high value for both the social proximity concepts of target suitability and guardian­ !J place of the crime and that youl}g offenders bolts, and shutters, mine the value of the attraction factor and factor and the social exposure factor-is ship, fails to take suffftient account of the in particll.!ar mostly operate close to home ?tc.) the exposure factor respectively. In the coupled with a relatively high victimization influence, of the geographical proximity (Reiss 1977). A British study has shown o Guardianshipl Leaving house case of street crime., (including pocket pick­ risk. The ~!!ss frequently people went out in . factor. Cantor ,;md Cohen (l979) start with" that the amount of vandalism in' blocks of protection \)unattended ing, threatening behavior and sexual/inde­ the evenillg, the lower the victim rates. For the explicit assumption that the presence of flats is most highly correlated with the per~ 'Living in isolated cent assault), it is probably mainly a example, for those who went out weekly or potential offenders in the Vicinity is a con­ centage of families"with young childrenyer locality question of obtaining more detailed infor­ almost every day, the victim rate was block of flats (Wilson 1978). In Canada; stant. This hardly seems in accord with Getting into situations mation on the extent to which, and the 25.6% (N=3930) and for those with an th,e amount of burglary in ,residential areas r~.ality;\\ where help cannot be C " <,-:-J\ times at Which, a person is to be found in average nights out pattern, the victim rate was most hi'ghlycorrelated with proximity invoked In Figure 4-2; we repeat in chart form the public places (travei to and from work, was 16.8% (N ==4132), while for those, to poorer social districts (Waller and Oki­ Degreq ofneighborl,' three main factors distinguished by us and (" shopping habits, entertainment habits). It who practically never went out it was '" hiro 1978). concern or willingness I) their chief characteristics andempiiical also seems important to know aperson's U.9% (N= 1833), Proximity to potential offenders does (ot to help indicators. customary social environment (the proxim7 ity factor). The 1978 data have been analyzed to con­ depend solely on place of residence o( The more the three risk factors appl~t."'e, firm the 1977 model. This time the analy­ neighborhood. In addition to the geograph" ated or tolerated which make commission social characteristics of the neighborhood. greater a person's victimization risk. The Further, we shall have to examine what sis was done by means of the program ic or residential aspect, the proximity fae- of an offense technically possible. Extreme Dis!ricts with ,a greater, degree of social co­ absence of one of the three factors may be economic, social, and psychological back­ GUM (General Lineiir Interactive Model­ tor also has a sociodynamic aspect The instances of this are failure to lockup herency reveal lower victim rates for bur­ offset by a high value for one of the other grounds are attached to the three risk fac­ ing [Neider 1974]), in particular the log­ number of times a person comes into the one's home and car or putting a pllrse in glary (Repetto 1974)., Finally, preventive factors. If, as a result of home environment tors. The time a person spends in public linear approach suggested by Goodman vicinity of potential offenders .depends an open shopping. bag. The risk of theft is sU~,~i1Iance by the police might also be and lifestyle, the person seldom comes into , places may be connected both with his or (which we referred to in an earlier section). hirgely on his or her way of life. Individ- also affected materially by whether one thought Of as an aspect of social exposure the vicinity of potential offenders, his or her occupation---c-nurses, Jor instance, often uals who seldom leave the house give po- carries one's wallet in an inside pocket or to crime. However, experiments involving " The independent variables in tbis analysis , "tential offenders, little chance of committing ',"'in a (halld)bag. ' ' increased police surveillance have shown ' were "municipality (mun)," "age (a)," "50- (! co any form of street crime:' On the other claI class (soc)," and the added variables that this has only a slight effect on a dis~ 4-8. Results Of·'s"log.llnear ~analysls pn the 1978 Dutc;h victim survey data. c, ,i hand, people who frequently visit places of Exposure to crime has not only a practical trict's crime rate (!~ffery 197 J). Dependent variable: Nonvlctims (V[1])and';ictims (V[2]) In 1978 "nights Qut pattern (out)'"and "former vic­ / entertainment in large,cities will often ' but also asocial dimension. TWo! opportuni. timizations (fv)." * The dependent variable' I come into contact with'potential offender's, ty of committing an offense depends large- ,;fo sum up, it may be stated that the vic­ .is recent victimization (v) which is based ,timh:ation risk of individual persons is de- Model parameters' MUN' A' SOC' OUT' ,FV' + MUN' V + A * V 'I no matter where they Jive. Fiselier (1978) lyon the,extent to Which the target is + SOC' V + out· v + FV ' V on being a"victim of any inCident in a peri~ postulates that a person's victimization risk guarded. People who spend little time at termined by three main facto~s: Model fit X2 eo 54.5 df "= 41 p> .05 is higher the more often ,he or she visits, home,nm a higher risk of becoming the " (I)The attraction factor, Le., the degree *The independent variable sex is not, inclmfed In public places (e.g., train stations/public' victims of burglary (Cohen and Felson ' 'I' to which a person (or resident:e) is visibly F,iued model parameters Standard Z;values (slgnillcali't the analysis. Arguments for this decision are error at 1,96) transport, spo~s stadiums). An investiga- 1978; Waller and Okihiro 1978). However, an attractive target for offenders. ' (resul~) E~limate c pased ,Partly, on ~rogram ~strktiohs (not more, than SIX variables can be Included). Further. in tion in London has shown that the victim- this is notj~,st a question of the degree to (2) The proximity factor. This factor has \:' ization riskr,forcrimes of violence is ,,' which a person guards his, own belongings .. MUN(2) ~,V(2) , -,6060 .$473 E·Ol Z=11,07 thli: 1977 analysis, the variable'sex was the " both a geographical aspect (living in the vi- A(2) X V(2) .00 -.7267 " .6139 E·01 Z=11.8 , weake~t predictor of ~ce;nt v\9timization.~ Closely linked with the frequency with Neighbors can alsopJay apart in deterring ',' cinity of potential offenders) and a social A(3) X V(2) -1.313, .8183 E·01 Z=16.04 Size of municipality consist~ the categOries which people go out in the evening criminals, The extent to which a person SOC(2) X V(2) ~ -.2343 .~, .5385 E·Ol Z=4.4 of aspect (the amount of contact with poten-, ,. <100,000 i\1habitant~ (MTJN(2) and >100,000 (Sparks, Genn andl,)odd 1977). takes advantage of the possibility of such OUT(2) X V(2) , ,";"!.37Q~", .!i490E-Ol, ,£<=5.8, tial offenders asa consequence of a certain ~lilhabilant~ (MUN(i»). Age consists of under 25 , protection is partly a behav.iora)character-: way of life). ' , ' , ' ,,' F'j(2)XV(2) - ";3007 ' .5587E·,Ol Z,"'5,4 c;, (A(1». 25 to 55 (A(2», and OVer 55 years v j Besides thealUliei,iUfi wid the proximity' "'isticoftM'individuaL Persons who fre- (3) The extent to which a person gives .' ,I) (: !J . , .. (A(3». Social clas,sconsists of hillh (SOC(l», ¥, factors, another consideration affecting the quentIy enter sItuations where the help of potential Qffenders the opportunity to com­ 'The explanallon of the model parameters is' as t(jrlzes'the actu.al existing parameter In the sense and low (soC(2)fNights outpattcm has the " '~ risk is the extent to which potential offendi otherscannQt be invoked therebyi,ncrease follows: MUN • V means MUN + V (main effecls) +' that the first category is set to zero. This means thai mit ano(fense. This/;,xposure factor has the Interaction term MUN x V.lfonllOfthelerms Is the, other ,9atsgorles have to be explained as devi- , categories, frequent(OUT(2»and not frequent" i ers are given the opportunity to commit aF' ,their victimization risk. The degree of,se~ (OUT(I».cPol"mcr victimization consists of two'" both its technical or practical aspects and specified rpore than once, the program Simply Ig- atlons fraln zsro. ' 0 Il offense. In practical terms, this depends curity and protection. however,depends on its social aspects (the presence or absence nores 0111 tn'3,lerms put one. The program reparame· I categories, rtnmely, yes (fv(2» and no (fv(l»).' Ok:::::,~:;::::t: cre-. 1~IY on fu, plMnlng,.rehirecluw, on' NatioJlal srndfes o/vicfimiz('{/ion/--37

,~ ~ " j .. H L'i [-.:.~,-~.,.,.,...-" ." ,,'"" .... , . .,.~~~". ",,"" L_--=~_---;-~------~~~------~---=--~~-"-'--~~L--'-_~-----~------',,> '> > < eS .,.,« b .• I - , .",... "~.""..-..,->.~~ •.,-,,,"tt-,,...,"_.,,,,.,,, .... + '",","_~ "_, __ •

(I

od of 13 months. In the analysis, single ;:"~ mqdel can be accepted on' the basis of an , dent of the effects of the earlier mentioned and multiple victimizations are tfeated the 2 , acceptancfl-le;yel of p>. Q5 (X =54.5 df . independent variables which can be found The interpretation of the interaction Additional preliminary testing of largely tied to their homes. Their contacts same. = 41)"cThis outcome indic~es that nights " in the 1977 confirmation of the actual risk terms is as follows: the validity of the risk analysis with potential offenders are relatively few, The fitted madel has no interaction terms out pattern and former vir;:~>1llization have model. The results of this basic analysis (I) Dutch citizens between age 25 and and their houses are seldom unattended. and is of course linear and additive. This an effect on recent victimization indepen- are presented in Table 4-8. ''::::" Information gathered by the RDC on bur­ 55 living in municipalities with a rather glaries of business premises in The Hague The comparatively high victim rates for This conflrmative log-linear analysis sup­ small number of inhabitants « 100,000 in­ have also been used to test the hypothesis threatening behavior and indecent assault 4-9. Resultsofa log-Unear analYSis based on the main model In Table 4-8. ports the theory. The main risk-increasing habitants) appear less likely to be victim­ that the risk of burglary is partly deter- " among the 16-25 age group seem to result In this table several different Interactions and risk"~ducing characteristic is still age, ized than expected based on their average' mined by the attraction factor and the ex- v from the attraction factor as well as the wUl be added to the main model. They wUl followed by the size oithe municipality in probability. posure factor (Steinmetz and van der Zee­ proximity factor. Most men who molest be tested on their significance and the which the respondent lives. Apart from (2) For municipalities of all sizes, elder­ Nefkens .1980). It appeared that premises amount of improvement related to the main model (not rape) women in the street probably these charaderistics, the likelihood of be­ ly Dutch citizens (>55 years) with former with contents valued at up to Dfl. 10,000 prefer young women ,as their victims. At coming a~ictim is also influenced by the victimization experience do have a greater Main model )(2 = 54.5 had an annual victimization risk of 2.5%, first sight, it seems difficult to explain the " df = 41 p> .05 frequency of going out, former victimiza­ chance of becoming victimized than elderly while premises with contents valued at Dfl. striking preponderance ofyoung people Additional tion,and social class. The latter three char- Dutch citizens without former victimization 500,000 or more had a victimization risk among the victims of threatening behavior Difference between the , acteristics are listed in order of their experience. models (para­ Rt of the main model and the of 17%. The hypothesis that social expo­ in the street. Such a finding conflicts with meters) decreasing influence on probability of be­ new models several new models We mentioned earHer that the frequency of sure affects the risk of burglary was also the widely held view that it is the most de­ coming a victim. The range ,of prediction nights out and former victimization are bet­ confirnled. Business premises situated be­ fenseless people, namely the elderly, who capacities of risk-increasing and risk-reduc­ Signilicant (S) ter predictors for recent victimization than low their owners' dwellings had only a 6% are customarily the victims of "street vio­ X2 df X2 ingcharacteristics can easily be seen if one dl or not (NS) social class and sex. Former victimization chance of being burgled. This comparative­ lence." Various studies have shown, how­ compares the several .z-values of param­ ly low percentage could not be entirely at­ a MUWA'V is interpreted by us as a proxy for victim­ ever, that the predominant motive in many 49.5 39 5.2 2 S eters on the.righthand side of Table 4-8. b MUN'SOC'V , proneness. An irteresting outcome is the tributed to the lesser attractiveness of these street attacks is the desire to impress oth­ 54.4 40 0.1 1 NS c MUN'OUrV ' (L premises. 52.5 ,40, 2.0 1 NS These results indicate that nights out pat­ fact that our proxy for victim-proneness is ers. Such a"bmvado" motive implies that d MUN'FV'V 54.4 40 0.1 1 NS tern and former victimization are better an independent factor. Victim-proneness contemporaries, not defenseless elderly e A'SOC'V \ 50.9 Since the 1979 national survey results have 38 3.6 3 NS , predictors for recent victimization than so­ based on this outcome implies that even people, must be chosen as "opponents" I A'OUT'V 52.7 39 1.8 2 not yet been fully analyzed, we confine g A'FV'V NS when respondents are exposed to the same (van Dijk 1977). 48~9 39 5.6 2 S cial class and sex (although We did not test ourselves here to studying more closely the the last mentioned variable). Before getting conditions (proximity, exposure, and at­ victimization differences between the usual The .second most important risk-increl\sing h SOC'OUT*V into more details, the final model will be 1_, tractiveness), some people are still more 54.0 40 0.5 1 NS 1 socioqemographfc categories (male! female, factor is residence in a large city. The ex­ i SOC'FV'V 53.6 40 0.9 1 presented. One might, technically speak­ likely to be victimized than others. Our 0 NS young/old, etc.) established in the preced- planation for this probably lies primarily j OUT*FV'V 52.2 40 2.3 1 NS ing, expect a stronger model than the one present hypothesis, to be tested in our fu­ ing sections. .-, with the geographical proximity factor. An presented in Table 4-8. A final model ,is ture work, is that victim-proneness can be k MUN'A"V As we have seen, youth is the most impor­ investigation by Van der Werrf (1979) has A'FVi)y presented in Table 4-9, explained mainly by psychological traits. 44 37 10.5 4 S tant risk-increasing social characteristic. shown that the large cities contain a rela­ The results of adding different interaction The results concerning the nights out pat­ The reason for this must be,l)ought in the tively large proportion of residents who MUN'A'FV'V 43.5 34 11 c 7 NS terms to the linear non interactive risk mod­ tern seem to be compatible with ,the predic­ greater amount of contact young people have been convicted of crime. The investi­ gation also showed that it is precisely those , " el as listed in Table 4-8 (model parameters) tions of the theory (social proximity have with potential "offenders," i.e., ,with Note. The right hand side of this table gives the Interaction term, the same as the main model. The , indicate that atleast one of the two interac­ fl\ctor).However, age still remains the their contemporaries. According to a time ex-offenders who live in the same major difference in terms of chi-squares and degrees 01 significance column shows Which model can be "tion terms m.ust be accepted, namely, mu­ strongest predictor of recent victimization. cities in which they committed the crime freedom between the main mode! and the s6veral seen as an improvement Compared to the main allocation study by the Sociaal en Cultureel new models, which are, with the exception ol.an model. nicipality times age times recent According to the lifestyle (routine behav­ Planbureau [Social and Cultural Planning for which they were conyicted who com­ , victimization or age times former victim­ ior) approach (Hindelang et al. 1978); one Bureau], young people spend 47 hours a mitted most of the offenses,. "Self-report" ization times recent victimization. Adding might expect that the dominant position of week on outdoor recreation, as against the studies-surveys in which a sample of the 4-10. Results of th'e finallog-Unear ~odel with two Interaction terms one of the interaction.Jerms at a time does age as a main operationalizatiOl~ of social 14 hours spent by the average Dutch per­ popUlation is asked whether they have ever on the 1978 Dutch victim survey data. Dependent variable: improve the model significantly. By look­ proximity wO\lld become less important if son. Such differences in the way time is committed an offense-have also shown Nonvlctlms (V[l]) and victims (V[2]) in 1978. that the inhabitants of large towns commit (N = 10,002) , ing more:closely aethe conditional tests, in one considers the actual impact of the spent help us to understand why young, particular the chi-squ;lres and the degrees nights out variable on social proximity. people run a far greatel risk of becoming offenses relatively often. This means that of freedom on the right side, of Table 4-9, The'only possible conclusion until noW is victims of the typical street offenses of the inhabitants of large towns coine into, Model parameters MUN' A • SOC' OUT • FV + MUN • V + A , one has to conclude that the best model is that age still cover;s a fair amount of the contact with potential offenders more fre­ 'V + SOC'V OUT' V ,r=v' V + threatening behavior, indecent assault, wal­ + + \ quently, regardless of their ,;restYle. MUN • A • V + A • FV ' V in fact model k, in which both interaction \ lifestyle/routine approach. On .the the other let theft, and bicycle theft, regardless of, , ., terms are ,included. This model has to be hand, routine daily activities seem not to where, they live. ' The higher victim rate for lJ,hrglary and Model lit X2 = 43.95 acsepted on a p>;2J5 level which is more suppOitthe indep~ndent character of both, 37 I, .. , dl,~'., p< .25 The'decisive effect of the (social)proxim­ pocket picking among the uPBer classes " or less an improvement of 500% compared age and nights out behavior. Evans (1980) should probably be regarded pi:l!?arily Wa Rtted model ity factor can best be seen from the ex­ Standard 17 to the m'iidel listed in Table 4-8. ' explains the same phenomenon in the fol .. parameters Z-values (Significant result of the attrl\ction factor. Wtlh.c.su~n Estimate error lowing sense: tremely high victim rate among the 16-25 at 1.96) The results ot the final log-linear model are age group With an income below Dft. people there is "more to be had." The MUN(2) X V(2} presented in Table 4-10. The table shows It is clear from this study that the life­ proximity factor, on the other hand, prob­ -.4613 .9634 E-D1 9,000. Of this group, made up largely of A(2) X V(2) Z=4.'8 ably has a relativcily low value. These peo­ -.6038 ,.1097 the fitted parameters relating model k to style model must be operationalized. schoolchildren and students, 44% were'the A(3) XV(2) Z=5,5, -1.363 .1348 the corresponding z~values, . More direct behavioral and,attltudina) ple live in tile better areas of the large SOC(2) X V(2) "Z=1();3 victims of one or more offenses in 1977. '''-.2315 ;5388 E-Ol cities or in garden suburbs and make com­ QI,IT(2) X V(2) Z=4.3 L, measures related to lifestyle are needed Such a high rate cannot, it seems, result -.~742 .5491-E-Dl 2='6.8 ACGor!!ing(o,Table 4=10, thc'rolative struc­ of pUblic transporta- , FV(2) X V(2)_ CI , tfthe rilodei is to be usefulin increasing from the possessiohof a rehitively 'large paratiVely liitle uSe , .1767 .9964 Ec01 2=,1.8, ture of the independent varia,bles ,remahis " -, J " our understandi~g of the nature otvio­ number of valuables.' Rather it is the result tion. Lastly, their exposure to crime ; the same, Age reml\ins the best predictor MUN(2) X'A(2)X V(2) lent victimization and in ~uggesting of active participation in the semidelinw appears to be relatively great. Detllched ~. ' -.2644 .123~ " MUN(2) X A(3) X V(2) 2,=2.1 of victimiiation;socialclass is the weak­ ~.7473 ,E-01 .1597 methods to reduce the risk of quent su?culture of y?ung people. dwellings are more vulnerable to burglary, A(2) X FV(2) X V(2) 2=0.5 (NS) est. On the other hand, new evidence fip­ •1184 .1252 victimization • furtive entry, and wanton damage than A(3) X r=v(2) X Vel!) Z",0.9 (NS) pears by looking at the significant .3956 .1706 Z=2.3 " The relatively low victim rate for offenses flats. Moreover, the upper classes have a parameters, of the twointer'action termsa • .- again~t the property of retired persons re­ relatively large number of (expensive) cars, suits partly from the fact that they are , which increases the risk of theft of and 38 National studies of victimization,

National studies of victimization 39

:;:". ' !/

,,} ->.,\.~\ :,;(, ! .:) - "\ C '. . I .. ---- )

The opportunity theory appears to be a welcome addition to the currently available explanations/or the emergence 0/ cn·minal behavior. ..

from cars and vandalism. Furthennore, the tically no one intervenes when they see ap­ for instance, in the case of older people ior in the Netherlands. A partial explana­ opportunity structures. We consider the ex­ As yet, little is known about the effective­ houses of these people are more frequently parent criminals break into cars in broad and women and the inhabitants of smaller tion may be that comparatively large tracts plosive growth in car ownership to be one ness of the various crime-prevention mea­ left unattended as a result of longer holi~ oCthe United States are rural. In addition, daylight and make off with cameras, televi­ communities. The results of an objective suresmentioned (Steinmetz 1980), but the of the main causes of the rise in crime sion sets, and the like (Takkooshian and days and a more active social life. The it is possible that the greater segregation gf risk analysis provide a useful foil to sensa­ available literature on the subject indicates ag~inst property .. In Amsterdam, during t~~/' Bodinger 1978). The observations of greater exposure to crime of these classes social classes in American cities results in van tion-seeking crime reporting by the mass the following: fifhes, the glass III fire alrums fonne~(~r Os (1979) in the Spuistraat in Amsterdam is offset to some extent by the better means a lower rate of threatening behavior in pub­ media (van Dijk 1980). Precisely for this tically the only suitable target for van"u~ would lead us to assume that there too • OUI' own findings show that reducing of technical prevention available to them. lic places. In the Netherlands and the Scan­ I reason, we consider any discou~ting of the ism. Nowadays, the streets are full of street thieves have little to fear from geographic proximity factor in risk analy­ contact with potential offenders by moving The differences in the victim rates for dinavian countries (Carr-Hill 1977), the parked cars •. Cars are the target of more passersby. ses to be of special significance. People in to a small community or by adopting any males and females appear to be fairly neg­ victims of threatening behavior are found than half of all acts of vandalism against I the provinces must be prevented from feel­ of a number of more domestic lifestyles ligible. The survey results show that these fairly evenly distributed among the social personal property. Cars parked in the street I The opportunity theory appears to be a I ingc.insecure~because of the problems of a does reduce the risk to the persons differences are greatest for the middle age classes, whereas in. the United States they welcome addition to the currently available are not only an .attractive target for vandal- ! certain district in the urban conglomera­ concerned. gr{)UP (age 25-55), where the difference is are noticablyconcentrated in lhe lower so­ ism but also for theft (theft of cars and explanations for the em~rgenceof criminal tion. In preparing advertising. crunpaigns • Locking tile steering posts of cars is an s:.ti%. In the case of the 16-25 and 55 and cial classes. Moreover, in the United behavior, since it is better able than tradi­ * theft from cars). Other factors that have and the like in the field of crime preven­ effective means of preventing joyriding, over age groups, the male-female differ­ States, a far larger proportion of criminals tionalpoverty theories to explain the posi­ contributed to a .rise in the level of crime tion, it is always worth considering wheth­ but scarcely deters professional car thieves ences are much smaller. The parental role and victims are known to each. other than tive correlation petween affluence and against property are the mass production of er the target should be, the national (Junger-Tas 1976; Burrows and Heal of many women between the ages of 25 is the case in the Netherlands. Such facts electronic equipment and the spread of the . crime. However, particularly in view of its population or only the inhabitants of cer­ 1979). and 55 probably involves less contact with may indicate that in the Netherlands (less supermarket. I practical applications to crime prevention, tain'municipalities. (2) A victimological outsiders and, consequently, with potential serious) violence is distributed more widely t, we must mention the limitations of such an • Alarm installations seem to have shown risk analysis provides the high risk groups offenders. An analysis by Fiselier (1978) among the younger population than in .the The increase in the number of instances of approach. In the more extreme versions of their worth, at any rate for business prem­ with a basis for crime prevention strategy. has shown that the victimization risk of United States. threatening behavior in public places must the theory-as with "~ontrol" theories-the ises (Pope 1977). The people concerned can, after all, de­ women who go out to work is higher than be ascribed largely to the increase in lei­ motivation of offenders is treated as irrele­ • More widespread use of locks and shut­ sure time. Nowadays, for instance, school­ I vant (Hirschi 1972). If there is an 'opportu­ duce for themselves~how, and with what tersalso seems to have slightly reduced the that of women who keep house.· The fact Opportunity structures means, they can reduce their high values that the difference between the victim rates children go out two evenings a week nity for criminal activity. there are people risk of burglary of private dwellings (Re­ and the emergence of crime for certain risk factors: geographic and so­ of the sexes was slightly smaller in 1977 instead of one. In addition, more compul­ who will avail themselves of that opportu­ petto 1974). Howeve(, if this. fonn of tech­ cial proximity, attractiveness, and social and 1978 may have something to do with Once it has .been shown which characteris­ sory education and more youth unemploy­ nity; and,· if less opportunity exists, there nical prevention is not accompanied by and technical exposure. . the changing position of women in Dutch tics of individual citizens are detenninants ment mean that on the average young will be less crime or no crime at all (Can­ H~f;~)t}spossible adequate surveillaIlGe of the house by resi­ to differentiate between preventIve mea­ society. The comparatively high risk to of risk, the question can be asked whether people spend.more time in public places tor and Cohen 1979), Such a view wrongly dents and neighbors, the effectiveness of sures at the individual level (microlevel). at women of wallet theft is presumably con­ the degree to which such characteristics are and in cafes, etc., than fonnerly. More assumes that the demand for the fruits of such devices is greatly reduced (Waller and the neighborhood level (mesolevel), and at nected. with the feminine habit of carrying present in the population of a country or freedom of movem~nt for (young) women criminal activity is completely elastic. Okihiro 1978) ..The main conclusion of the town is correlated with the local crime has also meant more possibilities for vio-=" the governme~t level (macrolevel). studies carried out to date is, therefore, money and checks in handbags and the It seems likely, however, that some people rate. If such a correlation can be demon­ lent crimes. that the mosteffcctivc form uf crime pre­ like, rather than in inside pockets. are motivated to commit certain offenses to Steps armicroievel, fOf instance;;·would in-' strated, a victimological risk analysis could vention is surveillance by neighbors Naafs and Saris (1979) conclude from the such a degree that they are prepared to go clude moving to a smaller community or In discussing the victim rates for the var­ (Waller and Qkihiro 1978), or by janitors, provide the basis for a theory of the emer­ fact thanhe number of business premises ,) to almost any length to do so. Such people safer district, changes .in the spending pat­ ious age groups, no attention .has been gence of the types of.crime concerned. bus drivers, watchmen, etc. (Mayhew et in Amsterdam has not risen since 1950 that will create the opportunity to commit an tern (no buying of antiques, expensive been paid to marital status. Theoretically, One might then posit that the geographic al. 1979). Technical devices by themselves the rise in the number of burglaries there offense under practically any circumstance. electronic equipment, jewelry, or paint­ however, one would expect divorce.es to proximity factor (the number of offenders can ensure only marginahuccess. cannot be explained by increased availabil­ The opportunity theory is of little or no ings), changes in the furnishing of the run a higher victimization risk .than .married in"the area) is influenced by the other risk ity of targets suitable. for breaking-in pur­ value in relation to this hard. core of home (no lUXUry articles in the living In drawing I.Ip a strategy for crime preven­ persons. The lifestyle of divorced people factors (social proximity. attraction, and poses. Such a conclusion, however, fails to offenders. room). locking doors (including car doors), tion, not only the possible benefits must be will, for various reasons, be less domestic exposure). FoHowing the old saying, "Op­ take account of the changes which /)ave windows and basement storerooms, fitting taken into account but also the costs to the than that of their married contemporaries . portunity makes the thief," such a crimino­ It seems equally unrealistic. On the other taken place in the attractiveness of the de­ technical preventive devices (locks, bolts, persons concerned. The benefits and costs and will therefore involve greater risk. The logical theory can be tenned the "oppor. hand, to believe that the demand for the victimization percentages confinn this ex­ sired objects (larger stores) and the social and shutters), changes in the allocation of to other gro.ups in society must also be tunity theory" (Mayhew et al. 1976; exposure (fewer shops under their owners' fruits of criminal activity is completely in­ leisure time (going out less often, no long­ examined. pectation. In 1978, 26.7% of divorcees Stanley 1976). dwellings, more shops in isolated shopping::, elastic. If there is les~ opportunity to com­ er visiting places of entertainment in the were the victims of one or more offenses mit an offense. at least some of the It is clear that preventive measures at an In the preceding ser.tion, we atten{pted to centers). city, gOIng out only in a group) and (N =207), as against 16.9% of married potential offenders will refrain from doing individu.al level, particularly those aimed at explain the large number of burglaries in changes in mode of transportation (no persons (N=7131). Finally, we feel that practically every ty~e so, since they wiIl not be prepared to pay reducing the proximity factor, will involve the United States in tenns of such a theory. \. longer traveling by train or train). of offense has lY.!eri made easier by:he in­ the higher price ill terms oriime and risk. very substuntialmaterial and other costs. To conclude this section, we look briefly at L. E. Cohen and H. Felson (1978) use a creasing absence of checks (surveillance) It is petty crime in particular which is fa­ Exampl~s of steps at the mesolevel are im­ Preventive measures that mean moving or a the victimization differences between the victimologicat risk analysis to explain the by other members of society. One charac­ vored by such opportunity thieves. proving the street and other lighting, en­ completely altered way of life (e.g. i entail­ \) United States and the Netherlands. Accord" rise of crime in the United States during teristic of a.large-scale urban environment couraging active social interaction in the ing change in'leisure occupations) are in ing to Block (1979), the much higher vic­ the past few decades. According tothem, is that people often do not know each other district, introducing hqusing precincts, .and principle inadvisable. Such measures only tim rate for burglary in the United States the'rise can be accounted fot by certain Practical applications personally in the spatially divorced envi. establishing organized(neighborhood help. exacerbate the social isolation that proc results from the fact that far more Ameri­ changes in opportunity structures (more of risk analysis ronments of home, school, work, shops, duces feelings of insecurity in many elderly can than Dutch women go out to work out~ lUXUry articles and a more away-from­ At macrolevcl, legal measures might be and recreation facilities and that they are A victimological risk analysis can be used people. For this reason, it is better to take side the home. In a large proportion of home lifestyle, particularly among women considered, such as laying down minimum therefore less inclined to offer assistance or for various purposes: simple technical security measures and, in American dwellings no one is at home dur­ and young people). In describing the'jop- security requirements with which cars and to keep an eye .on each other's property particular, to improve "neighborliness" in (\\ ing the,hy. with the resultthat it is iela­ .portunity ~tructures, -they· employ eOfieePts c (-1)- '!t~!s-·posslb!e to identifY-,the···gpecific dwellings must GQmp!y o.n d~!ivery. The (Sutlies 1972; Gardiner 1978). This has the large cities. Neighborhood committees \ tively easy to break into them. Comparison derived from social ecology. A similar ap­ groups at risk for various types ofoffense. introduction of the legally prescribed crash been confirmed bYfln RDC survey Which and the like, supported perhaps by the lo­ of the data shows that most burglaries in proach is adopted py P. l'ornudd (1978) in People can use it to detenni.ne objectively helmet for motorbike riders nlay be regard­ showed that people's willingneiffito inform cal police ,officer, could play an important the United States take place during the day a report on crime trends in Finland since whether they belong to a particular risk ed as a gove'mment measure that has con­ the police When they see an offense being part in acllieviDg this. (Lentzner 1979), whereas in the Nether­ 1950. group or not, For a large pai~!of t\le popu­ tributed towards crime prevention. committed is appr.eciably less in large cities lands the pe!ik is reached in the evening lation, such an objective·{ietennination of Reducing technical and social exposure to In our view, the increase in certain fonns than in rural areas (Junger"Tas and Van der hOurs. It is far less easy to account for the their .own victimization risk could lessen *Thc Amsterdam, Rottcrdam, and The HagUe crime at the micro- or mesolevel may mean of crime in the Netherlands must also be Zee-Nefkens 1978). Experim()ntaJ research higher rate of victims of threatening beha\,- their feelings ofinsecurity, This will apply, megalopolis "Rnndstad •. " [Editor] that crime problems are shifted to neigh- attributed in large meaSUre to changes in in 17 American cities ,has shown that prac- .t 40 National studies oJ victimization Natio/lal studies oj Victimizatioll 41

L~.. ······:.:=:"·"'-'::,::,·"·-·"',:,:::,::"-· ~-~- ..... -.::.:..:...:.,.--.-~----.....~-...:...... -o....:.o...::.;.~--•. ,.,.~.. --. ~~~(~~ ~----.-ll---.L-"--__ ---"---'--__~ ___~ __~_~ ___ ,__ lj·"'·~ If '; I~ r' t , ~ I ;:1 t:: () ., {'

t~ " bors or to adjacent neighborhoods ()r even Summary "I ''', municiI?alities. Bes~des this deflective-oef­ R?nald Roesch. (forthcoming) ~ !! "'\, f~ct, cnme preve.ntlOn measures may give , For several years now, "victim surveys" Lifestyle arId persollal victimization: A Junger-'ras,------~~----- J., and A. A. van der Zee- Third International Symposium on U '~I?se to an es.calatmg effect. Offenders may have been regularly carried out by theRe­ fest of the modellVith Canadiall data Nefkens (1977) Victimology, Munster, Gcrmany, Scp- II ~n;~-frove therr methods and techniques or search and Documentation Center of the Cozijn, C., and J. J. M. van Dijk (1976) Een observatie-onderzoek naar het werk tember 197\1; ~: mCl~~se the amount of violence they em­ Ministry .0fJustice.ln such surveys, are­ Onruslgevoelens in Nederland (Feelings van de politie-surveillance LAn observa- Steinmetz, C. H. D. (1980) pl?y 'l~/espo~se to victimologicaI forms of presentative sample of the popUlation are of fear in the Netherlands). WODC. tion study of the work of police surveil- Eell aanzet tot een victilllologische ri- july. '\'~ cnme. pq:ventlOn .. In delineating a strategy asked whether they have been the victims ~, lanc~]. The Hague: RDC, ~?inistry of sico-analyse. Eell denkllIodel bij het l' for cnme preventIOn, full account must be of certain ~ommon types of crime during Dijk, J. J. M. van (1974) Justice. ." e 1'00rkOIlIell van ukleille" crilllillaliteit taken of such side effects. The assumption the precedmg year. Initially, the victim ' SlachtofJers vall gelVeldmisdrijl'ell (Vic­ ,Lentz.ne.r, H ..R .. (~97~) ..--".!;:;---? [An introdur,tion to a victimological risk expressed in SOme quarters however that surveys were regardeg primarily as a tims of violent crime]. Intermediair (;rl/ll/nal :',ctlt/lIZatlOn surl'eys in (J',rca- analysis-A theoretical model for predic- victimologicaIcrime prev6~tion can ~nly " means of measuring the real crime rate. Dijk,J. J. M. van (1978) ',oc go, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, tion of petty crime]. Justitiele Verken- lea? to changes in the time, nature, or lo­ However, the, results may also be used to "Victim surveys," Mail screening pilot ana' Phi/adelpia. A national crime survey ningen No.2. catIon of offenses or to their replacement determine the degree of risk that various study in the Netherlands, Common de­ report. Washington: U.S. Department of Steinmetz, C. H. D., and A. A. van der by o.th~r ?ffenses is in oUr view unduly' , ~opulation groups run of becoming the vic­ velopmenteffort No. 10, third meeting. I Justice,l~aw Enforcement and Assis- Zee-Nefkens (1980) pessImIStic. " tims of an offense. In this article, the risk Septemper 20-22. i tance Administration. (;oba-o~/derzoek bedrijven, een schrifte- table for the Netherlands is used to develop Dijk, J. JJI M. van (1977) \ As we argued above, it seems likely that I M~'yhew, ~. (1979) lijke enqllete onder Haagse bedrijven a theory of criminal victimization. Five DominC!:mie en gelVeld. Een multidisci­ ! I?efens/ble s~ace, the c~,rrent status of a over inbraken ell illbraak preventie- mid- th~ de.m~? f~r the froit~ of petty crime plinair~: vis~ op de veroorzaking van wIll dlmlmsh If the price is increased By categories of social characteristics, are re­ cnme preventIOn theory, Howard Jour- delell [COBA business research study, a [Domination and vio­ ) reducing the opportunity to commit of­ garded as determining the crime riSk. The gelVeldlr,isdd.iven nal, 18:150-159. written questionnaire to business in The go on to argue thai the crime rate lence, II multidisciplinary vision of the Mayhew, .P., R. V. G. Clarke, :lnd A. Hague about burglary and burglary pre- f~nces at micro- or mesolevel, then, the or­ ~uthors ~ I m a given is partly determined by the-' .?rigins/1of violent crime). Nijmegen. dl?ary person may help in combating such a~ea Sturman (1976) vention]. No. 37, RDC. The Hague: DIJk, J. J M. van, and C. H. D. Stein­ Crime as opportunity. London, HMSO. Ministry of Justice. cnme. Some offenses will indubitably be ex~e~t to which these risk-bearingcharac­ metz (1979)1i Naafs, J., and W. E. Saris (1979) Suttles, G. D. (1972) deflected on to neighbors Or adjacent' te~stlcsare manifest among the local popu­ lation. On the basis of such a De WqlDCslachtofferellquetes 1974- "Di~fstal door middel van braak: diach- The social cOllstruction of communities. n~ighborhoods. Other offenses, however, vi~timological theory of the emergence of 1,979 r:rhe WODC-victimization ques­ I romsche analyse van cen delict in Am- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. WIll not be comn¥,ttedat all, because the tJonnal[e 1974-1979] 's-Gravenhage: ! potential offenders will not be led into cnme, they c?nclude that the ordinary per­ sterda~" L~urglary dianchronic analysis Takooshian, H" and H. Bodinger (1979) son ,can contrIbute towards crime control . Ministe,rie van Justitie, WODC. f of a cnme m Amsterdam), Mens en "Street crime in 18 American cjties: A temptation or will be discouraged in their, , Flenberg,l: Stephen E. (1979) attempt. The development of delinquent b1 reduc~n~ his or her risk~bearing I Maatsc/zappij, vol. 54, no. 4 national field experiment," paper for pre- cnaractenstlcs.' (November). sentation at 79th Annual Meeting of the norms can als~ be countered if committing The ,all!t/YSiS of cross classifi,', ed ca, tegori­ cal datI' Cambridge, Mass: M.l. T. Os.: G. J. van (1979) A1l!erican Sociological Association (Au- petty offenses IS made more,difficult. Press. References Het Huk: een opvangcentrum voor her- gust), Boston. Fordham University. Meantime, emergence of the side effects Fiselier,Ji P. S. (1978) I oinevcrslaafden in de spuistraat" [The Vianen, A.C., and J. J. M. van Dijk referred to forms a cogent reason why the Block, R. (1979) SlacJzto~r~rs Van delicten: Een onderzoek Huk. A service center for heroin addicts (1978) Government should take the initiative in Burglary and street crimes from the vic- n~ar veJrborgell crimillaliteit 1Victims of in the Spui Street] (doctoral dissertation, Criminal victimization in Ihe Nether- this field. The more the Government suc,­ tim's perspective. A cross national com- cnme: ~\ study of unreported crime]. ~ociology). lands," victim surveys 1974-1977. RDC. ceeds in having certain measures (e.g., , pariSOlI of Holland and the Ullited States Ut;echt:\!Ars A¢qui librL ReiSS, .A. J. (1977) The Hagl!e: Minb:try of Justice (April). (I loc~s o~ car steering columns) introduced (rough draft, June 1979)." Gardmer, I~, A. (1978) ~nvlrOllm~1lt detert!'illallls of victimiza- Vianen, A. C., and J. J. M. van Dijk nahonWld~ or, at any rate, regionally, the Carr-I'HlI (19J6) \ "Designlror safe neighborhoods the en- 1101I.by cr/me and Its conlrol. Yale Uni- (1980) smaller will be the geographic deflective '{hi OE, e"'D sa~,ial indica/,o,r dev~lfpment , vironme~r't se~urity pla~ning an,d design verslty (not yet published). "L'influence des media sur I'opinion effects. If this form ofcrime prevention is p,:ogr:a"'.me No.3. Dara sources/or so_[Jprocess, \ Nahona.1 I~stJtute ~f Law En- Reppetto, T. A. (1976) pubJique relative a la criminalite' Un left to ~he ~ee interaction of social pres- C!(ll"IIl4,lcators of victimizatioll sufJ'ired forcemen,! and Cnmmal Justice, U.S. "Crime prevention and the displacement phenomene exceptionnel" [The i~fluence sures, It wl11:mpan that the risks will de- " by individuals" Paris. \ Departmert of Justice, September. ' I phenomenon," Crime alld Delinquency of the media on public opinion relative volve on those lower on the social scale. Clinard, M. !l., and J. lunger-Tas (1979>"> G~~dman, ~r' A. (1972)0 22(2):166-178 (April). to crime: An exceptional phenomena], The reason for saying this is that our sur- Probl~m~ ulldResultate beim Verg/eicl! \'" A g:,ne~,U D?odel for the analysis of sur- Sparks, R.:P., H. G. Genn, and D. eJ. Deviance et Societe, vol. 4, no. 2. veys have shown that willingness to take von VictIm Surveys, Das Verbrechens veys, Allier/can JOllrnal oj,sociology Dodd (.1977~ . Waller, I., and H. Okihiro (1978) prev~ntive measures is very highly correlat- Opfer, Ein Reader zur Viktim~logie .77:1035-1086." • Surveymg vlctmls, a study of the mea- Burglary: The victim and the pllblic. ed .wlth suc!Hharacteristics as level of edu­ [Problems andresuIts with comparisons Hmdelang, MY,lJ., M. R. Gottfredson, and surement of crflllillai victimization, per- University of Toronto Press. cation and mcome. In our view t.herefore o(victi.m s~~eys. The crime victim: A J'.G~lOfal~i'(1978)., ceptions of crime alld attitudes to Wilson S. (1978) th~ L~delijke

42 1\ National studies of victimization ~ NationaL studies of victimization 43 j , \!

-II' LV !v , i) '., ... ,.. -", .. ,~".I .... :=ii. \ h= ..• _...... ----_. ""'.,.,~~

~'1 T'· Cit~ studies of victimization I )) l Differential victimization patterns: i -1, An analysis of crime victims in polar neighborhoods in Haifa* t i GIDEON FISHMAN** f

Introduction ) :I the extent to which the lack of willingness I Victimization surveyJare believed to be to report the crime is a function of the type not vary across neighborhoods, we can as­ extremely important means for obtaining of crime committed, thus identifying possi­ sume that the two samples represented in information on crime beyond that supplied ble explanations for the gap. effect the population of polar city by official police statistics. The. National neighborhoods. Opinion Research Center conducted a large /, survey in 1966 ba!;ed on a 10,000 house­ The method Personal interviews were conducted using a questionnaire that asked .about the respon­ hold national sample for this pUrpose. It re­ The survey was conducted in Haifa. Re­ flected the increased concern for. the victim dent's general background as well as his or spondents were reSidents of two clearly her victimization experiences over the past shared by various other criminological identifiable and different residential areas. studies (Federal Bureau of Investigation 3 years, and behavioral reactions to them. , Gi'ven oUr concern with differential patterns To the extent that annual victimization ,; 1970, 1971; Von Hentig 1948; Mendelson of victimization, a purposive rather than re­ r 1963; Block 1974; Howard 1975). rates are' necessary for comparative pur­ presentative sample was chosen. The main poses, our results should be corrected by a This. concern with the victim is due to a questio/I we posed Was: are the variables factor of 113. The interviewers were stu­ steep general increase in all types of crime which correlate with victimization different dents familiar with the purpose ofthe ques­ rates, which is equally discernible in new, across population subgroups? To the extent tions and with the theoretical framework developing countries in general, and in Is­ that significantly different socioeconomic within which they Were developed. rael in particular. While the actual slopes groups differ in terms of victiihization co­ of the increase differ across countries, variates, the hypotheSis of uniform causes Findings and discussion there is a commOlY belief that the phenom~ of victimization can hardly be supported. en on itself is only the tip of a serious so­ We decided to use residential area as a For the purpose of calculating victimization r cial-problems iceberg. proxy fo\,: socioeconomic background, as­ rates, the 24 detailed categories of crimes suming that lower class popUlation can included in the questionnaire were grouped While it was clear from the beginning of rarely ~ found in high status,S:;:pensive into 4 broad categories. 2 these studies that patterns of victimjzation neigh~Qrhoods. ' varied across population subgroups' (Ennis • Violent crimes such as attempted mur­ 1967), knowledge of the relationship be­ Five poor'" neighborhoods were chosen on der, murder and manslaughter threats, bo­ tween victimization patterns and social the basis of their. classification by the Mu­ dily injuries, assaUlt, kidnapping, rape with structure in Israel was completely lacking. nicipal Welfare Services Department as the violence, etc. Consequently, the purpose of this study most problematic in the city. A pane,l of (the first of its kind in Israel) was judges selected the "good" neighborhoods. • Crimes against property such as armed threefold: The size of the total population of the and unarmed robbery, blackmail, bUrglary, "good" neighborhoods was adjusted to theft, car theft, pocket picking, purse • First, we wanted to identify the victims match that of the poor neighborhoods. A ' snatChing, etc. of crime and the types of crime committed against them. multistage sampling scheme was used in • White-collar crimes such as counterfeit_ which neighborhood streets, then residen­ ing, bouncing checks, fraud, etc. • Second, we wanted to find out whether tial structures,and then housing units were there are victim profiles typical of each ,;. randomly selected. A special respondent • Sexual crimes such as rape or statutory j: type of crime as ~pposed to a uniform so­ selection procedure, developed to equalize rape, various types of unnatural sexual cial profile of victims in general. I each resident's probability of being includ­ acts, sodomy with or without consent,etc. \ \ ed in the sample, was finally used in each Overall, 569 incidents were reported by the • Finally, we were interested in the welJ­ case (Backstrom and Hirsh 1963). The re­ known discrepancy between the actual 477 respondents as havillg occurred over SUlting sample clearly represented the ithe 3-year period; 37% (173) were victim­ number of crimes committed and that rc­ neighborhoods' adult population rather than ported by the P9lice statistics (Murphy et that of Haifa. ized once, 23% (116) were victimized rr,ore than once, 40% (188) were never a1. 1946; Gold 1966; Block 1974). This vlctimized. gap justifies the conduct of Victimization Altogether, 477 respondents Were inter­ ij surveys. In this context, we investigated viewed, 236 from the poor and 241 from ,,2These categories usually inclUde the items ap­ " the "good" neighborhoods. To preserve the .' pearing in the Annual Police Report. The first "\. I, *Reprinted from Magarnot; A Quqrter(v for Be­ size and equivalence of the samp)!!)!. un- includes Violent us; well _ '. 4,\ 1M c~tego!}' ~ri"!e5 as.~jjpe \ haviorai Sciel/ces, December 1979. Translated available respondents were replaced by re-Ily with because. Its bemg tradillon- ,. , c.~ by Fabian Pascal. ass~uJt desp~tc fr · '. }',) ally conSidered a sexual crime, the amount of *i

Preceding page blank City stut/ies of vlctimization "" 45 r Jl .. o

I ~,

------~\~~,------As Table 5-1 indicates, 11% (51) oftheJe­ 1'1',' 5-1. Victimization percentages and reports to tile police, by residential areali:nd type of crime" 5-3, 'Correlation (gamma) brltween the victim's background arid the type of crime committed against him or her spondents reported being the viCtim of vlo~ lent C::.rimes. However, the number of crime Violent crimes Property crimes White-collar crimes Victim's background characteristics incidents reported was 93; 1. 8: I incidence ~, Victimization Incidents Victims Incidents Victims Incidents Victims r, Number 01 which means that, on the average, victims Risk in -"I people Residential of violl,nt .crimes suffered from 2 incidents 89 ,. Type of crime Sex Age Origin Education Occupation' Occupation Income per room area "Good" area 24 18 148 90 26 1 over the period. The modai type of crime (25.8) (35.3) (47) (50.8) (63.6) (55.3) in this category was assault. 87 51 21 Violent victim -.05 -.37 -.23 .02 -.26 -.06 -.13 .14 .33 Poor area 69 '33 167 I! a (74.2) (64.7) (53) (49.2) (36.4)' (44.7) 1 Property vl,cUm .02 .11 .07 -.02 -.34 -.03 .16 ~.03 -.05 Property"crimes were much more frequent: Total 93 51 315 177 14,0 47 White-c,ollar victim .,-.42 .14 -.07 .00 -.49 -.16 .23 .06 -.13 315 incidents were reported by 177 victims (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) Sexual victim .51 -.66 -.29 .09 -.40 .18 -.24 .11 .14 (33% of the sample). The ave~ilge inci­ -::.. :: dence here was .identical to that of, violent Reports to police *Answerto the question on whether the respondent Is aPosltive correlation: Sex-femare; Age-young (18- <: salaried or not. Housewives are Included In the non­ 30); Origin-western; Education-high; Income­ crime, 1.8:1, and the modal type ,vas theft. ~~, . " salarieq category. high; People per room-high; Residential area­ ".' . il '. "Good" area 13 9 10 62 11 8 poor. The findings on whIte-collar crimes show , (31.7) (36) .,(50) (53) (36.7) (44.4) that 10% (47) of the respondertts were vic~ Poor area 28 16 1I10!) 55 19 10 timized. However, the number of incidents (68.3) (64) '(50) (47) (63.3) (55.6) that the number of those victimized more our knowledge, this victim profile is so­ tion of the incident. Finally, the profile of here was 140, ~ising the inciqence to ap­ Total 41 25 200. 117 30 18 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) than once (recidivists) are similarly distrib­ cioeconomically not different from that of . the sex.ual crime vic~ims is, as expected, proximately 3:1. The modal category was uted within the two areas. This conforms the (violent crime) offenders. Our results that of young housewives, probably of ori­ bounced checks. ' 'The numbers inparentheses are percentages. (~ with Wolfgang and Ferracuti's notipn of support previou,s studies which found that ental origin. "subculture of violence" (1967) and Lewis' there is status SImilarity between victims of Finally, sexual crimes were the least fre­ The mostJnteresting, and somewhat unex­ concept of "the culture of pgverty" (1961). viOlent crime and their offenders (Shaw quent: only 14 respondents wer~ victimized pected result is the lack of relationship be­ Miller identified two different behavioral and McKay 1942; Wolfgang 1957; Shoham 21 times. The modal type was attempted 5-2. Relationship of resldentlallirea and degree tween type of offense and the victim's cultures-one of the lower and another of 1962). Violence is an intraethnic, lntren- D rape_ of victimization, by type of crime level Of education. In fact, we would ex­ the middle Class (Miller 1958). In addition, eighborhood, and frequent1y eVen intrafa­ pect a strong positive association of low Table 5-1 emphasizes these. findings anrl il­ We learn that to the extent that there is mily behavior, occurring between persons "Good" Poor education with violent and sexual crime lustrates the differences between the vic­ area area some uniqueness of victimization patterns who knew each ot~priorJo the incident. Victims by victimization, a~~ one of higli education timization rates in the two residential areas, Number Number % in the "good" area, it is expressed in the % The main victimsfo! crimes are with property and white-colIar victimiza­ a topic to which we now tum. proneness of its residents to multiple white­ propert~ .self-employed, ~oderately high-income tion. Such expectations would be based on Given Violent' . Once 15 83 15 45 )('!""3.98 collar crr/ne victimization. Residential area and victimization. Twice or more 3 17 16 55 p<.05 persons. Here ~rere was no relati~n be­ a linear relationship between education and that our sample was representative of two Total 18 100 33 100 df=l While the likelihood of being victimized twee.n victimiza ~~n and the.,:i~tijs ~esi­ income, resulting in a proneness of the socioeconomically distinct residential areas', >I I.' once is 4% ~ll the "good" and 5% in" the denllal area and \hIS or her Orlgl~/ThlS fact high-income groups to property and finan­ we were obviously interested in whether Property Once 56 61 58 67 Not poor area (which isa small and insignifi­ has an important ffi~)!1Jhe-tli~tinction cial offenses and, assuming that socioeco­ 33 /j differential victimization patterns were as­ Twice or more 36 39 29 significant cant difference), the likelihood of becom­ between violent and property crimes." nomic. status is a function of education, on I 92 100 87 100 sociated with different sociqeconomic'pro­ Total ing a multiple victim increases from 3.7% While for the former there are some~e~o­ a proneness of less educated persons to files. An idea of this rehitionship may be ,- in the poor :lrea t9 6.7% in the ~'good" tional links between the victim and the\'Qf­ violent crimes. White-collar Once 10 38 12 57 obtained by looking at the distribution of "iy- Not area. This supports our perceptions of the fender, none characterize the latter. "\ Twice or more 16 62 9 43 Significant There are several possible explanations for types of crime over the two areas. A mUch Total 26 100 21 100, socioeconomic profile of the residential . Property crimes are oriented at the propenx better picture. however, was provided by the actual finding. First, the relationship areas, for we can identify a characteristic as an object, which attracts all the attentiort' between education and income may not be the link between the nun.lber of victims and victimization pattern. for each. type. of of the offender and that is why origin does *The calculation Was made using the Yales' correction. linear or, !It least, may not fi t the. linear the type of residential area. As it turns out, j: region. . not covary with victimization. This is also model valid a decade ago. Indeed, it ,seems there was no such relationship for property l the reason for the similarity in the number "good" vs. 1.9 in the poor ~ea). A c1@rer hood ,of being' victimized once is almost that education is not necessarily accompa­ and white~collar crimes, but there was a Who are the vicfimsf' Another question we and rate of property victimization found in difference exists for white-collar crimes, id~&al across crime categories. Only , nied by high income and vice ver~a. The clear and significant relationship for violent wanted to answer was whether the victim very different residential areas. and it is in the opposite direction to that the Iikelih?od of .being victimized .. pic::ture we have is one in Which, on one crimes. ~,1gn () profiles in the v!U'ious crime categories \\ for violent cr. imes: average frequency of (...:more than once IS conSIdered do~s th~ dlf­ were different." Are there any socioeconom­ White-collar victimization displays com­ hand, financial crim~s hurt self-employed, I \ The second point of .interest was whether victimizations per victim in the "good" ference betweep the two areas aflse: 10 the \ ic and occupational variables that charac­ pletely different patterns. The victims are relatively well-off individuals !\llq,on the the two areas were different in their aver­ area is 3.4 and. it falls to 2.4 incidents pel' (; poor area, the number of incidents for each terize victims of different tYP!1s of crime? mainly wealthy. self-employed persons, " other, violent crimes hurtlow-illfrome per­ age number of incidents per victim. In oth­ victim in the poor area. vviol.ent crime victim increascs. Such a dif- ,1 " usually living In "good" neighborhoods. sons, .regardless of the, victim's eOucation. er words, given that the likelihood of , .. ..' " ference does not exist for property crime, Table 5-3 shows that there was no uni· They are usualiy men working in areas in­ This pa!,!ern fits the conception pi cultural becoming a vjctim is lower in "good~' An addl~lOnal. aspect we IIIvestIgated was but !hecurnulative rate of whjte-collar . formity of victim characteristics across the volving certain degrees of ris~ (such as conflict, accQrcling to which criminal Qe­ neighborhoods, was the ratio of number of the relatIOnshIp ?e~w~en ,the are~ type ~nd crimes is much higher in the "good" than " crime categories. Victims of violent crimes contacts with the public or cash): It seems havior tends to have an i'~t!iaethni~, Intraso­ t~e .numbe.r ~f VIctImIZatIOns whl.ch an 10.- in the poQr area. The last two differences tend to be young (18-30), usually not sala­ incidents to numbel' of victims in them 4 reasonable to assume that financial offenses cial-st{:.ltum chara<;tel', independeQtof the similar to that in the poor' area? Or was the ?lvIdu~1 Vlctl~ su~fer~?

, "n Moreover, these studies suggest that the of­ expected regularity was found in the case> crimes. In the latter cases, the rates in the fender might be of the type prone to crimi­ mal attempts to "cool the spirits." of white-collar crimes, where the victims "good" neighborhoods tend to be higher victimization across the various crime cate­ Federal Bureau of Investigation (1971) nal victimization. Moreover, the victim very often finds her showed a clear tendency to abstain from than in the poor neighborhoods (though, as gories. Rather, the various types of crimes "Crime in the United States," in Uni­ reporting. The rate was approximately one or his own virtues questioned by the police Consequently. we decided to investigate mentioned, not '~:gnificantly so). In the fi­ were distributed over various types of pop­ form Crime Reports, 1970. Washington: fifth, which means that only one out of or the courts. No doubt such a possibility those res~!)ndents in the sample who had nancial case, there is a completely QPposite ulation subgroups. We found that not all U.S. Government Printing Office. five offenses was reported, by 38% of the deters many women from reporting sexual criminal records, a group of 32 persons trend: The reporting rate in the poor area is the victims in the sample were victimized Howard, M. K. (1975) victims. In other words, almost two-thirds offenses. who admitted that they had been arrested three times as high as in the "good" area. just once. Future research ought to be fo­ "Police reports and victimization survey of the victims preferred to keep quiet. cused on "recidivist" victims as the princi­ by the police. We found a clear correlation These results raise the question of whether Having found variation in the reason for results," Criminology 12(4):433-447. pal.crime issue in modern society. Why between property victimization and the Further investigation is necessary before the. reasons for the reluctance to report vary not reporting offenses to the police, we de­ Lewis, O. (1961) their proneness to victimization? 11 is possi­ number of the victim's previous arrests the reasons for this reluctance can be ex­ across types of crime and areas. Actually, cided to investigate the relation between The children of Sanchez; AllIobiograp/ty ble that a more in-depth inquiry into this (r= .31, p<.Ol). A stronger link was plained. Nevertheless, several possibilities we. wanted to find out whether one motiva­ this variation and the victim's socioeco­ of a Me.r:icanfamily. New York: Ran­ phenomenon requires a contextual analysis found between the number of arrests and are considered here. First, it seems prefer­ tion dominated the decision to report inci­ nomic environment. For this purpose, we dom House. too, for multiple victimization is not as white-collar victimization (r= .48, p<.OI). able to try financial offenses before civil dents to the police for all offenseSAllld checked the residential area of the respon­ Miller, W. A. (1958) It is equally interesting to note that no rather than criminal courts for the former groups. . . dents who mentioned the modal reason for random as the single victimization appears "Lower class culture as a generating mi­ similar relationships could be found for are more likely to ensure that the victim is each crime category. The analysis showed to be. It may well be that the socioeco­ lieu of gang delinquency," Journal of violent (r= .07) and sexual (r= .17) compe.llsated by the offender. An alterna­ The pilot survey we conducted in prepara­ no association of the two variables. The nomic and criminal background of the vic­ Social Issues 14:5-19. victimization. tive possible re:lson for the victim's reluc­ tion for this study showed that many of the same result was obtained with the second tims should also be considered, as is Mendelson, B. (1963) tance to involve authorities (and possibly respondents refused to provide their mo­ and third most frequently mentioned rea­ usually done for the offender. "The origins of victimology," Excerpta For the ~hole sample, the correlation be­ tives for not reporting financial offenses. the Internal ReveHue Service) is his or her sons for each category. We conclude that This study represents only one of the direc­ Criminologica 3:239-241. tween the nurr:~r of previous arrests and Consequently, we were forced to ignore financial situation or busilless relations. there is no significant difference between tions in which victimological research has Murphey, F. J., S. W. Mary, and H. L. the number of victimizations was r = .30 them in this analysis; the white-collar inci­ . Very frequently the victims of financial ,the two populations' reluctance to report " lately developed. Additional perspectives Witmer (1946) (p<.OOl}:JDespite the low amount of vari­ dents were included in the property crimes crimes lise means external to the legal sys­ offenses. The implication is that it is the 'on the behavior of the victims, as well as "The incidents of hidden delinquency," ance explained by previous arrests (.9%), category. tem to40lve their problem!: letters from. character of the incident that dominates the of that of the offenders could be gained American Journal of Orthopsychiatry the direction of a link between arrests and '''=oY 17 decision to report it. Moreover, the kind of 16(4):680-698. victimizations is obvious. their attorney or private collection of debts. We found that, independent of residential from alternative types of study, which fo­ 1t is most revealing to note that the victims area, motivations for withholding informa­ motives for not reporting given are similar cus on the emotional reaction by respon­ Scott, J. E., and P. J. Sneider (1973) Reports to the police. The following analy­ tended not to divulge their motive for not tion fTOm the police varied with the type of in the two areas, even if their frequency is dents to their being victimized; on whom "Effects of different perception of penal sis attempts to describe and explain the,,,. reporting the case. offense. The main reason for not reporting not (see Table 5-1). and what they holdfesponsible for their institutions on the severity of punish­ patt~rn of offense reporting. to the police/! ment," ill I. Drapkin and E. Viano (ed.), A rather disturbirigCphenomenon relates to violent victimization was the perception of situation; and on their attitudes toward the The overall reporting rate for the 569 inci­ Victimology.· A new focus, vol. 5, 169- sexual offenses. Here only 12% of the vic­ indifferent and ineffective handling by po­ Conclusion offender, the police, and the society. Thus, dents recalled by the respondents was 44% 178. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington tims reported the incident to the police, lice (21.7% of the motives mentioned). we could study the extent to which victims (274 cases). It is clear from Table 5-1 that The second most important reason was fear Our findings strongly support the view that who share the same value system with the Books. the rate carried across types of crime. For and this low rate of 1:7 indicates that for residential area is more than just a socio­ Shaw, C. R., and H. D. McKay (1942) every reported incident there are seven un­ of revenge (l3.8%)pThe reason most fre­ offender have reactions different from example, we founds that only 49% of the economic variable. The support comes Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. known to the police. quently mentioned by property crime vic­ those of the victims who do nQ(i In a simi­ violent crime victims reported their victim­ tims was economic, a cost-benefit analysis from the differential distributions of the lar vein, we could find out wll6ther the Chicago: University of Chicago Press. i~HUon(s) to the police; they eq;';.i11~d only Additional information can be gained by based on the amount of loss incurred. Ei­ ·number of incidents and victims and of the world view of a victim who has a criminal Shoham, S. (1962) 44% of the incidents. We also fo~nd tht1t investigating the link between residential ther small losses (24%), or an anticipation recidivism of victimization within the two background is influenced by it; that is "The application of the cultural contlict the rate of reporting for the violent crimes area and reporting patterns for each type of of waste of time (17%) were the two most areas. The police notification rates alsl) whether it dictates different reactions than hypothesis to the criminality of immi­ was lower than that for property crimes; in crime. The repouing rate (RR) is obtained salient reasons. It is possible that they are varied by type of neighborhood. Support is those of a victim by chance. Answers to grants in Israel," Joumal of Criminal the latter.case, two out of three incidents by dividing the number of reports (R) by correlated, for the reporting process is c.>r­ also given to the view that violent crimes such questions necessitate a continuation of Law, Criminology and Police Science were reported, by 66% of the victims. the number of incidents (I): ceived asharassmen('or waste of time pre­ define a subculture. Fr9m the relationship victimological research beyond the first 53(2):207-214. between residential area and violent and fi­ von Hentig, H. (1948) This result appears contradictory to con­ cis~ly in the cases in which the losses are step made by this study. small. For sexual crimes, the dominant rea­ nancial victimization, we learn about the The criminal and his victim. New Ha­ ventional assumptions, which r~late a high­ RR= ~. differential crime profiles of the two areas. ven, Conn.: Yale University Press. er reliability of official statistics on violent I sons were, first, the embarrassment associ­ References ated with it (27%) and, second, the In contradistinction, there is no similar dif­ Wolfgang, M. E. (1957) crimes than property crimes due to their se­ ferenc.ft)n property victimization rates; BaCkstrom, H. C., and G. H. Hursh "Victim-precipitated criminal homicide," absence of eyewitn~~es (22%), which low­ (1963) verity. The data we present, however, does The overall. rates Fior the two areas are there 'W~s no disproportionate concentration JOllrnal of Crimil/al Law, Criminology not justify such a, conclusion; the violent similar: .51 in th~poor and .47 in the ers the probability of the charge and the Survey research, Evanston: III.: North­ likelihood of punishment of the offender. of this type of crime in the "good" area. and Police Science 48: 1.11. . crimes category, as defined in this study. "good" areas, This"difference was not sig­ western University Press. Wolfgang, M. E., and F. Ferracuti (1967) An equally interesting discovery emerged combines severe offenses such as atte~pted nificant. When we decomposed these gen­ From these results, it is obvious that a sin­ Bartolas, C., S. J. Miller, and S. Dinitz The subculture of violence. London:' murder, assault, and physical injury with eral ratel; into rates for each offense gle explanation of the victim's reluctance from our analysis of the link between resi­ (1973) Tavistock. lesser offenses, such as other types of category, we did not find significant differ­ to notify the police does not fare well. The dential :irea and noti(ying the police: only "Staff exploitation of inmates; the para­ threats and lighter injuries, for which the ences between the rates in the two areas: indifference and lack of efficiency by the the reporting rates for white-collar crimes dox of institutional control," ill l. Drap­ reporting late may be low. Moreover, the .54 in the "good" and .40 in the poor area. police quoted as reasons in the violent varied by area. The "good" area residents kin and E. Viano (ed.), \Iictimology: A victim of property crime has an extremely The situation is similar in the property displayed a significant tendency to abstain lIew foclls, vol. 5, 157-168. Lexington, crime category are understandable if we re­ I "'1" important, additional incentive to report the crimes category: ,67 vs .59 respectively. member that severe offenses such as mur­ from reporting the offense t9 the police. It Mass: Lexington Books. offense: If he or she wants to be reim- " We foutid, however, a significant differ~ der or manslaughter are ex;tremely rare. I appears that the abstention is affected by Block, Richard (1974) bursed by insurance, the requirement of in­ ence between reporting rates of white-col­ Indeed, this categO;'y included mainly vio­ " tile type of offense. Consequently, the "Why notify the police," Crimillology forming the police about the incident must lar crimes: .12 in (he "good" versus .37 in lent quarrels between relatives or neigh· study of reporting rate should not separate 11(4):555-569. be fulfilled before the claim is .honored. An the pOOl' neighborhoods (z",,3A89; bors, in which there is a clear tendency. to the two. It is possible that previous exper~ "Gold, M. (1966) p<.OOI). This difference clearly testifies to solve the issue without pressing charges or iences influence the decision to abstain. A "Undetected delinquent behavior," Jour:) :Y[hese results, as well as any other result in the the reluctance or residents in the "good" before the police begin an investigation. contextual analysis is likely to improve the I/al Of Research ill Crime alld Delinquell­ study, were calcuhited by dividing the appropri­ area to report this type'of incident. This, For this reason it is likely that the police explanation of reporting r~tes. cy 13(1):27-46. ate cells in the lower section of Tllble 5-1 by however, applies QJlly to this category I!,nd do hOt uSl!alIy perceive this type of inci­ \"- In our study, we find no evidence of a uni- Ennis, P. H. (1967) their counterparts in the upper section. does .not extend to violent or property" ~'f. • • "Crime victims and police," Tralls-Ac~ dent as a public concern and make infor- ~rm SOCIOeconomic profile for mUltiple tioll A(7):36-44. 48 City studies of victimization o City studies of victimizatioll 49 / / Ii f /'

Victimization in a Mexican city

LUIS RODRIGUEZu MANZANERA*

Traditionally, the interest of criluinology has ~en to study the Criminal,~ndth!! vic­ 6-1. tim is" often forgotten. Studying victims of Distribution of the sample, by age, sex, and victimization crime has helped to revise and modify our Victims knowledge of crime. Victimization surveys Nonvictims Age Male have helped to clarify various aspects of Female' Male Female antisocial behavior that are never reported Total 0-10 4 to the authorities. This kind of study gives 11-15 1 51 38 70 5 us information about the victims' reactions, 16-20 238 54 2.13 21-25 197 225 234 their opinions about the criminal .act, and 137 152 124 894 26-30 96 135 548 their eyewitness deSCriptions of the crime. 31-'35 87 56 68 39 56 22 307 The primary objective of the research re­ 36-40 30 26 143 41-45 33 15 20 ROl!',lrl:~ere is to get a general idea of vic- 25 21 16 98 46-50 13 13 75 dflmizP.).16n in Xalapa, a city of the Republic 51::'55 21 14 8 13 7 56 ,I oHJexico. 56-60 1 11 7 1 22 6H55 1 1 _ 20 66-70 1 3 4 3 2 Materials and methods 71-75 1 10 No answer 1 4 5 2 Two questionnaires (Part I and Part II) 0 10 were used in this research. Everyone re­ Total 666 629 550 ceived the. first questionnaire; the second 560 2,405 was given only to victims. The firstques­ tionnaire consisted of 27 questions which 6-2. Marital status, sex, and victimization", could be used for comparing the responSes with other Mexican research. Victims The second questionnaire Was developed" Marital status Nonvictims Male Female by Professor St. Louis for the Texas De­ Male Female Total partment of Public Safety in hopes of a Single 447 410 ':,:. cross-cultural study. It is in a bilingual Married 433 400 1,690 ** Widowed 158 145 99 11 101 503 format and focuses on serious crimes. The Divorced 25 1 3 Spanish language version was used in 11 18 6 40" Living together 28 8 43 Mexico. StUdents from the Union of Vera­ No answer 28 20 24 11 3 100 cruz helped to administer the questionnaire. 1 14 29 All victimization questions refer to 1975. Total 666 629 560 550 2,405 Three thousand questionnaires were admin­ istered, but only 2,405 were valid. One sCriptlons of thi: criminal activity (type of hundred of them were administered to a crime, place, time, etc.). The third set of ceptibility to victimization; 50.7% of the small popUlation outside of Veracruz. This questions ask for ~rsorial chafucteristics of single respondents reported being victims (see Table 6-2). town was chosen on the basis of the pre­ the victims and their r~)iationship with the dominantly French origin of The people. law, i.e., authority. The last questions are

Q concerned• • •• with the ~6nsequencesII of Percent who The major difficulty encountered was the victImizatIOn. / Were victims \ ]arge number of questions not answered. It .. Personal characteristics of the victim. The Males Females is assumed that the people just are not used Married "I!; to questions about criminal activities. sample is somewhat younger than the gen­ 61 .• 5 58.9 Living together 58.3 eral population--{i8% of the sample are 25 Divorced {) 53 years old or less .compared to 60.5% of the 64·70 69,23 i' -,. Results of Part I Widowed 91.7 total popUlation. Among those interviewed, 89.3 Ii (j l·' The nrst questions ask for demographic victims appear, to be older than nonvictims .~ Thus, there appears to be an escalation of .', .j n characteristics of the respondents (sex, age, for both men and women (see Table 6. I). U , . victimization across marital status 'I.'" etc.).\} The next. set of questions ask for de- This sample has equal numbers of men and categories: Women respondents, and there appears to i! .... *Luis Rodriguez Manz&nera is Professor of be no gender difference insusceptibility to. Widowed ,,~ More victimizatiqn c , Criminology at Universidad Nacional Autonoma being victims of crime. About half the men DivorCed de Mexico, Mexico City D. F. Very Iitt!eis and women interviewed were. victims. Married known about Victimization in developing coun­ Living together D tries. At the risk of overwhelming the reader There are a large number of single respon- Single Less Victimization with numbers, as much statistical information as . dents (70.27% vs. 42.96% of the gener;d .0 l\ possible was retained in this chapter. [Editor] .,' population) in the sample; this is attributed i-' to the large number of students irlter- Students appear to be more likelY to be '**The Texas portion of this research was never victimized than other residents of XaJapn ." completed. viewed. However, being single does not c "'--:-.'""'--~' : <$. I \ .. '. , 'H' ,I -.appear to be an important factor for sus- (49.32% of the victims were students). . This might be explained by the following: . f' _ :.cl Preceding page blank ' \) City Studies of victimization 51 I I I ~------~------~~;o ~------~~------~------~------~------~------~ f 6-3. Income of victims ! I quent crimes were robbery (36%), insults­ Income (pesos)' Men Women Total Scarcely slander (25%), and assaults-inj\lries • 31 % feared personal revenge from ~he ,j."/ublic 6-5. Specific crimes which were r&'peated Public Private populated II (corporal harm) (13%). on the same victims criminais. This is to say that one of three ,Crime None 5 3 8 place troad place place Home Vehicle Total victims remains frightened or the criminal. 0-.1,000 '" 59 34 93 In addition, a person may be .a victim of Crirne Men Wornen Total • 5.59% preferred a personal vengeance 1,001-2,000 88 20 108 Robbery' 64 more than one crime at the same time. 2,001"'3,000 .79 28 6 50. 31, 258 for the criminal. This indicates a chain re­ 33 22 55 Injury . 86 13 8 3,001-4,000 23 10 10 7 202 Robbery often accompanies another crime, 33 Insult· o0~~ 51 11 2 9 10 Robbery 66 76 142 action of revengeful criminal acts, which is 4,001-5,000 11 11 22 145 and .robbery is also the crime committed Injury 51 46 97 Embezzlernent 22 16 13 18 2 71 well-known in Latin communities. 5,001-6,000 70 59 129' Abuse of most often with assaults or insults, the next Insult 45 6 51 6,001-7,000 10 2 12 authority 23 2~ most frequently committed offenses. This Embezzlement 21 9 30 Victim compensation is an important con­ 7,001-8,000 51 11 .. 2 69,!" 1 10 Damage to implies that the victim, in addition to being Abuse 01 authority ~ 3 5 18 cern in victimology but only 6.49% of the 8,001-9,000 6 6 Obscene Conduct 1 12 13 property 7 12 2 .2 Hi 9,001-10,000 1 40 ~obbed, etc., was also assaulted or insult­ Fraud 9 0 9 victims responded that they received coIll,­ Fraud 13 3 2 "'~, - 4. 22 More than 10,000 2 1 3 Invasion of ed. The insultscollsisted mainly of verbal- • Threat 3 6 .9 pensation in any form. Varied 3 3 .6 privacy Darnage to property . 5 2 . 7 2 18 i io! izations (statements) of hatred of the . No answer 347 20 The helplessness of the. victims is a realjtY 463 810 Plunder 3 " 2 2. 5 criminI\Ito,)Vards the victim. Rape 1 2 3 14 I Slander 0 3 3 Reckless conduct 4 1 4 that must be acknowledged. One possible 11 Attempted robbery 0 2 2 Total 666 629 1,295 Obscene conduct 1 "·2 2 5 Because many of the crimes involved per­ solution to the helplessn~ss of the victims Rape 2 I Assault 2 0 2 2 sonal contact, it is not surprising that the Reckless conduct 0 1 1 is insurance; however, in our study, oilly Statutory rape 1 2 'In 1975, 12.5 pesos = 1 dollar. I(idnaping victim often knew the offender. Thirty-nine Kidnaping 0 1 1 20% of the victims had some kind of insur­ Other a I Statutory rape 0 1 1 ance. Even this report may be high because 6 1 9 " percent of the male victims knew the • Xalapais a student town (29.7% of the Attempted robbery 2 2 ~h" criminal; 41% ofthe female vktims knew some of the victims thought we meant "so­ Beating 4 " 5 Total 217 172 389 cial security" which they were forced into total population are students). Assault \~ the criminal. . 1 2 signing up for at their places of eMostof the respondents to the question­ Defamation 2 2 The study also. gathered data on hqw many Threat employment. II naire were students. 1 offenders were involved in the victimiza­ I»~ 6-6, Authority status of those notified • The .age of initial victimization (16-20 C! tion incidents. Half the victims. Who knew Victims react in many ways to being at­ Total 286 of crimes committed years) coincides. with the phase of school 288 86 23 144·· 55 882 how many offenders were jnvolved t~cked. In ~ab!e 6-7, the immediate reacf\ attendance. t (49.1 %) saidseveral criminals were in­ Authority dMen Women Total !ions to a crImmal act are presented. Al11er The other occupations are distributed as 'Robbery Includes burglary,robbery, and most theft. ? ______~~~0~c-- ______mnksfirstas the main emotional reaction, o~~~~~~~~~--~~--~ __-u ____ ~ ____~~~ ____--~~~ l volved. Sixty-seven percent of the females follows. among the victims:. employed- were attacked by a lone criminal; most of Judiclaf pOlice then fear, then fiight,sadness, and desires 16.35%, domestic service-8.85%, home­ 99 57 156 the males reported being attacked by more Public security 41 5 46 for revenge. The thought of notifying au­ makers-7 .13% and. professionals, (profes­ 6-'4b; Victimization by type of crime and location (females) than one person. . Public official 9 3 12 thorities) is almost neVer an immediate reac­ sors,and farmers, 4.5% each. Uniformed police 1 3 4 Federal police tion. Fear Was more common in males than Scarcely . I The victim alld the police. Notification of o 1 1 Other in· females, and the desire for revenge oc­ Table 6-3 shows the incomedistributionc Pubiic Public Private populated the authorities and pressing charges are 37 14. 51 Crime curs more with Women than 'men. Note that among victims. Note that victimization ap­ place road place place Horne Vehicle Total very important for reasons .of imptinity­ pears to be concentrated in the middle in­ Total 187 83 the victims could answer with more than reparation of damages, possible treatment; 270 one response here. comebmcket ($5,000-6,000) at a 27% rate Robbery 52 45 36 1 . Insult .95 47 . ···276 , etc. Of the total victilns 2234% reported and in the lower income bracket ($1,001- 43 29 10 3 40 10 135 Ii InjtIry 20 18 5 that they pressed charges, 62.8% reported Among victims of crime, there was both an 2,000) ~a 22.5% rate .. Almost 36% ofilie 5 17 10 75 6-7. Immediate victim reactions Obscene conduct 15 14 .2 2 31 that they did not, and 15.67% did not re-. immediate and later reaction. The· secon­ victims earn less than $2,000. It appears Embezzlement 64 17. ,2 7 37 64 spondt() the question. ''i dary reactions were often precautionary. that the higher the income bmcket the low" DalT1age to Reaction Men Wornen Total Table 6-8 describes precautions taken after er the probability of being a victim. property ··4 5 21 Invasion of 33 This shows illat in the greatmajo~ity of the victimizations. Half the "victims" .( cases ''the law authorities did not know of .Anger 99 Nature oj the ciime. Of the 1,604 crimes . privacy 3 2 25 89 188 (50.96%) did not take precautionary mea­ Fraud 30 the crime, at Icast not by thf),victims' re~ Crying 12 20 32 reported in Part I of the sllrvey, 68% were 14 2 1.1 ; '-c:" 28 Sadness 17 sures or did not answer the question. The Reckless conduct 6 1 21 port, and thus the law authorities were left 3 20 burglaries, robberies, injuries, of inSUlts, * Abuse of 28 Notification of other half took not only one, but many powerless. Note that males are more likely authorities 0 mel\sures .. Many of the other crimes were abuses of authority 8 5 2 8 3 3 Rape 23 I to notify officials when crimes have been Surprise 2 10 12 trust. The victimiz<\tion site varies by type 3 7 5 23 Passive behavior 0 Plunder 2 " 1 1 7 committed (2S%) tRan women (19%). 2 2 of crime and sex of the victim. Public . Statutory rape ~ 12 Feat 64 35 99 2 3 v 3 2 10 \ 6-8. Precautionary measures taken places and highways~cco1.int for 51 % of .Kidnaplrig D....li In Mexico, the victim can notifY a variety Revenge 6 12 18 after Victimization '1 2. 1 2 Flight 7 the victimizations, homes for 26%, For fe­ Other 3 2 2. ~~, of agencies of a crime. 1n Table. 6-6, the . 18 25 Threat 1 Yielded 0 1 1 males, 36% of their vic.timization incidents 5 5 choice of agency is presented. Public secu­ Resignation 1 Measure Men ,Women Total Defarnation .1 01 occurred in their homes, as compared to Assault 1 rity poHceare the equivalent of ourpatr'ol Normal 14 12 26 1 Preventive measures 13 17% for the men;:.Even though many Forgery officers. They were not notified as often as 1 14 Obt{lined weapons 59 34 93 crimes occurred outside of the home, most : c 1 judicial pOlice. Other 102 56 158 Moved . None-no reactiOn 53 82 99 181 of the women becarne victims in their own Total ~6 'ti .8Q Obtained insurance 37· 4.6 83. 120 78 27 299. No. anSwer 312 homes; This is probably explained. by the 105 822 Despite the low number of victims who no­ 349 66t Restrlcled nighttirne tified authorities,almosthalf (47.35%) said activiiles 119 144 263 fact that in this areli~ many of the women ·10ta{ 702 Was never alOne 'tioriocc~rred inpub1icplaces and high~ they would report to the authorities. if they 647 1,349 93 141 234 are homemakers and that women spend .. .repeat vicilms. Altogether, 36.75%6f . i .Becarne Watchful 5 8 13 more time at home than in public places. ways (see Tables 6-4A.and (i-4B). those victimized were repeat victims. This ,. Were victimizedagairt· Among reasons for Adopted securitY rneasures By contrast., for the males, most victimiza- Many of the Jespondents were victims of implies that for every three victims, one is notification if victimizeda~ain, the desire .. For tho$e who said they would not notify 71 96 167 Other 31 37 68 a repeat Vic~im same crime, . for revenge was expressed by 36,48% arid the polige if they were viCtimized again. the same crime more than o.nce (see Table .' '. f of. the , None· fear of beinga. repeat victim was expressed there. were basically three reasons: 15. 5 20 *There is no diffe.rence.in Me)t.ican law ~tweeil 6~5). More than 34% of the males were :re­ No .answer 229213 442 robbery and burglary. [Editor] Arnong thos¢ who We(C victims of the by 28.35%. peat viclims and. 39% of theJeiiililes were slimecrirne morc. than C)nc~e,· the mOst fre- • 59% said they did not have faith in the ~ Total () . J.:; • authorities. 741 8231,564 52 City studies oJ victimization 1 ,,, o I r City studies of victimization" ,53

~ -~;;:-~.-'.~- -, I {.'

The most common measures taken were "direct" robberies and 58% of the robberies. "self-limitations" consisting of 23.86% not Consequences of victimization. Table 6-]4 at home or at work were committed against 6-11. Armed assault going out at night, and 21.23% not going women. presents data on victims' reports of the 6-13, Number of victimizations out alone. Forty-five percent took other money value of their property loss. The ta­ 6-15. Injuries resulting to the victim:. Have you been beaten or attacked with a knife, measures~ More than 16% moved to an- . Incidents of armed assault were 10.3% of gun,stlck, or other kind of weapon? ble is in dollars which was the equivalent What is the total number of crimes committed other home. Extra locks, etc., were used in the total incidents reported. Men were of ]2.5 pesos back in 1975. against you sInce January 1975? Were you phySically injured by the crime? Answer'( Men Women Total homes in 15% of the cases. Over 8% se­ more likely than women to be victims of Answer Table 6-15 presents data on the extent of Answer Men Men Women .Total cured guns or other weapons as a caution­ armed assault in general , and ihe specifics Women Total I was attacked and physical .injury to victims. The number of of the incidents also varied by sex. Weap­ No injuries ary measure which is rather alarming; beaten with None (in Part II) 104 280 382 662 ons were used more often against males injuries caused by crime is high~241 per­ 114 218 Yes, but didn't need 7.5% got insurance; 6.2% sought other a weapon 67 15 82. One 280 254 Sons or 18.6% of all the victims were in­ Two 534 medical attention 55 measures; 1.2% sought the services of than females, possibly because they resist I was attacked but not 88 111 199 45 100 beaten (threatened jll.red. Females suffered fewer injuries than Three Yes, but only needed guards; the threat of force more often (see Table 6- 29 42 71 first-aid with force) 50 males. Twenty-two percent of the injured Four or more 71 17 88 11). In 57.3% of the incidents reported by 22 72 31 34 65 Yes, and needed No armed attack or. persons required hospitalization. Ten per­ No answer 134 males, the respondents were atta<;ked with 74 208 hospitalization for at Results of Part II of the threats 356 469 825' cent of the victims suffered a mental or the weapon not anI)! threatened; this was No an,swer least one night or 198 123 321 Total 666 more questionnaire true in only 40.5% of the incidents .report­ psychological injury. Of these, 16% re­ 629 1,295 33 20 53 No answer 227 ed by females. Total quired treatment. In calCUlating costs, these 165 392 This research was. to be a joint project with 671 629 1,300 must be added to the physical costs of the Department of Public Safety of Texas, crime. Total 666 629 Incidents of assault without a weapon were " 'See note in Table ,6-9, 1,295 Unfortunately, the Texas project was never reported by 13% of the victims. As in the completed. case of armed assault, males are assaulted Table 6-16 summarizes the types of finan­ 6-14. Victims' value of the stoien property cial costs incurred by the victims. Of those The Part II questionnaire was conderned violently more often than females and are 6-16. Costs to victims much more likely to be physically assault­ 6-12. Type o'lw~apon (victims) who answered that any of the types of What was the value, in money, of your loss? mainly with very serious crimes: robbery, costs was applicable, most reported medi­ edas opposed to being threatened with Answer Men Women Total Which of the following are applicable? burglary, rape, and assault. Many of the . Were you ay/ctlm of. an armed crime? cal costs. results parallel that of the first section, but assault. Answer Answel' Men Women 'Total some add detail and allow possible com­ MElo Women Total Only 20% of .alI victims reported having None-no value 157 170 327 Less than $5 25 24 parison with surveys in other countries. some kind of insurance. Only 3.4% of all $5-$20 49 Cost of medical 6-9. Robbery from home or place of woik I haven'i'been 29 27 56 victims received any benefits from $20-$200 treatment 47 All victims identified in the first interview a victim 180 67 87 154 24 71 209 389 insurance. $200-$1,000 Legal costs 24 During 1975, did someone enler your home or Gun used 28 94 94 188 9 33 (Part I questionnaire) are included as vic­ 7 35 $1,000-$5,000 Salary from work 24 place of employment and rob you? Koifeused 38 59 56 115 19 43 tims in the second questionnaire, but some 10 48 Among victims who were insured, only More than $5,000 None of the costs Stick used 40 27 25 52 12 52 No anSWer applicable 272 were victims of crimes that were not aha­ Answer Men Women Total , Other kind of weapon 17.12% benefited from their insurance. 208 146 354 328 600 No answer 299 251 lyzed in the second section. Because only used 39 12 51 Only 10.9% had all 9,osts paid for by their 550 half the respondents reported that they Something from my Corporallhreals made 48 25 73 insurance, and another (j;2% had part of Total !l66 629 No one used any . 1,295 Total property was stolen 113 1.58 271 666 631 1,297 were victims or any crime, only half the weapon the cOsts paid for. This implies that in ad­ respondents were given Part U. As you Attempted robbery, " 90 161 251 dition to insurance being costly, it is diffi. but no success 62 61 123 No answer 203 196 399 cult (0 getthe insurance to payor read this section, remember that robbery No one robbed me 326 318 644 6-17. Reasons why the crime was not reported includes burglary, robbery, and most theft, No answer 165 96 261 Total 666 compensate costs tovjctims of crime~ 632 1,;298 ( according to U.S. usage. Why didn't you or another person from your home Tota,' Notifying the police, The Part Ii question­ report Ihe crime to the police? ' Serious victimization in Xalapa. Table 6-9 666 633 1,299 Table 6-12 reports the types of weapons naire also indicated a low rate of reporting presents responses to a question aSking used in armed crime victimization. Of the crimcs to the police. Only about 12.8% of Answer 'In additlon, 550 men and'560 Women were Vic­ Men Women Total about incidents involving someone entering tims of no crime. Therefore, in the total sample victimization incidents in which weapons the crimes were reported to the police. the respondent's home or place of work 1 041 mEOln and 974 women were not Victims of were used, guns were used In 13.5%; However, the victims may have reported I haven't been a victim . this crime. .. of crime· . and stealing or robbing something from knives in 18.5%; sticks in 20.0%; other the crime fo authorities other than the po­ 70 71 t Ali the crimes have been reported 141 him or her. Even interpreting the "no an­ kinds of weapons in 19.7%; and threats in I " lice (see earlier section on the mUltiplicity to the police 28.2%. of authorities). il 45 swers" as "no robbery committed," the It's useless to notify the 34 79 data in Table 6-9 indicate that 1 in 5 peo­ 6-10. Personal robbery The theft of motor vehicles is a problem of The reasons for not reporting are shown police-they don't doanylhing ple were. robbed (or burglarized) and 1 in inl 155 140 contemporary society. In this study, 72 Table 6-17. Again we note the lack of Cq1.l~ Fear vengeance· 295 10 experienced an attempted robbery; Did someone rob· you directly of your wai/et, '\ 49 43 92 purse, money, or other objects of value? motor ,vehicle thefts and 40 attempts to .\ fidence toward theQpolice emphasized in Fear an Investigation Respondents were further asked whether steal motor.vehjcies were'reported. Five these responses. The most common feeling by police 4 18 they had been "directly" robbed of a wal­ Answer Men Women Total and a half percent of the victims were vic~ reported is that it doesn't do any good to Because It wasn't very Important 22 84 105 189 let, purse, or other property. Table 6-10 , Yes timized by motoI.' vehicle thefts. Males report the crim~it's a waste of time, ac­ Because it's a loss of lime and 170 260 430 a Whole day's work shows that there Were 'iiiorepersonal direct Attempted without were the more frequentYictirns; possibly cording to 45% of those who answered to 45 47 92 robberies than robberies in the home or ·success 56 52 108 because more motor vehicles are owned by this question. Twenty-six percent believe it Because of fear or shame of some workplace. Continuing with theoassumption No 279 257 536" men than by women. is better to just accept the loss involved in of ~~e questions. the pOlice No anSWer 161 ,;, might ask that the "no answer" means "no robbery," 61 222 the property Joss without adding the cost of 11 Of the 869 victims who answered ·this sec­ I was too busy 41 52 33% of the victims wererobbed,or, one of loss of time and energy and time off work tion of the questionnaire,38.5% reported 15 19 34 every three respondents. Tolal. 668 630 1,296 to notify authorities. Note that more fe- Other more than one victimization (see Tab.Je 6- 38 39 males thah males fear an investigation by No answer 77 1f we add the 20% robberies in the home *Se¢,'note in Table 6-9. 13). Womell were more likely to be multi. 182 100 282. ~ the police (a ratio of 4.5 females to I ',") or workplace and the 33% direct personal pIe viGtims (42%).than men (35%). More ):?- male), This is supported by the responses Total ?' ~ robberies we find 53% of the victims were than 7% were victimized 4 .br more times 698 657 .. of fear and fear of revenge if questioned by 1,355 robbed. Women were more often the vic­ in the 1 year. . the police, tim of robberies than men-60.4% of the , 54 City studies of victimization "

Ci1)~, studies of victimizatioll 55

,,; //

r/ The most common measures taken were "direct" robberies and 58% of the robberies, "self-limitations" consisting of 23.86% not at home or at work were committed against ~11. Arme(~)ult COT/sequences of victimization. Table 6-14 ~/ ~13. Number of victimizations ~15. Injuries resulting to the victims going out at night, and 21.23% not going women. . '~ Li/ , presents data on victims' reports of the Have you attacked with a knife, out alone. Forty~five percent took other been~rrur money value of their property loss. The ta­ "'\IIncidents of armed assault were 10.3% of gun, stick, or other kind of weapon? , measures. More than 16% moved to an­ ble is in dollars which was the equivalent What Is the total number of crimes committed Were you physically Injured by the crime? the total incidents reported. Men were against you since January 1975? Answer Men Women Total of 12.5 pesos back in 1975. Answer Men Women Total other home. Extra locks" etc., were,used in more likely than wOmen to be victims of homes in 15% of the cases. Over. 8% se­ Answer Men Women 1'otal armed assault in general, and the specifics Table 6~ 15 presents data, on the extent of cured guns or other weapons as a caution­ I was attacked arid No injUries 280 382 662 of the incidents also varied by sex. Weap­ beaten with physical injury to victims. The number of None (in Part II) 104 114 218 Yes, but didn't need ary measure which is ratheralatming; .- ons were used more often against males a weapon .\ 67 15 82 injuries caused by crime is high-241 per­ One' 280 254 534 medical attention 55 45 100 7.5% got insurance; 6.2% sought other than females, possibly because they resist I was a~acked b~~\ not sons or 18.6% of all the victims were in­ Two 88 111 199 Yes, but only needed beaten! (threatened measures; 1.2% sought the services of the threat of force more often (see Table 6- jured. Females suffered fewer injuries than Three 29 42 71 first-~id 71 17 88 guards. with force) . '\, 4 50 22 72 Four or more 31 34 65 Yes, and needed 11). In 57.3% of the incidents reported. by No armed attack or males. Twenty-two percent of the injured No answer 134 74 208 hospitalization for at l males, the respondents were attacked with threats 356 469 825' persons required hospitalization. Ten per­ least one night or No answer 198 123 321 Results of Part /I of the the weapon not only threatened; this was cent of the victims suffered a mental or Total 666 629 1,295 more 33 20 53 questionnaire true in only 40.5% of the incidents report­ psychological injury. Of these, 16% re­ No answer 227 165 392 ed by females. Total 671 629 1,300 quired treatment. In calculating costs, these This research was to be a joint project with must be added to the physical costs of Total 666 629 1,295 the:: Department of Public Safety of Texas. Incidents of assault without a weapon were 'See note in Table 6-9. crime. v Unfortunate]y, the Texas project was never reported by 13% of the victims. As in the Table 6-16 summarizes the types offinan­ 6-14. Victims' value of the stolen ~roperty completed. case of armed assault, males are assaulted ~16. Costs to victims violently more often than females and are cial .costs incurred by the victims. Of those 6-12. Type of weapon (victims) What was the value, In money; of your loss? The Part II questionnaire was concerned much more likely to be physically assault­ ? who answered that any of the types of mainly with very serious crimes: robbery, Which of the following are applicable? ed as opposed to being threatened with costs was applicable, most reported medi­ Answer Men WOr))en Total burglary, rape, and assault. Many of the Were you a victim of an armed crime? assault: cal costs. Answer Men" Women Total results parallel that of the first section, but Answer Men Women Total None-no value 157 170 327 some add detail and allow possible com­ Only 20% of all victims reported .having Less than $5 25 24 49 Cost of medical parison with surveysin other countries. ~9. Robbery from home or place of work I haven',t been some kind of insurance. Only 3.4% of all $5-$20 29 27 56 treatment 47 24 71 avictlm 180 209 389 victims received any benefits from $2(K200 67 87 154 Legal costs 24 9 33 ,) All victims identified in the first ihterview Gun used 28 7 35 $200-$1,000 94 94 188 Salary from work 24 19 43 \\ During 1975, did someone enter your home or insurance. \", Knife used 38 10 48 $1,OO(}-$5,OOO 59 56 115 None of the costs J (Part Iquestionnnire) are included as vic­ place of employment and rob you? Stick used 40 12 52 Among victims who were insured. only More than $5,000 27 25 52 applicable 272 328 600 tims in the second questionnaire, but some No anslVer 208 146 354 No answer Answer Men Women Total Other kind of weapon 17.12% benefited from their insurance. 299 251 550 were victims of crimes that were not ana­ used 39 12 51 I Only 10.9% had !Ill costs paid for by their lyzed in the second section~ Because only Corporal threats made 48 25 73 Total 666 629 1,295 Total 666 631 1,297 Something from my No one used any insurance, and another 6.2% had part of . half the respondents reported that they property was stolen 113 158 271 were victims of any crime, only half the. weapon 90 161 251 I the costs paid for. This implies that in ad­ Attempted robbery, No answer 203 196 399 respondents were given Part II. As you but no success 6.2 61 123 dition to insurance being costly" it is diffi­ Reasons why the crime was not reported read this section, remember that robbery No one robbed me 326 318 644 c,jIlt to get the insurance to payor 6-17. Total 666 632 1,298 includes burglary, robbery, and most theft, No answer 165 96 261 ! compensate costs to victims of crime. Why didn't you or another person from your home according to U.S. usage. Total' 666 633 1,299 Table 6-12 reports the types of weapons I Notifying the police. The Part II question­ report the crime to the police? Serious victimization in Xalapa. Table 6-9 used in anned crime victimization. Of the naire also indicated a low rate ofreporting Answer Men Women Total presents responses to a question asking 'In addition, 550 men and 560 women Were vic­ victimization incidents .in which weapons crimes to the police. Only about 12.8% of about incidents involving someone entering tJms of no crime. Therefore, In the total sample were used, guns were used in .13.5%; the crimes Were reported to the police. I haven't been a victim 1,041 men and 974 women were not vicllms of However. the victims may have reported of crime 70 71 141 the respondent's home or place of work this crime. knives in 18.5%; sticks in 20.0%; other the crime to authorities other than the po­ All the crimes have been reported and stealing or robbing something from kinds of weapons in 19.7%;und threats in I 0 to the police . him or her. Even interpreting the "no an­ 28.2%. lice (see earlier section on the mUltiplicity 45 34 79 swers" as "no robbery committed," the of authorities). 'Q It's useless to notify the 6-10. Personal robbery The theft of motor vehicles. is a problem of police-they don't do anything -' 155 140 295 data in Table 6-9 indicate that 1 in 5 peo­ The reasOnS for not reporting are shown in \ contemporary society. In this study. 72 Fear vengeance 49 43 92 ple were robbed (or burglarized) and 1 in Table 6- I 7., Again we note the lack of con­ Did someOne rob you directly of your wallet, motor vehicle thefts and 40 attempts to Fear an Investigation IO experienced an attempted robbery. purse,money, or other objects of value? steal motor vehicles were reponed. Five fidence toward {he police emphasized in by police 4 18 22 0 Respondents were further asked whether " Answer Men Women Total and a half percent of the victims were vic~ these rJ!sponses. 'fhe most common feeling Because It wasn't vary important 105 189 reported is that it doesn't do any good to 84ii they had been "directly" robbed of a wal­ timized by motor vehicle thefts. Males Because it's a loss of time and let, purse, or other property. Table:: 6-10 Yes 170 260 430 were the more frequent victims, possibly report the crime-it'S a waste of time, ac­ a whole day's work 45 47 92 shows that there were more personal direct' Attempted without because more motor vehicles are owned by cording to 45% of thO~e who nnswercd to Because of fear .or shame of some 108 robberies than robberies in the home or, sUccess 56 52 I this question. Twenty-six percent believe it of the questions the police 279 536' men than by women. I No 257 is better to just accept thc loss involved in might ask 11 41 52 workplace. Continuing with the assumption No answer 161 61 222 that theYno answer" means "no robbery," Of the 869 victims who answered this sec- the property loss without\'adding the ,cost of I was too bUSy 15 19 34 tion of the. questionnaire, 38,5% reported 33% of the victims were robbed, or, one of '~1 loss of time and energy and time off work ' Other 38 39 77 Total 666 630 1;296 more than (me victimization (see Tllble 6- every three respondents. to notify authorities. Note t~at more fe.: No anSWer 182 100 282 13). Women were fllQre likely to be m\llti~ males than males fear an invj!stigation by If we add the 20% robberies' in the home 'See note In Table ~9. pIe victims (42%) than men (35%). MOre the police (a mtio of 4.5 fenit\les to I Total 698 657 1,355 or workplace and the 33% direct personal than7% were victimized 4 or 1l;10re times male). This is supported by th~.responses robberies we find 53% of the victims were in the 1 year. I of fear and fear of revenge if qLlestioned by robbed. Women were more often the vic­ r the police, tim of robberies than men-60,4% of the

54 City studies of victimization City studies of victimizatioll 55 ·r ------

() Victimological research in Germany: , Victim surveys and research on sexual victimization Expectations of crime. All 2,400 respon­ dents were asked whether or not they think 6-18. A look Into the future GERDrERPlNAND KIRCHHOFF AND CLAUDIA KIRCHHOFF* 'they would be victimized in the next year (see Table 6-18). Apparentiy another con­ Do you thrnk you might be a victim of crime during 1976? sequence of having been a victim is feeling Victims Nonviclims ~--;------~Introduction somewhat less secure about the future, G In the early 1950's, there began what one Yet, there ,are several differences between Answer Men Women Total Percent Men Victims are slightly more likely to believe Women Total Percent Victimology is a rather young discipline might call the "second introduction of the German surveys and the NCS. There is Anglo-American criminology" by German they may b,es-ome victims again (34%). Yes within the field of criminology, and the no regularly conducted national victim sur­ 207 235 442 34.1 154 144 296 26,9 criminologists Which promoted a more so­ Those who'liave not been victims tend to No 110 111 221 17.0 102 120 222 20.0 field of general victimology in the meaning vey in Germany; instead we have two local believe they will not be victims in the fu­ No opinion 167 221 406 31.5 226 205 433 39.0 of Mendelsohn (1976) is even younger. In ciological orientation in criminology as victim surveys in a middle-size town (Gtit­ No answer ture (27% think they might be)~ 162 62 224 17.3 66 91 157 14.1 Germany, victimology has been an under­ compared to the former legal, biological, tingen) and a big city (Stuttgart). Both developed field despite the pioneering work and psychiatric orientation. This period studies were done at nearly the same time All respondents were asked which crime Total 666 629 1,295 99.9 550 560 1.110 100 of Hans von Hentig (also Miyazawa in ended in the early 1970's. In this time the in 1973-74 and cover events in 1973. Both was most likely to happen and which crime Schneider 1975: VUI). The special reasons main developmenJs in victimology took surveys use random samples and apply was most likely to happen in their neigh­ ,-, for this are~discussed below. place, resulting in the First International standardized interview methodology with borhoods. More than half could not identi­ 6-19. Criteria for a safe place )~ Symposium on Victiml:>logy in Jerusalem students as interviewers. fy II particular crime. Of those who could, Due mainly to political development during in 1973. In 1975, Schneider published his more victims than nonvictims believe that the Nazi tynmny, there was an interruption Student interviewers instead of professional Victims Nonvlclims comprehensive textbook on victimology they might become victims again. The only or a breakdown of relations between Ger­ institute interviewers were used in these Place Men Women Total Men Women Total which introduced the international scene of exception is "homicide." Here more non­ man and American criminology. These re­ victimological scientific research and its two studies. Tbe main reason was cost; victims than victims believe that they lations were already well established. They however, the Gtittingen Victim Survey was Home 77.6 85.7 6t7 61.3 66.6 65.0 application to the German public. might be murdered. However, more non­ Street close to home 4.6 are documented in the fields of penal law, done by a professor of penal law, Hans 1.4 3.0 3.4 2.6 3.0 Since then, victimological research has <, victims did not answer this question. Work 8.0 6.4 8.2 7.0 4.3 5.7 corrections, and juvenile justice. Dieter Schwind, and his team. They felt Slreet close to work 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.7 continued on the level of methodology that for purposes of their study it was most Similarly, more victims than non victims Street, far from home or work 2.2·' 2.1 2.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 There was a period in German criminOlogy which is required for contemporary empiri­ desirable t.o have legally,.trained interview­ thought a crime was likely to be committed Olher 6.6 2.4 4.6 6.4 2.6 4.6 which we might refer to as the first recep­ cal research, highlighted in 1979 by the in their neighborhood. The two crimes ers. Thus the great interest of his students tion of Anglo-American criminology, Dur­ Third International Symposium on Victi­ in criminology and empirical research led most mentioned by both victims and non­ Summary: Victimization in a Mexican crimes. Excluding female victim typical ing this period, the purely dogmatic penal mology chaired and organized by victims are violent entry and home bur­ Schwind to use a group of his students. It city crime, robbery predominated for women law orientation of criminal justice science Schneider in Munster. Much of the Ger­ turned out that the intense training of the glary and violent assault and beatings. It was given a new impetus an~. a new orien­ man victimological research is to be found A survey was carried out in the City of and injuries among men. _ interviewers, the demanded prerequisites could be that these two crimes are the ones tation by the founder of the "Socioiogical in the Kirchhoff and Sessar reader besides Xalapa, Veracruz (population 150,000). A • Victim recidivism was 36.75%; first vic­ (coursework in criminology, penal law, most generally feared. Perhaps this is a re- School in Penal Law" Franz von Liszt (see the original contributions of most intema­ sample of 2,405 subjects was presented. timization occurred at an average age of and empirical research methods), and the . flection of the violent society in which we Schafer 1976:~3/84). The debate over t~onally respected victimologists whose The inquiry was made by questionnaires. less than 20 years; 40% of the Victims had high level of motivation of these students live. Anglo-Americtln prison reform dominated contributions were published in the German, We present comparative data on victims met their offender previously. waS very successful. the German discussions ill! cocrectional re­ languaM: Table 6-19 presents data on the places re­ and nonvictims, and male and female • Only I of every 5 crimes was reported to Spondents feel safest from crime and out of police authorities. Lack of confidence in form before World War 1)' and the intro­ The Stuttgart Victim Survey was conducted subjects. duction of the system of jl'~venile courts in Schneider became the first president of the by a psychologist, Egon Stephan, from the reach of crime. Both victims and nonvic­ political and judicial authorities was the only international scientific organization of • About 50% of the individuals surveyed 1923 was made possible by the pioneering Max Planck Institute for International and tims consider their home as the safest main reason for not presenting charges. victimologis!s, the World Society of Victi­ place, but the nonvictims believe the home reported having been victimized during • The victim's immediate reaction is of an­ work of Bertold Freudental who was very Foreign Penal Law Research Group Crimi­ 1975. familiar with-North American criminology, :mology, Inc., with its permanent secretar­ nology. In this project, too, the the training is sdfer than do the victims. Females also ger. fear and revengej later reactions are iat at the University of Munster. This • There were no remarkable differences the Child Savers,,,and penal politics iii the of the student interviewers was intense feel safer in their homes than do males. self-limitative (not going out alone or at society sponsored the triannual Internation­ o among victims and nonvictims related to U.S.A. (Freudeiltal 1912). even though we do not have as much detail night) or defensive (locks, weapons). al Symposia on Victimology held in 1982 The streets are considered by all as the sex, nationality, place of birth, or about their background as in Schwind's most dangerous. Place of employment is • Few victims were insured, and in general The mainstream 6f American criminology in Tokyo under the presidency of Koichi study, occupation. hardly any obtained compensation for the considered much safer by victims than was sociologically oriented, The domina\1t Miyazawa. • Victims differ~ from non victims in that nonvictims. damage inflicted (only 6.49%~1' Treatment orientation in German crhpinology was Both studies have no control for telescop­ they were older, with lower income; we and special attention w~re nOl1existent or criminal law, biology, and psychiatry. Yet, This paper summarizes victim surveys con­ ing. While the Stuttgart study asked for Victims' households are more likely than also found a predominance of widowers. almost void. ;: there was a strong tie bet,,,,een the two ducted in Germany in the 1970's. It also. events "in the last 12 months" (covering,. households of nonvictims to include an­ • There was a variance in the actual place Covers research in sexual victimization, an In conclusion, it is necessary 1:0 institute a countries. This tic broke down under the sometimes a November-to-November peri­ other victim. Almost 45% of the victims of victimization according to the crime and Nazi tyranny with its racist spiritual'isola­ area not covered by the traditional victim od, sometimes a December-to-December the victim's sex. Victimology Policy plll"dlIel to: the State surveys. Nevertheless, this area is impor­ report another person in the sanle home has Criminology Policy. \, tion or the German philosophical and sci­ period), the interviews of the Gottingen been victimized. Only 32.4% of the non­ • Robbery (including most forms of theft), entific community which was only a tant for the overall picture of crime, dark study started Oli January 2, 1974, and cov­ victims live in households with a victim. injuries and insults were the most frequent symptom of the nationalistic ideological IiUmber research included. ered only 1973. general isolation. Eminent criminologists The Gottingen Victim Survey. Research had to emigrate; the names of Grunhut, The Germao Victim surveys problems: the Gtittingen Study had two dif­ lviannheim, and VOI'l HentJg should be men­ ferent aims. These were- tioned In this context. Empirical victimological research in the Federal Republic of Germany started with I • To compare the number of crimes regis­ i We thnnk Western Michigan University Depart­ victim surveys funded by the research insti­ tered by police for 1973 with the real > ment .QfSociology for its hospitality; out-special tute of the federal investigative police. crime figure reported by victims in a repre­ gratitude however goes to Chrystal Kay Waters These two stUdies, the Stuttgart Victim sentative popUlation sample, for the same and lDon Nitz for their helpful comments. (G. F. Survey (Stuttgarter Opferbefragung) and time period Ii K. (illd C. K.) the Gottingen Victim Survey (Gottinger • To analyze why victims do not report I! I t "'Oerd Kirchhoff is Professor of Criminology, Opferbefragung) draw heavily on the ex­ their victimization to police . ' \ Fachhoehschble Niederrhein, Monchengladbach. periences of the U.S, National Crime SUr­ 1/ I qaudia Kirchhoff is a social worker. veys (NCS). Sample: The sample drawn was a random Ij ~'ij " I,~ sample of the citizens of the city. In the , 56 City studies of victimization Federal Republic of Germany, every citi­ j zen has to be registered with the municipal

,I City sl/ldies of victimizatiollS7

.. ------~------,------

... Persons who have once reported to thepolic'J will not report to the police in case of revictimization. o l' /\ i ------_.... _------_-1;,:'\,-) . II '-'- known to everybody that crimes were com­ " The dark number in Bochum overall seems administration. From the city register, a ed to police. The interviewers went back to negative consequences against damage about 8% of the sample reported that they ~Ye mitted by all social classes, in all ages, to be considerably smaller than in Gottin­ 1% sample of the total population was the vi.ctims to determine whether the victim done by the crime. If there is I'i strong per­ received the information from the etc. Thl1 dark number has in reality a very gen. But the dark number of theft was not drawn (1,264 persons). Substitute sample 'Still maintained that this event was reported sonal infringement or damage felt by the newspapers. important impact for deterrence and for the three times higher in Bochum as could be members were draWn in case the original to the police. The respondents clarified the victim, the probability of reporting is high. rule of law. If there is earlier intervention expected, it was only 25% higher. The The Stuttgart Victim Survey. Research persons selected became severely ill, information originally given. In more than High damage compensates the time loss or into criminal careers, there would be a po­ dark number for assault in Bochum is problems: in this study, Egon Stephan was moved away before the interview, or were 1/8 of the t.'1efts supposedly reported to po­ other negative consequences of reporting. tential of positive effect in reducing the equal to that in Gottingen indicating a high interested in these questions: younger than 14 years old. lice, they had given the information to the With higher social status, there is a de­ dark number of crime. But most offenders reliability of the instruments used. Robbery police only by telephone. The police had crease of both negative feelings toward po­ • How big is the subjective burden of the Crimes covered in the interviews: theft, are not repeaters. Sending all of them wasl'~uch a rare event in Bochum that this required them to come down to the police lice and the perception of negative popUlation (by fear of crime), and how ex­ breaking and entering, robbery, simple arid through the judicial system would be an was excluded from further station to have it registered, and the victim offen~e tensive is the objectivE,i burden of the popu­ aggravated assault, property destruction, consequences of reporting. On the other overreach of control and stigmatization. investigation. did not do so; consequently, the police did and hit-and-run driving. Shoplifting Was hand, there is a higher fear of negative Here Schwim:\ does not go far enough: If lation (in terms of victimization) in not register the offense. With assault and Stuttgart? excluded. The study was to include all consequences of reporting to police in low­ all offenses-N.iould result in convictions or As he did in the Gottingen study, Schwind hit-and-run accidents 8% of the original re­ crimes of this kind incurred in 1973 by er class people and a higher disregard for sanctions, th~.stigll\atizing impact of con­ also looked into the reasons why the vic­ • What is the contribution of the victims to victims within the city of Gottingen. ports were corrected in the second inter­ police, hence less reporting to police. Rea­ viction would vanish completely and those timization was or was not reported to po­ the social process which ends in officially view. To reduc~ the remaining difference, sons for not reporting were primarily the convictions would become less stigmatizing lice. Again, the victims' reporting Q.chavior recorded crimes? Special research procedures: The study was the police officers rechecked their files to small amount of damage by the crime than receiving a parking ticket. Schwind is influenced by: .... ':' • What conditions mold that process? designed to compare the Police Statistics of find 10% more offenses that they had over- (41 % o~_all reasons for no report); the per­ takes up this line of reasoning ~rom Braun­ • The amount of damage , The basic research instrument was a Na­ Gottingen for 1973 (Polizeiliche Kriminal­ 100ked the first time. Finally, the differ­ ceived of police work ac­ i;,~ectiveness eck and Popit;/: (see Brauneck 1965). • The investment in terms of time sp

58 City studies of victimization City studies of victimization 59

..; \ .. ,~ " -----"---

Victim and offender are two different roles but they are not mutually exclusive. Becoming an offender and becoming a victim are interrelated \ ing and the hypotheses tested, opening em­ Looking at the different age groups, we pirical research for further application in tim and reports the act to the police; in the find that the 16-year-old boys scored high­ youth problems are important. Among 24 minimal amount of damage suffered by the ger, who are not mar:;,:ed, and who are police research. These methodological light of ex post facto definition, the other est: 58% were offenders and 65% were possible areas of concern" fear of crime victim. Only 26% of the respondents not members of the lower class. Members of steps are very important as some German appears to be the offender. In this light, We victims. Among juveniles between 14 and ranks eighth for women and ninth for men. reporting to police based their nonreport on the higher class, ale 15-50, and unmarried criminologists are not fully aware of the reconslf.\ict reality in ollr courts while we But if fear of crime is given a problem's their perceived ineffectiveness of police. are victims of vio/rInt crime only if they tools at hand. 18 years old, 47% were offenders and 55% impute Qur definitions on social situations, victims; young adults between 18 and 21 position, a third of the respondents put it work. While in the victim survey there IS a score high on pedSnal aggressiveness. Vic­ laws, and categories (see Kirchhoff and years old had 40% offenders and 48% vic­ into the first three ranks. ratio of 1:7 between violent crimes and tims of both types of offenses are more Another merit of these contributions is that Dussich 1980). property offenses, this ratio in police stat~s­ likely to be male than female. they not only took the technique and the tims while those above 2 I had 24% offend- From this Stephan infers that fear of crime methodology from the U.S.A. but they ers and 48% victims. Seventy percent of is less important than it appears when re­ tics is I :22. The victim survey therefore in­ Comparing the official police statistics to were able to introduce what might be all offenders were victimized in the same Studies of sexual victimization searchers ask simply about this fear, in..' forms us that violent crimes are much more those of the United States, we find a high­ railed improvements. Waller and Young reference period, while 54% of the victims stead of getting ail overall picture of the relevant than it seems from police figu~~s. The several studies on sexual victimization er crime rate and a greater burden on the Rifai at the Third International Symposium reported they had committed at least one many anxieties of the population. He Stephan infers that in victim surveys we in the past few years have shifted our at- American popUlation. While Stuttgart has on Victimology in Munster, 1979, criti­ offense. Offender-victims were most often stresses the fact that opinions of the popu­ get information about events that are, for tention from the property crimes and vio­ the victiin, not serious enough to report to 1.88 violent crimes per 1,000 inhabitants cized the NCS for not putting fear of crime found in the upper classes though their of­ lent crimes covered in the traditional victim lation are manipulated by the mass media. fenses and victimizations were minor. po!lce, or that police do not recordi~'pse this figure is 5.69 on the average in Ameri­ into a hierarchy of anxieties-Stephan in surveys to an area which is rather difficult He demonstrates this by a rather significant can cities. Comparing property crimes, Stuttgart (and replicating him, Ishii in To­ detail: four out of five persons agreed to min6'r'instances. Stephan realizes thl~['he 't This result does not fit into the theoretical to investigate. Given the harsh treatment these figures are 24.28 in~!lttgart and kyo) did indeed put fear of crime into a the thesis that crime in the Federal Repub­ should have more preCisely distinguished reasoning about a higher incidence of sexual offenders receive in court and cor­ 47.77 in U.S. citir,.s;=Ste-phanV9ints out hierarchy. Schwind's study is impressive lic overall is on the. increase. But only one between the more informal and the more crime among the lower class. ViIImow rections, the difficult and often aversive that there a tendency inHate for its precise effort to compare victim sur­ out of five agreed to the thesis that crime formal ways of reporting to police. mi~ht ~~ ib (I 979) proposes that higher class young­ situation of the victims in the criminal jus­ these figures cities. It is possi­ vey data with police data. This is done de­ in the immediate neighborhood has in­ ~!!~.merican sters are more apt to define minor incidents tice system, and the intensive reaction sex­ In general, 'Stuttgart's popUlation has an ble too that the wilIingness to report to po­ spite the theory promoted by the NCS that creased. People are familiar with their as offenses or victimization~ when com­ ual offenses arouse, victimologists should overall positive attitude toward the police. lice is different or that the perception of police and victim survey data are incom­ neighborhood and can observe fairly well pared to lower class youngsters. It is alsli investigate the reality of sexual victimiza­ This attitude is positive regardless of sex. crime varies in the two countries. It might patible. The notion of compatabilityof what happens-when they assess ~\le situa­ possible that variations in concealing ten­ tion more closely and not confine them­ The attitude toward the courts, however, is be possible that in Germany only the more both sets of data was taken up by Fiselier tion in the country in total they have to dencies could account for the result. Vill­ selves to property crime and violent ~ore positive among males than among fe­ severe cases are reported to police and that (I978) who refined the methodology. At rely on mass media information, hence mow also thinks that violent offenders live offenses. males. Older persons tend to have a more police have to take all of these as offenses the Munster Victimq,logy Symposium, they are more vulnerable to manipulation. more dangerously and therefore are likely favorable attitude toward the criminal jus­ and that in victim surveys too only the many victimologistsboncluded that police In an unreported study, Michael C. Baur­ tice system. Among lower class people, to become victims of violence themselves. mann examined the consequences of sexual While ~omen are ~ore afraid of becoming more serious offense~art! reported. This in­ statistics and victim survey data tell a simi­ Victimizatioll is one aspect of the multifa­ there is a higher respect and appreCiation victimization. During 1969-73, the investi­ victims of assault or burglary, the men are dicates in both counmes some kind of seri­ lar story-that within proper limits they are ceted picture of the delinquents' reality. more concerned about theft, espeCially of police 'Performance than among upper , ousness measurement such as the Sellin­ indeed comparable. The incompatability gative police of Lower Saxony collected class peopk':, The most favorable opinion is Maybe this experience contributes to later automobile theft or breaking into an auto­ Wolfgang Seriousness Scale should be. theory therefore must be questioned (see, delinquency. special information on all sexual crimes mobile. Women are significantly more in­ voiced by older people, by women, a,nd by included in victim surveys to facilitate a e.g., Kirchhoff 1977, Clinard and Junger which had female victims up to age 20 and secure than men in their own living members of the lower classc:s in general. comparison of the severity of social harm Tas in Kirchoff and SessUr 1979). Generally, it is impossible to distinguish male victims up to age 12. In this time pe­ quarters. Center city is seen as the most in­ These same groups perceive a higher threat done by crime. Another source of variation between victims on the one hand and of­ riod, they collected information on 8,050 by criminal behavior and therefore police The Emmendingen victim-offender survey. fenders on the other. O/lly a few fit into sexual victimizations. This data Is now un­ secure place; here men are afraid of mug­ could be that police in the United States In this study, Egon Stephan and Bernhard gings, while women fear rude and perform a more important function for this dichotomy. Victim and offender are der investigation at the Federal Investiga­ detect more crime themselves than in Stutt­ Villmow were interested in the question of disorderly behavior. them, hence their positive attitude. gart where police l'ely almost completely two different roles but they are not mutual­ tive Police Bureau (Bundeskriminalruilt). how many victims were actually offenders. on reports of citizens. In both countries, ly exclusive. Becoming an offender and Out of this popUlation of victims known to Twelve percent of the main breadwinners For the first time in ,German criminology, They combined a study on self-reported de­ there emerges a very similar structure: Vio­ beComing a victim are interrelated. VilI­ the police, Baurmann drew a random sam­ in the household (the household survey) re­ Stephan employ\

'= \ '= « _~ ______._"_,, ..... ,ua;....""-'I

The offender is usually known to the vic~ In the interviews, the victims more often possible that the harm done is caused by timizations were committed by strangers. victims (between 1% and 3%) while female Brauneck, Anne Eva (1974) tim. There are criminal sexual contacts gave information about their initiating in- the reaction of the victim's social environ- This figure is quite different from the per­ victims in Monchengladbach reported al­ Allgemeine Kriminologie [General crimi­ with strangers, but typically these contacts viting behavior than they did in their inter- \', ment (secondary victimization-Schneider centage in female victims-female respon­ most 10% of their victimizations to police. nology]. Hamburg: Reinbeck. are the more harmless ones. It is therefore views at the police stations immediately 1975:32; Kirchhoff 1977:318; Kirchhoff dents knew 54% of their offenders; 46% Exhibitionism is most likely to be reported Baurmann, Michael C. (1979) a very dangerous policy to warn the child after the offense occurred. Corresponding- and Kirchhoff 1976, 1979a). If this i~the were victimized by strangers. Fifty-five in both cultures-here the victim obviously "Grundlagen und Hypothesen zue einem against the unknown stranger and his dan­ ly, they reported less resistance in the later case, it is advisable to think about reform- - percent of the victimizations of female re­ does not feel actively involved. Forschungsprojekt Uber Schaden an Per­ gerous desires and plans. This is frequently interview compared to what they said ing the law. If the incident does not harm spondents were described as aversive and sonen, die als Sexualopfer bekannt Wur­ Kirchhoff and Kirchhoff were especially done to children in Germany, and informa­ shortly after the offense. Twelve percent the victim, while we might think the act shocking, while 45% reported that they co­ den" [Principle ideas and hypotheses of tional material and movies, etc., perpetuate (as compared with 7% shortly after the of- bizarre and tasteless, there is little reason operated during the event. These figures interested in the impact of victimization at an early age. Their data show that there are a research project about damages of per­ the picture of the dangerous stranger. This fense) reported their active cooperation, to intervene with criminal prosecution if it are supported by Baurmann who found that sons known 'as victims of sexual crimes], advice may come from uncritical family 40% (as compared to 33% shortly after the is the only source of harm for the victim. almost half of the respondents reacted pas­ no differences in the sociosexual careers of victims and nonvictims. This is especially in Kirchhoff, Gerd Ferdinand, and Klaus ideology coupled with the protective isolat­ offense) described their behavior as pas- While Baurmann was interested in victims sively, i.e., with no resistance. There are significant if one compares those who were Sessar (eds.), Das Verbrechensopfer. Ein ing traditional upbringing of females. But sive, and resistance was reported by 48% who have been perceived and declared as differences in the estimates of the age of Reader zur Viktimologie [The crime vic­ aggressive and intensive sexual encounters the offender-the mean age of offenders victims of sexual abuse as children and (as compared to 60% shortly after the of- victims by officials, Kirchhoff and Kirch- those who were not victimized as children. tim-A reader in victimology], pp. 243- are often with well known members of the fense). This suggests that the offense itself hoff studied the "dark number" of sexual reported by male respondents is about 20, 272, Bochum. family. To protect a child against this of­ but about 27 if the respondent is female. There is however a slight tendency for the seemed to be less dramatic when reported victimization. In their study on hidden sex- victims to start their sociosexual career ear­ Baurmann, Michael C. (1978) fender, it is necessary to promote self-con­ in the interview than as described shortly This fits into the reaction pattern reported, "Kriminalpolizeiliche Beratung fLir po­ sciousness and a sense of independence in after the crime occurred. ual victimization among students in Ger- lier than the non victims (dating starts at many (Kirchhoff and Thelen 1975; for we can assume that the greater the age tentielle Opfer von Straftaten gegen die the child-a child who is taught blind and 12.4 years for victims versus 13.7 years After the offense, 44% of the victims told Kirchhoff and Kirchhoff 1976, 1979a, difference between victim and offender the sexuelle Selbstbestimmung" [Counseling unquestioning obedience ttl' trusted adult for nonvictims) but the more intimate con­ their mothers about it first, 23% told a girl- 1979b) and in the United States, they ex- less the cooperation. To make the penal potential victims of crimes against sexual persons never learns to avoid or to resist tacts are experienced at the same age by friend first, and 8% told their fathers first. amined the penal codes of Germany and of relevance of the events reported obvious, self-determination by investigative po­ questionable demands by known victims and non victims. It is therefore not The victims remember irritating and aver- Michigan and translated the definitions of all offenders younger than age 14 were ex­ lice]; ill Bundeskriminalamt (ed.), Kri­ authorities. found that the offender introduces the sive feelings during talks with the judges the offenses into everyday language. They cluded from the analysis so that interac­ minalpolizeiliche Beratung [Counseling tions between children are not included in child-victim into activities which the victim While about 50% of the victims reacted in and interactions with the defense lawyers. then asked their respondents whether they would not otherwise experience. by investigative police], Schriftenreihe passive behavior. a third of them resisted They remember a neutral attitude in talks ever had been confronted with such behav- this survey. des Bundeskriminalamts, 47:179-209, The research done by Baurmann and actively, and 15% invited the act by active about the offense with teachers, police, and ior, and, if they had, whether it was re- There certain characteristic differences Wiesbaden. ar~ Kirchhoff and Kirchhoff leaves questions initiating behavior. The passive behavior is youth authority social workers. They per- ported to parents and police and how they between the Monchengladbach study and Baurmann, Michael C. (1979) unanswered. But it seems to be more and explained by the fact that the victims usu­ ceived as most helpful and agreeable their reacted. The research instrument was a the Michigan study. This is partly due to "Retrograde Befragung von Personen, more clear that sexual victimization is not ally know about what is going on from talks with their own lawyers, the psycho- questionnaire administered in classrooms differences in the penal codes. The Michi­ die als Sexualopfer bekannt wurden" a rare event. It is therefore important to peers, but often they do not know that this logical expert who evaluated their credibil-' under conditions of strict anonymity. This gan code invades the privacy of consenting [Retrograde interviews of persons who look ~-:.to the variations of sexual victimiza­ behavior is againSt the law and very conse­ ity, and with siblings. is similar to the method applied in hidden sexual behavior much more than the Ger­ became declared as victims of sexual tion and to clarify more specifically what quential if detected. Children have learned delinquency resear.ch and, while it suffers man code. Therefore, a much hi,gher inci­ crime], paper presented at the III Inter­ the impact of sexual victimization is. It is to obey adults. Girls especially have Thirty-seven percent felt that there was from similar defects, it has the same ad- dence of victimization (being confronted national Symposium on Victimology at important to know what damage occurred learned to behave passively in such situa­ damage done to her by the event; 63% de- vantages of these types of instruments with sexual behavior which is against the MUnster, Germany, September (to be during the primary victimization in order to tions. It would be too much to expect re­ nied any harm. Those who felt that they which are part of the internationally accept- law) is found in Michigan. Here, too, we published in the proceedings of this sym­ were harmed were then asked about how understand whether secondary victimization sistance. The most intensive and probably ed equipment of criminologists today. The find that most victimizations take place posium by Hans Joachim Schneider). long the negative consequences were felt. by the criminal justice system is necessary Dussich, Ferdinand T., and John P. J. the most harmful contacts are with offend­ Most victims overcame the harm after 6 research was done with young adults in without violence and that the percentage of or if it is preferable to avoid that possibil­ ers known to the victim. They usually oc­ their late teens and early twenties. With offenders known prior to the act i.. high, Dussich (1980) months, but there are some cases in which ity in cases where no damage is done in cur in the victim's house. Most encounters these highly motivated respondents the,re- even higher than in Monchengladbach. "Das III. Intemationale Symposion flir the primary victimization. The offenses of with the violent offender also take place in the damage was reported to last quite long; suits obtained were very similar in each This is no surprise given the fact that the Viktimologie in Munster 1979" [The the mean damage time was 1 year and 10 f exhibitionism and nonviolent interaction Third International Symposium on Victi­ the victim's home. months. In two-thirds of the cases where (nonrepresentative) sample used. The sel - Michigan law covers private acts which in with children especially deserve scrutiny reported data on the respondents' sociosex­ Germany are not considered to be criminal mology in Munster 1979] in Zeitsavrijt While the details reported so far were gen­ damage was reported, violence or the and precise evaluation to' ,avoid unnecessary "ffenses. Forty-four percent of the female fur die Gesamte Strafrechtswissem'chaf­ erated from the 8,050 victim reports to the threat of violence was used. The evaluation ual development are not different from traumas to the victims and avoidable. ha­ those yielded in a personal interview study students in Michigan said that their reac­ ten, issue #4 (English translation printed police, the following results come from in­ of harm done by psychodiagnostic tests is using professional interviewers in a repre- rassment of their offenders. in the first issue of the International tion was cooperative; 40% resisted activ~­ terviews conducted with the victims 6 to still under investigation by Baurmann. sentative sample of German youth. ly. Only 12% reported that they were This paper reviewed victimological re­ Newsletter of the World Society of Vic­ 10 years after the offense. In the retrospec­ timology, 1981). This research has many implications. It To summarize the German findings: About I forced into the act. The response pattern by search in Germany in the second half of tive research, most offenses were in the Fiselier, Jan P. S. (1978) seems very important to distinguish more 55% of the respondents in Monchenglad- I male respondents is much the same as in the 1970's. The research done rests on categories of petting and exhibitionism. Slachtoffers vall Delict Eell Onderzoek Most of the victims are female; the offend­ clearly between violent and nonviolent sex- bach (a large city in northern Germany) ad­ Monchengladbach: Eighty percent cooper­ methods and experiences developed in the ual contacts. It is necessary to keep in I naar Verborgen Crimillaliteit [Victims of ers, without exception, ~hale. Most of the ated, 11 %J~?ted actively and 4% were United States, but there are important dif­ mind that not all sexual offenses are cases mitted to having been involved in an event cl forced into the act. ferences in details which make it worth­ crime. A survey on hidden crime]. victims were girls age. 7-13 at the time of which was punishable by law as a sexual i Utrecht. .. ~ of rape. Sex offenses often involve superfi- offense. A small percentage of the events while to be aware of differences and the incident. This is due to legal definitions The precerling comparisons suggest that Fiselier, Jan P. S. (1979) of sexual abuse of children in the German cial, nonviolent, and perhaps harmless involved violent behavior. Mainly, the re­ similarities in the field of victimology. contact. sexual victimization, even if quite wide~ "Opfer von Straftaten-Art und Umfang penal code. Most of the offenders were re­ spondents were victimized by sexual abllse spread in both cultures, means something der Kriminalitiit in den Niederlanden" ,. ported to be between age 16 and 40 but the This study holds that the harm done by as children (under age 14) and exhibition- different for males and females. Male re­ References [Victims of crime-Incidence of crime victims often overestimated the real age of sexual offenders .is the only justifiable rea- ism. Thirty-seven percent of ihe"offenses i\ spondents seem to be not so repelled by Brauneck, Anne Eva (1974) = in th~ Netherlands] in Kirchhoff, Gerd the offender in the interview. Almost a SOT! for punishment. It is possible that the against females and 81 % of the offenses \\ ~, what happened to them. In both cultures, "Die sozialhygienische Bedditlr'lg der Ferdmand, and Klau~ Sessar (eds.), s third of all victims interviewed could not I?a. encounter with"the offender does not harm against m!lles Were sexual abuse of chil- we often find the offender is well known to Dunkelziffer" lThe social hygie~c rel- Verbr~chensopfer. Em Reader zu,. Vlktl- remember what kind of offense occurred­ the victim at all and that primaryvictimiza- .dren by offenders who were older than age the victim. While in Monchengladbach we evance of the dark number of crtme] , in mologle, pp. 11 1-132, Bochum. only 75 out of 112 remembered the sexual tion does not exist in these nonviolent"con- 11'4. Betw'een 8% and, 12% of the male vic- found more acts reported to parents, there Erinnerungsgabe fur Max Grullh~~, Freu. dental, Bertold (1912) interaction that took place. senting acts. If the victim; however, is tims reported thatthcy resisted. They often was an equal amQunt of victimizat\0ns re­ Marburg . ~ Amerikanische Krimillalpolitik [Ameri- dragged through police, prosecutoriaLof- knew the offender-only 16% of thejr vic- ported to police by Michigan maie-: and fe­ . ~\ can criminal politic~,!;\,Halle. fice, and th!, coum;o')~i, it is very well male victims and Monchengladbach male

62 City studi~s of victimization City studies of victimization 63

()

! ~ .. _·t ;:t .,"' .. II. ,..;>4 ~ " '-'\0 ~,~-,,,"C""""""'"'~_''''''''-'~' lJ Investigations of nonreported offenses*

" , Distribution of criminal offenses not known to authorities Ishii, Akira (1979) , 'Ii Schwind, HanS-Dieter, and Wilfried Ahl- HANS-DIETER SCHWIND "Opferbefragung in Tokyo" [A victim­ ',born, Hans Jurgen Eger, Ulrich lany, ization questionnaire in Tokyo] in Kirch­ Voider PUdel, and Rudiger Weisz (I 975) hoff, Gerd Ferdinand, and Klaus Sessa! Dunkelfeldforschung in Gottingen. Eille (eds.), Das Verbrechen~opfer. Ein Read­ Opferbefragullg zur Aujhellung des Dun­ er zut Viktimologie [The crime victim­ kelfeldes und zur Erjorschung der Bes­ On------~~'------~~~~~~,-~------the meaning of non reported \~, 1;1 '/ A reader in victimization]. Bochum. timmu'hgsgrulldefiir die Unterlassung crime to geographical-crime research it Compared to the prior year, the intensity ,. ,~' definitely affect police work. These in- Kirchhoff, Gerd Ferdinand (1977) and actual pollee wo,rk l of prosecution by the authorities (especially' I 'clude- , der Strajr,l1Izeige [Dark field research in the police) may have increased in 19756 "Victimologische Hohepunkte 1976 in GottingefI) PL victim survey to explore Geography of crime research which con­ • The crime rate did indeed increase. • The nonreported crime field or "dark den USA" [Victimological highlights the dark field of crime and the reasons cerns itself with reported of­ number" 1976 in the United States] ill Monatssch­ for not reporting to the police]. ex~lusively Without knowledge of the reasons why fenses covers only a part of committed • Numbers of solved offenses rift for Kriminologieulld Strafrechtsre­ Wiesbaden., crimes are not reported (see also further form: 313-321. offenses, namely, those that have become qetails in Pudel 1978 P. 205 ff), no state­ • The confidence of the popUlation in the Schwind, Hans-Dieter, WilfriedAhlborn, 1 effectiveness of their police force (rep:ort­ Kirchhoff, GeI;d Ferdinand, and Claudia Rudiger Weisz, et al. (1978) known to crime-investigatiop, authorities or ment should be made Oij inCreaSing or de­ Kirchhoff (1976) that have beclireported tQ;ihe police. How­ ing !behavior); and Empirische Krimillalgeographie-Kri­ creasing'numbers of qiminal offenses. In ever, it is necessary to mclude nonreported • T,he so~called "sense of security"W of the "Hidden sexual victiITIization by sex of­ minalitatsatlas Bochuf1l. Bestandsauj. any event, "a statistical increase in crime offenses in any investigation to obtitin a offe/nder based on his or her expe,ctation of fenders. The Michigan sample/, paper lIahme und Weiterjuhrung am Beispiel occurrence due to an increase in police no­ presented at, the II InternatiQnal Sympo­ clear picture of ~rime patterns. bei/1lg apprehended and sentenced (risk of Bochum [Empirical geography of tification is no loss in safety, but in reality suc!cess). , siuql on ')?c~ology in Bos~on,.Septem­ crime-crime atlas of Bochum. The, state In this paper, nonreported crime in~ludes ,a gain in safety ... 7 It is therefo~e imperative I!, ' ber 1976 tiilimeo). (TranslatIOn Into ofthe art aQd continuation, demonstrated " all offenses about which', the authorities to make available information on both re­ ASilthe number of crimes solved (Schwind Japanese language, by Hidemichi' Mor­ in BQchumJ. Wiesbaden. ' have no knoV{Jedge and which, therefore, ported and nonreported. crime; only the 19i'8:70) increases, confidence in the abili­ osawa, Tokyo, 1979,~published). Schneider, Hans Joachim (1975) dp not appear in crime statistics.2 Only summation of both numbers can establisn ty Of the authorities to s,olve crimes also in­ Kirchhoff, Claudia and Gerd Ferdinand Viktimologie. Wissenschaft Yom Verbre­ the statistical bas./s needed for a crime poli- ',I creases .with the result that'more offenses When: reported and nonreported offenses are 8 " Kirchhoff (1979a) , chellsopfer. [Victimology: The scientific both known can one make a statement on cy. Without it, a,realistic assessment of at@' reported and the wiII~ligness to testify "Erlebte Sexualdelikte. Zur versteckten study of victims]. Stuttgart. the real' extent Of crime or on the Size of the situation, which should precede each increases. However, if t,Jle number of sexuellen Viktimisation" [Sexual of­ Stephan, Egon (1976) variou50ffending groups. Because they are decision regarding the fight against crime, crimes solved decrease,s'; the offender's fenses experienced. On hidden sexual Die Stuttgarter Opferbefragu1lg. Eine kf-i­ based'solely on available police statistics, is impossible. It seems not quite credible in "sense of s~curity" in9reases as his or her victimization], Sozialpiidagogische Blat- miitologisch-Viktimologi$che Analysezur light of the above that, as some critics ar­ risk appears smaller.!{Therisk of the crime the annual official reports are problem­ 9 ter July: 120-p3. ' Erjorschullg des Dunkeifeldes u1lter be­ matico gue, victimization surveys have no value being solved is appa:i'ently the risk that re­ Kirchhoff, Claudia, and Gerd'Ferdinand sonderer Berucksichtigung der Eillstel. ' 'in police work. . strains the offender from committing' the Police statistics may state crime rate Kirchhoff (1979b) IUllg der Bevolkerung zur Kriminalitiit" a in­ offense; seldom is it found to be the threat crease of" for example, 6.8% from 1974 to Research into nonreported offenses ,based "Untersuchungen im Dunkelfeld sex­ [The Stuttgart victim' survey. A crimino­ 3 of punishment). II "If the risk is high, the 1975 but the underlying for this on questioning victims appears quite use­ ueller Viktimisation mit Hilfe von Fra­ logical-victimological analysis to explore ca~ses crime rate decreases-if the' risk is low, the 4 ful-and not Qnlyto the author-primarily genbogen" [Exploring the dark field of rate increase may be any of the following: crime rate increases.,,12 This same effect is the park field with special respect to the because it is a prerequisite for- sexual victimization with questionnaires) attitude of the POpUlllti9n towards . • The police were notified ora higher per~ to be expected when the offender perceives ill Kirchhoff, Gerd Ferdinand, and Klaus crime]. Wiesbaden. (j; , centage of crime in 1975 than in 19745 , ·~The above mentioned assessment of the that. the offense is not reported; in other Sessar (eds.), Das Verbrechellsopfer. Bin St. Louis, A, (1978) o t~)tai. crime situation. inc1udingnot only re­ words, the number of nonreported crimes Reader zur Viktimologie. Bochum:275- "Measuring crime by mail survey. The *Translation and reproduction by pennission of ported but also nonreported offenses increases. 299. Texas crime trend survey," Victimd­ the Bundeskrimimilamt, 'Wiesbaden,Fede/ill Re­ ,. Optimal police utilization when the dis­ o A,comparison between New York Cityand Landis, J. T. (1956) logy: 124-.135. public of Gennany. These papers are a tI\Ulsla- tribution of nonreported crime can be de­ '("kyo shows that these differences are not "Experiences of 500 children with adult Villmow, Bernard (1979) I' tion by SigriedPilgrim of Chapters 10 and 11 of termined, e.g., for certain city districts imaginary. I:! In New York City, solved sexuaI deviation," Psychiatric Quarterly Opfer und Tiiter [The'Emmendingen vic­ - Empirische Kriminal Geograpl)ie (Empirical • Correctly, estimating solved crime rates Criminal Geography) by Hans-Dieter Schwind, homicides constitute 69.4%, whereas in Supplement;91-109. tim-offender Survey), paper presented at which refer only to reported offenses; aQd Wilfried Ahlborn, and Rudiger Weiss. Published TQkyo the rate is 97.4% (a difference of 28 Mendelsohn, Benjamin (1976) • Assessing victims' and readi­ the ill International Symposium on Vic-' " by the 13undeslaiminalamt in Wiesbaden'in ~ehavior percentage points!jf:tor robbery thed.iffer­ "VicQ;mologyand COlitemporruy soci­ timology in'MU,nster September 1979, ness to testify, which is related to the vic­ l 1978. Professor Sch,wind is cum:ntlYdit the De­ ence is even larger,namely 18.9% in New ety's trends;" in Emilio Viano (ed.), I tims' confidence in the work of the mimeo J!ublished in the pibceedings of partment of Legal Science (Rechtswissensc"~) York City and 84% in Tokyo (a difference Victims and society. Washington: 17-' this symposium bYBans Joachim at the University of Bochum. ' authorities (especially the police). 27. ' Schneider). ' of 65.1 %); for rape-solved cases in New Scheafer, Stephen (1976) IThe, ideaspul forth follow in part a If;,cture pre,~ This Jast issue in partiCUlar appears to deal Y~~'kcity, 36.9% and in Tokyo 94% (a Introductionrjo criminology. Reston. sented by the author on the occasion of the 15.th with the image of the public servant. In ' dif,ference of 57 .1 %) .. Bans Joachim Regular Congres$ of Police Union Delegates, that respect, certain feedback mechanisms $Iihneider has interpreted these"differences 30, o " held October {976, in Mninz, on Ihesuhject ~' " iii like manner. In Victimo{Qgy-A sciellce of "Research into the Area of Non-Reported 6Metschmann and Hohner write "that recent pj crime victims 1978, he writes that- Crimes !lUd Crime GeographY"as Examples ,of I) stUdies seem to indicate thnt. the registering of Praxis Oriell!ed Cri\ninaJistic-Crimiriological Re­ offenders occurs selectively" (see Mersch- 'In New York City it is possible to ob­ search Work" (see also Schwind I 977a). , il mann, Walter, and flohner 1976). ' Serve a process of social disorganization 2See Schwind. Ahlborn, Eger et al. (1975). 7Sce Herold (1977). which rests mainly on the fact that'the ~See Fedcral Bureau of Criminal InVC)$tigiltion (976). " , 17he value of the police crime statistic is,that population's potential to resist crime has it is II "reliablc measurement insinlll1cnt of the diminished, at least within the metl'opoIi- , 4See also SC,hwind (1977b). ,0, burdett with which police work is concerned" sSee most recently KUrzinger (1977). ' (seecHerold 1977:292). " , I I \OSee the use of this expression in Ro~s!llann ~See Brugger (1977). (1974). , IIAlsos<;e Kube (1975). 12See Bauer (1975). (, \~" I 13See Schneid,er (1975), ri ! \\ ~ 1\ Ii 64 City studies o/victimization' ~.rl I f ,. l 6., ' City studies of victimizatiol/ 65 l l L;,,' D I 1,-. c' 1. :::~(;:;:;:!'-":;':;...~~=:...... ~~ __. __ ... ~ ~ _., ... ~",.... _ .... > • .zl--__ ."""'_ ..... ~ ~ ,_ ~'~_""" I '/ "\ « . ~. .. .. -, ------;-:--~--:------

f~ iJ tan districts . .. which are burdened with a high rate of crime. A 'low rate of B-1. Calculated ratios for Individual areas of Bochum Figure B-1. Percentage distribution of reported offenses solved crimes leads towards the popula­ for the nonreported crimes (dark number) In statistical city districts of Bochum (all known offenses except. store theft): tion's mistrust of the police. This lack of Crime locations confid0nce in the authorities elicits a re­ co Nonreported offenses Dark-number ratios duced willingness to report offenses and Offenses In Calculated values Upper .Most weakens the general population's support known random City area for size of population and lower probable of the police work in solving crimes. A to police samples (± deviation) limits value reduced amount of assistance in the Center-North " criminal police work leads to a lowered 2.148 13 2,786 (±58.2%) 1:2-1:1 Cenler-8oulh 1,635 1:1 31 6,643 (±37.1%) 1:6-1:3 '1:4 rate of crimes solved. A high inCidence Bochum-NW 1.296 26 5.571 (±48.6%) 1:6-1:2 1:4 of nonreported crimes (a high dark num­ Bochum-NE 1.084 34 7,286 (±45.9%) 1:10-1:4 '1:7 Weme-Limgendreer 1,363 ber) and a low rate of solved offehses in 24 5,143 (±44.5%) 1:5-1:2 1:4 Querrenburger-8tiepel 872 turn lead to a lack of confidence by the 11 2,357 (±77.5%) 1:5-1:1 1:3 Weltmar-8outh 531 population in the work of the police 2 429 (±138.5%) 1:2-0:> 1:1 Unden-Dahlhausen 632 9 1,929 (±84.2%) 1:6-<>0 . 1:3 force and its effectiveness. And so the Wattenscheid 2.212 40 8,571 (±40.1%) 1:5-1:2 1:4 circle closes. This continuous process No data 10 carries on in a negative sense. However, Total 190 40.714 asocial process of a cbmpletely opposite (±16.9%) "1:4-1:3 1:3 nature can be observed in Tokyo, where were nut reported by citizens but became confidence in the 'police and support of Distribution of nonreported crime In known to the authorities in other ways, their work by the general public leads li Bochum e.g., through their own police investiga­ towards a high rate of solved cases. This tions. Stephan (I976)llr pointed out that high incidence of solved offenses has a Criminologists have long discussed the "research in the Federal Republi,c of Ger­ most positive effect on social control and question of a. constant relationshig between numbers of crime. The offender has a many as well as in the U.S.A. shows that reported and nonreported crime. i There is up to 95% .of all complaints registered with no agreement on whether in areas of high real risk of being apprehended and he is 0.0-0.5% quite aware of this. the police origin~te from the population." rep0l1ed crime the number of nonreported m For the cited German research, the work crimes would also be high, or, alternately, NB >1 0.6-1.0% Given. these Circumstances, it is hard to un­ by Weis and Muller-Bagehl on "Private]y :i whether if the rate of reported crime is 1.1-2.0% derstand why the importance of research filed criminal complaints" (Private Strafan­ high, the unreported number of offenses PC, into nonreported crime is not recognized in zeigen) is referenced. This latter inv(!stiga­ would be correspondingly low. 'the ques­ (:. 0 .;1 2.1-4.0% police work. Surely, this problem requires tion, however, does not support Stephan's tion therefore centers around the propor­ ~ 4.1-8.0% strategic thinking as well as openness to­ work, as Weis and Muller-Bagehl demon~ tional relationship of nonreported to ward th'e value of scientific research. The strated on the basis of the numbers ob­ reported crime. m 8.1% or more Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation tained from an unnamed police office, In the 19th century, Quetelet (1796-1874) has shown much interest, for example, by where 459 offenses over a. period of 4 awarding three research contracts dealing assumed a constant relationship! months became known to the police, and I( 0 with the area of nonreported offenses dur­ 134, OJ almost 30% became known dUe to This relationship is necessary, and.l re­ Nole: Excerpted from Schwind. Ahlborn, and Weis, ing the past 4 years. The recipients of the in~estigative work of the authorities peat, jf this were not so, everything else Emplr/sche Krlminalgeographie, Wiesbaden. 1978. these awards were: University of Gottingen themselves. 19 which up to now has been attested to (see also "Dark Number Research in Got­ based on statistical research into crime, It was not possible to obtain a complete self-servingly helped itself iri this dilemma tingen1973174"); 14 University of Freiburg would be wrong and absurd?l 1978:70). A first glance, comparing the count for all police-discovered crimes in on nonreported crime by subscribing to the of Bochum differ quite markedly. High (see also "Questioning of Crime Victims in percentage distribution of offenses ,~n the Boclium as this would have represented .an In the 1970's, l-iellmer,22 assumes that in numbers for nonreported crime in the Stuttgart,,);IS and, University of Bochum hypothesis of constancy in the relationship statistically tabulated area, shows that these extraordinary and untenable amount of ad­ northeast (Bochum-NE) are opposed by (see also "Crime-Ma~ Bochum," the pre­ crime geography the "non-reported areas between reported and actually committed offenses are concentrated in the inner city ditional work for the police. The Police are of no interest"23 to us "since it is ev­ l low numbers for nonreported crime in the sent rt!search work). 6 crime. This implies thalpolicesta.tistics are for both reported and nonreported crimes, President, however, initiated a count in a erywhere the same." He fu'rther assumes south (Weitmar-South). The nonreported a reliable barometer of an increase or de­ whereas the other parts of the city general­ At the Congress of Criminologists in Frei­ crime ratio is in the first case (average esti­ part of the town (Wattenscheid) during a 4- that the relation between reported and non­ crease of actual numberp of off~nses.2S ly show a lower crime burden. burg in the fall of 1975,17 Blankenberg week period, with the following reselt for reported offenses is constant. This view­ mate) 1:7 and in the second case 1:1. In criticized the Gottingen research on nonre­ I On casual inspection, Figures 8-1 and 8-2 On closer inspection, however, it becomes areas where reported crime is high, nonre­ robbery, bodily injury, and theft: of~176 point seems to coincide even today with appear to support Quetelet's and Hellmer's ported crime, because it did not consider cases, 173 were reported and only 3 (less the opinion of (most) police authorities. It evident that, aside from central Bochum, ported crime is also high. It is therefore assumption. These charts contain all that some offenses known to the authorities than 2%) Were known through the work of is assumed that the "known value is repre­ of~ district F (E in Figure 8~2) shows a high:, permissible to modify the Quetelet and fensesincluded in the research exceptstore the authorities. Since this percentage is so sentative witlJin a tolerable limit, or at least value for reported crime, while this same Hellmer hypotheses such that- theft, for which nonrel1iorted numbers can­ 14See Schwind, Ahlbom,Eger et al. (1975). low, it has not been considered in the com­ symptomatic, of the structure and trend in value for nonreported crime is held by dis­ >, Summary in Schwind. (1976). not be adequately ascel'tained,21> (SChwind • The supposition .of constant proportions putation of the "nonreported" crime in criminality. H2o! Criminology, up.to now, trict D (F in Figure 8-~). Further, almost holds true only to the extent that it appears 15$ee Stephan (1978). Bochurn. none of the districts shows the same 2.~Merschmann, Walter, and Hohner (1976). that there is both a high figure fOfnonre­ )6With reference to the most recent investiga­ 20See also Kaiser (1974); see further Mersch­ amount of reportcd as non reported crime. 2(iSec, however, the eSlimatcsin Blimkenbur ported offenses and. a high figure for re­ tions into the area of nonreported crime in the 18Stephan (1978:55); mann, Wr.dter, Hohner (1976). United States, see also Skogan (1975, 1976, 21Quetelet (1977). (1973). The infomu\tion received from the de­ It seems difficult, therefore, to talk about a ported offenses or a low figure for 19Weis andMuller-Bagehl (197 I). partment stores would probably be of IitUe val­ 'imd 1977). " 22See Hellmer (J 974). constant relationship between the tWtr-the nonreported and a Jow figure for reported i17XVIU Meeting. pf the Association of Crimi­ ue in this respect. as nomlully it. would be deviations are simply too large. How large offenses 23Hellmer-Sch~ler Jager differs in The Crimi­ difticuh for oWners of the stores. (or the store 'nology, Freibuf/(imBreisgau, October 9-12, it However, these proportions change When nological Regional Analyses (1976). managers) to correctly" assess loss of an item these differences really are becomes appar­ 1975. high and low crime areas are 24See Heinz. (1975). due to theft ruther than any otherof a number ent from examining Figure 8-3 and Table compan~d. of reaSons. . . 8- t. The relationships between nonreported This means that Hellmer is not quite right and repOlted crime among the city Qistricts when he says that nonreported Grime is of 66 City studies (Jf victimization J~'J o City stl(diesoj victimization 67 ------.

"

Figure B-2. Percentage distribution of nonreported offenses Figure 8-3. Comparison of reported and nonreported crime (dark number) In Bochum statistical city dlsh'lcts (calculated values) In the city areas of Bochum: (all known offenses except store theft): Theft (all except store theft) Crime locations ,. ±45.9%

±48.6%

'I ±40.1%

±44.5%

0.0-0.5% 0.6-1.0% 1.1-2.0% 2.1-4.0% ~ Darlc-number ratio 4.1-8.0% 8.1% or more lli1J Reported offenses

I Not reported offenses

Note: Excerpted from Schwind, Ahlborn, and Wafs, Empirische Kriminalgeographie, Wiesbaden, 1976. no interest in crime geography "as it is the found (excluding store theft), but only 190 studies to permit calculation of the ratio of same everywhere." It appears advisable in were noted in Bochum (based on 1,680 in­ reported to nonreported crime. Such crime' future studies to also consider nonreported terviews). It is therefore not valid to com­ is (still) quite rare28 in Germany and is crime in. any crime-geographic study based pute nonreported crime values for the town thought to be usually reported, This indi­ on the differences in amount of crime, or districts as the confidence intervals would cates that the German population still has to prove the Bochum relationships to be be too large. confidence in the police and the signs of lar offenses that. were not reported test the representativeness of the sample for viations noted; however, these are not incorrect. • 865 police reports of bodily injuries but the city of Bochum29 and, second, whether "large. In future research, larger random samples disorganization so noticeable in New York or not the social structure of the two cities In this connection; the weakness of the Bo­ City basically are stili' absent here. an additional 6,2]4 of which the police had A comparison of the social structures of of citizens should be questioned than was was different. Third, the influence of the chum study should be pointed out. The noknowJedge. Gottingen and Bochum shows that because the case in Bochum. If this is too expen­ Nonreported crime appears therefore to press on the impending study was tested. confidence intervals (see Table 8-I) are sive, the sample should be drawn from the cover primarily theft (including store theft) This shows that in the time illterval COVi' of the strong influence of the secondary quite large and the actual values fornonre­ popUlation in certain conspicuous parts of and bodily injury, offenses, which-as ' ered, not only the 12,988 offenses report(:d For the first question, regarding the repre- sector (industria!), Bochum shows a dispro- ported crime are quiteomalL Following the town (which is planned as a followup study mentioned above (see Schiemann ]9'18, p. to police were com,nitted in Bochum, but sentative sampling, with respect to the test-.~ portionately high number of workers and values obtained in the Gottingen research for Bochum in the next several years). We 129)-together constitute about two-thirds probably 60,000 offenses (Schwind 1978, ed, variables (sex, age, marital status, '-' individuals with Volksschulbildung (grade- (e.g., nonreported crime ratio for theft could not enlarge on the random sample in of police crime statistics (see above Ahl­ p. 70). The reasons that these offenses geographic area, and nationality), no school education). The random sample in 1:7), project leaders of the Bochum study Bochum (almost twice as large as in Got­ born et a!. 1978, p. 29). It sftlOuJd illterest were 1I0t reported to the police is covered marked difference was apparent between Bochum shows a larger proportion of anticipated similar results with correspond­ tingen) because we Jacked personnel to in­ Bochum's police supery,!Jtenr.tent that in in closer detail in Pudel (1978) pp. 205- the random sample lind the general popula- housewives, retirees, and social-security re- ingly larger values for nonrep0l1ed offenses terview and funds to pay them. Crime 1975 there were not only- . 210. tion of the city. Only in the variables cipients. Married individuals had a greater and smaller standard deviations. In Gottin­ geography which aspires to include nonre­ "marital status" and "nationality" were de- role in the Bochum study than in the GOt­ gen,27 310 nonreported offenses were ' ported crime is therefore quite personnel • 12,123 reported theft offenses (except tingen study. store thefts) but an additional 40,731 simi- Summary and money-intensive." \) i 2?J'he same was done for the Gottingen study: Due to the influence of the university and 27See Schwind, Ahlborn, Eger et al. To compare the ~suJts of the Bochum and(;~, see also Schwind, Ahlborn, Eger et al. )q the tertiary sector in Gottingen, the propor­ (1975:22). Too few nonreported robberies were un­ 28The situation in the United States is differ­ 1 Gottingen studies, it was first necessary to" ~(1975:129-135). " covered in both the Bochum and Gottingen ',lent: see also Schwind (l977c). tion of civil servants/white-collar workers

68 City studies of Victimization () City studies of victimizatiOIl 69 ------,------

C\ _. is higher than in Bochum, and therefore. also the number of persons with higher 8-2. ComparilOn of offenses known to, the polI~. and those In our study (offenses without aggravating circum­ education. Theinfiuence of the university (G6H1ngen· !.Ind BOChum) . •• . stances) were reported. In the case of petty is quite apparent in the Gottingen randQm theft, it is noticeable again that in Gottin- 8-4_. _:Le:9:a::::.1of nonreportedc=la::.s..::s:.:lfl:.:.:c:.:at~lo::n:.:.o_f:.:.th :and reported.... O_. 0_ff_e_ns_e....:s~ln_v_o_lv_ln_9_t_he-'ft_:_c_0_m_p_ar_ls_0_n----""--(L. offenses (Including attempt&tl sample: the nu~ber of students among _ offenses) (Gottlngen* and Bochum) Nonreported offenses gen a high number of .attempted petty those interviewed is "considerably higher Dark-number rallo thefts were not reported (Gottingen, 1:68; '-", than in the Bochum sample. This is also Empirically Nonreporied .offenses Dark-number ratio calculated Bochum, only I :6; see Table 8-4). In abso­ reflected in the greater number of 20 year Empirically lor the Upper arid lute numbers, combining the two cities. the olds and unmarried individuals in Gottin­ Known to In random populallon calculated Type of poli~ lower Most likely following picture emerges: in aggravated Legal for the sample (± deviation) gen. Larger differences also occurred with offense (1) limit value theft 7,197 offenses are known dthe po­ classification Known to In random population Upper and Most likely (2) (3) (4) ;9 respect to employment and educational fac- (5) lice~12,214 empirically calculdte nonre­ 01 the type pOlice sample (deviation) lower limit value tors and marital status. . 01 offense (1) (2) (3) (4) . (5) G B G B ported offenses; In the case of petty theft, G B G B G The influence of the press on the Bochum B there were 4,586 known offenses compared Theft­ to 28,500 unknown offenses. Only 113 at­ G B G B G B G B G B study was minimal, because only a few excluding 4,869 11,783 310 190 33,480 40,739 1:8- 1:4- 1:7 1:3 persons interviewed had read about it in 94.5% 93.2"k .93.9% 80.8% ± 13.8% ± 16;9% 1 :6 1:3 tempted thefts were reported to the police; store tl1eft" Attempted 8 Q 1.13 5 3 540 643 1:127- 1:12- 1:68 1:6 the newspapers. Therefore, the low rate 'of BOdily attempted aggravated thefts represented 'c::: simple theft 0.2% 1.0%' 1.6% 1.6% 87.5% 133.6% 1:8 injuries 283 865 20 29, 2,160 6,214 1:11- 1:10- 1:J 1:7 refusals and invalid answers in Gottingen 5.5% 6.8% 6.10/0 13.20/0 ±48.80/0 ±37.3% 1:4 1:4 1,541 with a calculated value of 1;714 at­ Simple theft 1,722 4,467 238 130 25,704 27,874 1:17- 1:7- 1:15 1:6 and Bochum compared to the other studies deliberat~ tempted thefts (see Tables 8-3 and 8-4). 35.4% 37.9% 76.8% 68.4% 15.0% 19.4% 1:13 1:5 Attempted 450 1,541 14 5 1,512 1,072 1:5- 1:1- 1:3 1:1 cannot be explained as being the result of Total If the value of the stolen goods is con sid­ aggravated theft 9.2% 13.1% 4.5% 2.6% 52.1% 87.6% 1:2 the influence of the press. 5,152 12,648 330 219 35,640 46,943 1:8- 1:4- 1:7 1:4 ered(see Table 8-5), the assumption. that a Aggravated theft 2,689 5,648 53 52 5,724 11,149 1:3- 1:3- 1:2 1:2 (if 100% 100% 1000/0 100% ±16.0% ±15.6% 1:6 1:3 55.2% 47.9% 17.1% 27.4% 26.3% 31.2% 1:2 1:1 less severe case is less likely to be reported No data 14 "See Table 13/n Schwind (1975r: p. 122 than a more severe case is again con- 0.12% Comparison of results: alncludes attempts firmed. the less often reported. less severe Total 4,869 11,783 310 190 33,480 40.739 1:8- 1;4- 1:7 1:3 Gottingen, Bochum . offenses in Gottingen should be considered 100% 100% 100% 100% ±13.8% ±16.9% 1:6 1:3 the reason why the total of the non reported HANs-DIETER SCHWIND "See Table 45 In Schwind (1975) • .p. 1/iO. 8-3. Legal clanlficstlon of thefta: ComparilOn iJf tholl8 to reported crime figures for Gottingen and The results of the crime victim study in offenoes kru)wn to police and tIlose no~ known to police (Including attempts) Bochum are different. If in Gottingen less Bochum differ from those of the Gottingen (GOttlngen*l~nd Bochum) severe cases are less often reported than in study. These results warn against"an as­ Bochum. the dark number .1n Gottingen is 8-5. Value of the stolen goods: Comparison of nonreportedand reported offenses (Including attempted offenses) (Gottingen" and Bochum) sumption of a constant f.' much larger than simple thefts. member. Indeed, the nonreported offenses 4.869) and our random sample showed 190 value). This means, that for every theft ThIs result underscores the assumption that in Bochum are far greater than in Gottin­ a theft is more likely to be reported to the NOI~reported robberies only four Rases in Gottingen and six in Bo­ (Gottingen,3IO) nonreported cases (ex- known to the police, three thefts were not geo during t!tefirst 6 mOnl~s of the study. chum, and'all were attempted robberies. {. cluding store theft). . authorities if it involves a severe,o(fense. It has alread~ been pointed out in the q9t~ reported (see Table 8-3). (see Table 8-7), Table 8-8 !Ilustrates that In Stephan'S study in Stuttgatt,32 ,however, The non reported crime figure for aggraVat­ tingen study I that for robbery !llc confi­ Gottingen as in Bochum .the ability to re­ showed that 13 attempted and 9 accom­ 30UJese details are closely aJigned (in order to A separate comparison of figures obtained ed theft accordingly is 1:2 for Bochum ". member depends on the value of the dam­ dence interval for the. nonreported offense compare) with the text and structure of the for petty theft and. aggravated theft (para­ (similar to the Gottingen results) (see Tablc I ratio is~o large no valid statement can be plished robberies were not reported. De­ age incurred.i' graphs 242 and 243 respectively in the I spite the low number of robberies, th,!,: dark Giittingen stUdy (see also Schwind, Ahlbqrn, 8-3); for petty theft it is 1:6 (Gottingcn. I made about it. This is because hardly any Eger, et al. 1975). I number ratio was calculated for the Gottin­ German Criminal Code Book) shows that 1:15). The difference in the Bochum and I cases of:nonrcported robberies were found: in both Bochum and Gottingen the ~rcent­ Gottingen figures is therefore the result of gen study (1:9), but with the observation ,( age of cases ofagg~vated theft in police the fact that in Gottiligen fcwer petty thefts J1See SchW\jnd, Ahlborn, Sger ct al. 2 (1975:177),:, 3 Stcphan (1976:228). 70 City studies of victimization (/ I g \ (/' City studies of victimization 71

I o

I:;? o

",.- ~\, ... p' --\ t. ~« .. 8--6. Population figures and theft occurrence that the confidence interval of ± 87.6% In a comparison between cities makes the rciJult invaiid. The press report­ ed the sensational news that only "every 6-9. Day of the wflek on which the bodily Inlury occurred: If the results of the Gottingen and Bochum Population ComparIson of offenses known.to pOlice and not known studies are compared-keeping in mind the ninth robbery is reported to the authori­ for (,tsar) , Reported offenses to pOlice (Gtittlngen* and Bochlim) differing social structures of the two Nonreported offenses Total number of offenses ties.'133 To avoid such reports on the Bo­ cities-the following picture emerges: both Gettingen Bochum Gettingen Bochum chum study, the nonreported crime ratio Gettlngen Bochum Gettingen Nonreported offenses Dark-number ratio studies show a higher rate of nonreported(: 1973 1975 Bochum for robberies was deliberately not calculat­ Empirically offenses for simple theft than for more sC:' ed. Keeping in mind the above consider­ calCUlated ' 127,000 435,000 4,869 1,783 rious theft. More severe cases are more /' 33,480 40,714 38,349 ations, the calculated ratio obtained by for the Upper and 52,497 Known to likely to be reported than less severe CaSl)S ±13.8% ±16.9% Stephan for uttempted robbery, namely In random population lower police Most likely sample (± deviation) limit of theft. The nonreported crime ratio for i\ I: 117, appears somewhat problematical !34 Day of week (1) value (2) (3) (4) (5) aggravated theft in both cities is 1:2, i.e'ii 6-7. Qut.;tters during which thefts occurred: Comparison of offenses known ::";',...-,-- for each such reported offense, 2 are'iiot G B G B to pOlice and not known to pOlice (Gtittlngen and Bochum) Nonreported bodily injuries G B G B G B reported. For simple theft, however, there (assaultive crimes) are differences which can hardly be ig­ Monday-- 136 438 6 6 648 1,286 1:9- 1:5 nored (Gottingen 1:15, Bochum only 1:6). Nonreported offenses Thursday 48.1% 1:5 1:3 Darl.-number ratio The above holds true in somewhat milder 50.6% 30.0% 20.7% ±79.8% ±79.9% 1:1" 1:1 Friday 47 117 3 This difference is due to the fact that at­ Empirically form for bodily injuries (as was noted also 5 324 1,071 1:5- 1:17 1:7 1:9 0 16.6% 13.6% tempted petty theft cases were reported less calculated in the Gottingen study).35 Twenty-nine 15.0% 17.2% ~113.0% :87.5% 1 :1 Weekend 100 285 3 13 '" for the Upper and 324 2,786 1:7- '1:15 1:3 1:10 often in Gottingen (Gottingen, 1:68; Bo­ Known to In random cases were found during the random sam­ 35.3% 32.9% 15.0% population lower Most likely 44.8% ±113.0% ±54.2% 1:4 chum, 1:6). Accordingly, most people police sample pling (Gottingen, 20); 865 offenses were No dala 25 8 '" Quarter (± deviation) limit value 5 questioned as to why they did not rep0l1 (1) (2) (3) reported (Gottingen, 283). The deviation is 2.9% 40.0% 17.25% (4) (5) Total 283 865 20 29 the offense against them answered "it sim­ ±37.3% in Bochum, sOI:newhat more fa­ 2,160 6,214 1:11- 1:10- 1:8 1:7 G 100% 100% 100% 100% ply is not worth it when the damage is B G B G B vorable than in Gottingen (±49.8%); ±49.8% ±37.3% 1:4 1:4 G B G B smaill" (see Pudel 1978; Schwind et al. therefore the results are more useful. The 'See Table 70 In Sch~;nd (1975), p. 185. 1,246 3,095 52 34 1975). These results could be due to the 5,616 7,290 1:6- 1:3- 1:5 . 1:2 nonreported ratio is similar: Gottingen. 1:8, .25.6% 26.3% 16.8% 2 17.9% ±26.6'1'0 ±34.3'1'0 1:3 1:2 difference in social structure in Bochum 1,334 3,264 57 and Bochum, 1:7. Contrary to the Gottin­ 24 6,156 5,164 1:6- 1:2- 1:5 and Gottingen, partiCUlarly the educational 27.4% 27.7% 18.4% 1:2 gen numberS, the absolute number~ of as­ 12.6% ±25.3% ±44.5% 1:3 3 1;188 2,867 1:1 8-10. Six-month periods during which bodily Inlurles occurred: structure, but this cannot be proven. 67 50 7,236 10,72.1 saultive crime in Bochum is more closely 24.4% 1:6- 1:5- 1:6 1:4 Comparison of reported and nonreJorted offenses 24.3% 21.6% 26.3% ±23.2'1'0 ±31.5% 4 1,100 1:5 1:3 correlated to the size of the popUlation thaq (Glittlngen' and Bochum) The results for assaultive crime in the Bo­ 2,551 82 51 8,856 10,935 1:10- 1:6- 1:8 1:4 the number of thefts. In contrast to the 22.6% 21.6% 26:'10/. 26.8% chum (I :8) and Gottingen (1 :7) studies are No data ±20.9% ±28.6% 1:6 1:3 1 6 52 Gottingen study, which did not relate the mostly similar. Since robberies were quite 31 Nonreported offenses Dark-number ratio 0.0% 0.1% 16.8% 16.3% number of assaults to the time of occur­ infrequent, no result could be obtained be­ Total 4,869 11,783 " Empirically 310~ 190 33,480 40,739 100% 1:6- 1:4- 1:7 1.:3 rence because the deviation was too large, I calculated, cause of the high standard deviation. In 100.% 100% 100% ±13.8% ±16.9% 1:6 1:3 the Bochum figures can at least be dis­ for the Upper and summary, a comparison between the two cussed. The variation among categories Known to In random population lower Most likely cities of Bochum anc! Gottingen shows that was somewhat lower and the '!no informa­ polfi:~. f. sample (± deviation) limit value the nonreportedccrime rates in Bochum arc 8--6. _6-m_o_nt_hP_er::io~d ___~(1~) _____~(2~) _____(_3) _____ (~4) _____~(_5) __ _ Distribution of unreported offAnses over four quarters by value of stolen goods tion" column was smaller in B9~hum (see considerably lower than was the case in (IncludIng attempted offenses), 1973 (Gtittlngen)* and 1975 (Bochum) I Table 8-9). The ratio of reporte'd and non­ Gottingen,~ years earlier. ( G B G " B G report~d offenses for bodily injuries is not B G B G B Minimal value ,~·-_·1 or no furth ( Value of stolen goods constant over the week-Friday, 1:9; Mon­ 160 448 7 Referen(fes f3 9 756 1,929 1:6-,1 :7- 1 :5 1:4 InformatIon Up to 250M 25 to 100DM day through Thursday, 1:3; Saturday and 1-0, 56.5% 51.8% 35.0% 31.0% ±73.9% ±65.2% 1:1 1:2 Quarter 100DM+ Total 123 (, (1) (2) 1;10. j 417 9 Bauer, G. (1975) Sunday, 17 (3) (4) (1)-(4) 972 3,643 1:13- 1:13- 1:8 ",:9, , 43.5% 48.2% 45.0% 58.6% ±65.1% ±47.3% 1:3 1:5 Pravention durch ~:Jlpression?, [Preven­ Table 8-10 presents the ability to remember No data 4 3 G B G B G tiori through repression?], in Federal B G B G B by the individuals interviewed-here it be­ 20.0% 10.4% ,. Total 283 865 20 Bureau of Criminal Investigation Arst 29 2,160 6,214 1:11- 1:10- 1:8 7 6 19 ,10 comes apparent again, as in the case of 100% 100% 1:7 17 18 9 4 100% 100% ±49.8% :37.3% 1:4 1:4 (eds.) Police alld prevention, (Lecture Second 7 2 52 38 24 13 14 8 12 theft, that the first 6 months and the sec­ Third 9 7 5~ 30 series 'Of Federal Bureau Or Criminal 10 34 23 15 18 ond 6 months of 1975 barely differ in the Fourth 9 5 67 56 ______Investigation), PIJ-: 119-136 (121). 14 13 39 14 19 ~ L-·s~e~e_T~a_bl_e_7~4,_ln_s_c_h_WI_nd~(1_9_75_),_p_._18_8_'~~~ ~'0---~ ______~ No data 24 10 4 82 55 area of reported crime; however, the nonre­ 17 7 15 10 17 Wiesbaden. .. Total 12 3 2 52 31 ported crime ratio does. The difference in 54 38 1::)1 70 82 8() Blankenbur, E. (1973) 43 22 310 210 Summary Bochum is much more noticeable than in Federal Republi~ as a whole. Further addi­ Die Selektivitat rechtHicher Sank­ , 'See Table 581n Schwind (1975), p. 173. Gottingen: for the first 6 months, the ratio tional studies in other cities are necessary . .'. ~ A comparison of the results 9(nonreported tionen. Eine empirische tJntersuchung i is 1:4 (Gottingen, 1:5), for the second 6 crime studies is quite proble{hatical if the if one desires to kno,,": mo~ about the ex- \? von Ladendiebstahlen. [Selectivity in months of the year, the ratio is 1:9 (Gottin­ social structure-as in Bochum and GoUin­ tent of nonreported cnme III the Federal. . gen, 1:8), judicial sanctions. An empirical i~ves~ gen-shows marked differences. The per­ Republic of Germany. Stephan's assump- tigation into store theft.], ill J. Fne­ centages of blue-collar workers, s~illed tion that the low refusal rate in the Gottin­ drieds (ed.), Participant observations of ~3Report in Ruhr-Nachricht{!/I [Ruhr News] gel! study (compared to his Stuttgart stu~y) laborers, retirees and social-security recipi­ deviallt behaviors, pp. 1~0-150 cql). October 30, 1974. ents is considerably higher in Boc.hum than may have been influenced bt the press (Ill 34See Stephan (1976). Stuttgart. c' in Gottingen; in Gottingen, th~!1umber or' Gottingen··the citizens were informed about Brugger, S. (1977) 3~See Schwind, Ahlborn, Eger et al. . 'I~' t the study) was not confirmed by the exam-' (1975:179). students, employees, an d CIVI seNan s Kriminalistisch-Kriminologisc\le Fors­ comprises a larger segment of the popUla­ pie in Bochum. Only 7.8% of those inter­ chung im BKA [Criminalistic.icrimino­ viewed had read about the study in('~he tion. The random samples reflect these dif­ c logical research in the Federal Bureau ferences accorgingly. Both cities, however, paper (although a .~otal of 9 articles .were of Investigation], German Police 9:23_' are unrepresentative with respect· to the em­ printed: in Gottingen there were 10); 24. . o ff plo~ment and educational structure in 'the 72 City studies of victimization

City studies of victimization 73 o I Studies of serious victimizations , I using police records

Federai Bureau of Criminal Investigation dagogen und Soziologen. [Basics of (ed.) (1977) Schwind, H.-D. (l977a) statistics. For psychologists, educators Dilnkelfeldforschung und Kriminalgeo­ Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 1975 [Po­ and sociologists] p. 198. Frankfurt and The victims' perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system: lice crime Statistics 1975], p. 9. graphic als Beispiele praxisorientierter Zurich. kriminalistisch-kriminologischer Fors­ A pilot study of small shopkeepers in Montreal* Wiesbaden. Merschman, W., R. Walter, and G. Heinz, W. (1975) chungsarbeit [Research into nonreport­ ;:;. Hahner (1976) ed crime and crime-geography as an MICHELINE BARIL Das system der Strafrechtspfleg-estatis­ Schichtund Geschlechterverteilung tiken. Koordinatlon als Aufgabe und example of praxis oriented criminalis .. Strafunmiindiger im Dunkelfeld [Social tic-Criminological research work], ill Problem. [The system of criminal stat­ standing and sex distribution of minors istics:Coordination as the goal and the Police Union (ed.), 15th Regular COIl­ In recent yeru-s, several studies have exam.- case the victims') as an evaluation mea- • Of partiCUlar importance is th~ matter of in the area of nonreported crimes], in gress of Police Union Delegates ill the problem], in Directorate of the German G. Nissen and F. Specht (eds.), Psy_ ined the effects of victimization on the attl- sure 'of the criminal justice agencies. validity. As remarked by Bourdleu et aJ. Statistical Association (eds.), General Rheingoldhalle, pp. 185-201. Mainz: tudes of victims tow~rd the criminal justice (1973), most people are nice enough to an­ chological health and the school, pp. Hilden. Finally, the project was seen as a means of Statistical Archives2:9-1I8 (97). system. The findings Indicate weak or non­ swer anything to any question. If the ob­ 145-159 (145). Neuwied... Darmstadt. Schwind, H.-D. (1977b) improving tactics and instruments of data Hellmer, J. (1974) Pudel, V. (1978) C:-.i existent relationships between citizens' per­ jects under study exist out of the field of Wird uns die Kriminalitat iiberrollen? collection to be used in the subsequent na­ knowledge or concern of the respondents, Kriminalgeographic und Verbrechens­ Motivanalyse des Anzeigeverhaltens sonal experience of crime and their [Will crime flood us?], in H. Petri and tional quantitative surveys:' we will still get answers-unfortunately, bekiimpfung [Crime geography and [Analysis of the motivations of non-re­ perceptions of the crimin~l, th~ law,. and crime control], The Criminologist H.-D. Schwind (eds.), Criminality to­ the various agencies deahng With cnma. chance answers, devoid of any meaning porters], in Empirische Kriminalgeo­ day-Callses and control, volume I, Method 6:99-103; 160-164 (103). graphie [Empirical Criminal Geogra­ Most of these studies deal only with atti- whatscever. For instance, people r;~ight ap~ pp. 14-38., Bochum: Association of prove of probation even when they kno~'"­ Hellmer-Schuler Jager, J. (1976) phy] by H. Schwind, W. Ahlborn, and tudes towi\rd the police (Smith and Haw- Previous surveys Die Krirninologische Regionalanalyse. Applied Psychology. nothing about probation. Most surveys'c R. Weiss. BKA Wiesbaden, 1978. Schwind, H.-D. (1977c) kins 1973 for instance), but the same Victimization SUrveys and surveys of pub- [The criminological regional analyses], conclusio~s have been reached in research b . h th A 'e . have assumed that all citizens are informed Quetelet, A. (1977) Zur Entwicklung der Tatungs-und lic opinion on crime egan WIt em, n- Publications series of the Police Acade­ Physique sociale ou Essai sur Ie deve­ concerned with the entire justice system can Crime Commission study of 1967. For and concerned, that what is of importance Raubkriminalitiit in den Vereinigten to politicians and criminologists is also rel­ my 4:63-69. loppement des facultes de l'homme (Robert and{augeron 1973). the period between 1967 and 1976, we Herold, H. (1977) Staaten [On the development of homi- evant to other people, and that everyone's [Social Form of an Essay on the De­ . cide and robbel'lj crimes in the United As surprising as this findi?g appears i? the have referenced well over 500 studies pub- 1st die Kriminalitatsentwicklung-und velopment of Human Faculties], vol­ opinion should be given the same weight. damit die Sicherheitslage-verlasslich zu States), Criminology 31:383-387. light of the thcories of attItude formahon Iished in the Western world alone on citi- • The approach has been microsociologi: ume 2 (1969), p. 251, cited in K. O. Skogan, W. G. (1975) and attitude change, it has not been chal- zen's opinions of crimes (Baril et al. . beurteilen? [Can the developm~nt of Christiansen (1977). Kriminologie cal, focused only on individual charactens­ criminality-and therefore the safety Measurement problems in official and lenged. The original objective of the pilot 1976). Yet, despite a wealth of factu~l Ill- tics exclusive of social context. (Grundlagen) I [Criminology (Basics) survey crime rates, Journal of Criminal 'siudy presented here was to ri:1examine. the formation, despite the ver; val~able Impe- situation-be correctly determined?], I] in R. Sieverts and H.-J. Schneider, "I 01232:292-301 (294). Justice 3:17-32. assumption that experience has no or httle tus given by the first studIes, httle progress (eds.) Dictionary of criminology, VG1~c Skogan, W. G. (1976) impact on victims' perceptions., has been achieved and we still lack an ex- A qualitative approach Kaiser, G. (1974) urne 2, p. 192. Berlin. The victims of crime: Some national plai'latory framework fr)r the ~ttitudes to- To such a diagnosis, there is only one se­ 1st Kriminalitiit machbar?-was wissen Rossmann, E. (1974) Althougli this is con- ward crime-related matters. PIOneers, such sUI~ey findings, in A. C. Guenther a\~tonomou§, p:oje~t quel: let's start anew. The theoretical wir Yon Umfang und struktur des ver­ Phiinomen der Massenkriminalitiit und nected with a larger undertakmg m the as Biderman, Ennis, and Reiss, opened the brechens? [Is criminality made?-What (edl), Criminal behavior and social sources, the questions asked, the unhealthy die Moglichkeiten ihrer Bekiimpfung systems, 2nd edition; pp. 131-148. criminology of social rewction. The door to a promising new field which com- do we know about the extent and struc­ [The phenomena of mass criminality state of research, the novelty of the en­ Skogan, W. G. (1977) G.R.A.C. (Groupe. d~ re~herche sur les at- mercial and political interests immediately quiry all dictated a qualitative approach. ture of crime?], Universitas 29:911- and the possibilities to control it], in titudes envers la. a appropriated to themselves. Since, it has 916. Dimensions in the dark figure in unre­ cn~mahte), resear~h_ of the usual hypothetical-deductive Police-Academy (eds.), Phenomena of Inste~d ported crime, Crime alJd Delinquency, group of the Umve~slty of.Montreal, .IS I"./~/ become convenient to administer question­ framework, I opted for a path that proceeds Kube, E. (1975) mass criminality and the possibilities pp.41-50. currently involved m a se!,les of stu~le~ 9Y naires regularly, asking always the same from observation to analysis. It had the fol­ Welche Praventiven Auswirkllllgen hat for its control, pp. 4-10. Munster. Stephan, E. (1976) public attitud~s towa:d c.nme and cnmmal questions ("Are the courts too lenient?" lowing advantages over quantitative eine durch vermehrte streifentatigkeit Schneider, H. J. (1975) policy. Its ultImate aim 1.5 to develop an etc.), com.Qiling "yes" and "no," and cross- Die Stuttgarter Opferbefragung [Ques­ surveys: erh6hte Polizeiprasenz? [Whic(}'preven- , Viktimologie. Wissenschaft VOIn Vel'­ explanato~'y model of attitudes. tabulatingfii~~llswers with a few demogra- tive effect would increased police, pa­ tioning of crime victims in Stuttgart), brec~etlsopfer [Victimology, the sci­ Federal Bureau of Investigation, re­ A mu1tist~ge research program alternating phic variables.1:he main Iim~tations of • Networks of meaning could be disclosed trol have?], Criminology 29:481-484 ence of the victims of crimes], p. 3. (481),,: search series, volume 3, p. 58. qualitative and quantitative mcihodologies much of the cri~lb-,related attItude research • Semantics and vocabulary could be Tubingen. . Wiesbaden. has been developed by the G.R.A:C. to are- ) , explored,' . Kiirzinger, J. (1977) Schwind, H.-D., Wei Ahlborn, l{,-J, Eger • New questions could be raised Weis, K.,aud R. Miller-BagehI (1971) gather data on Pllblic opinion an? more _ There is to{Iittle concern, on the part of Wie kinstant ist das Anzeigever halten et aI.. (19'75) . • The researcher's influence could be re­ P.riv8te Strafanzeigen [Privately report­ important, to explore the of researchers 'libout the building ofcumula- der Bev6lkelUng? [How constant is the DunJ:eljeldforschung in GoUingen det~nlllnants duced; and reporting behavior in the population?], ed criminal offenses), Criminological people's attitudes towards cn~e-related . tive knowl~dge. Previous approaches are 197311974 [Nonreported crime research - The limits of the responden~s: knowledge Publication series of the Police Acade­ Journal 3:185-194. matters.Oneo~ tl~e pUl1?oses IS to exa~llne too often merely copied, without any seri- in Gattingc.n 1973/1974], FederalBu~ and concern could be ascertai'~Jcj, my 2:59-69. the impact of VlctlllllzatlOn on such ath- . oUS questioning of methodology, theory, reau of Investigation Research Series, tudes; this is the first objective of the proJ- d' sef'ulness Lienert, G.A. (1962) volume 2, pp. 115-12L Wiesbaden. . d' I' an u, " As this pilot survey was. to fulfi!l sOJ?e­ Verteibmgsfreie Methoden in del' Bios~ Schwind, H .• D. (1976) ect descnbe III t liS paper. • The populations studied often exclude what the function of bramstornung, It had to have maximum flexibility. An explora­ tatistik, dargestellt on Beispielen aus Kurzer Bericht iiber Zi,c.le, Methoden, Concern with the impact of victimization target groups such as teenagers, vagrants, tory quantitative study will be developed del' psychologischen, medizinischen und Resultate del' Dunkelfeldforschung did not ~'tem only from the need fior a bet- and pr'.'soners, concen' trat'lng ~n, "Ilormal" from this pilot research, followed by an­ und biologischen Forschung. [Distribu­ in Gatiingen 1973/1974 [Short report ter un:'\~ljstanding of attitude formation, but citizens whose personal expenence of other qualitative project. It is hoped that, tion for methods in biostatistios, as ex­ on the goals, methods and. results of also frum thc belief that the consumer of a criminal reality is rather thin. by successive approximations and correc­ emplified in examples from research in the "Research into the Areas of Non~ service can provide a more valuable evalu· _ Both the themes studied and"the lan- psychoiogy, medicine and biology], Reported Crime in Gattingen .' ali on of that service than the public at, guage used Cbfrespond, more ~losely to the tions, a 1110re /!!!neral and pertinent ap­ proach can b{Jesigned. (Hain arid Meis~nheim) cited in G. 197311974" in H. Goppinger and G. --large. Thus, .li.!£,sccond objective waS t~ criminologist's preconceived Ideas thall to Clauss, and H. Ebner (1971) Grundla­ explore the/appropriateness and the feasl- the populaticlll surveyed. For instance, it Kaiser (eds.), Criminology and Pros­ I The methocll used is a mixture of partici­ gen der Statistik. Filr Psychologen, Pa- ecutiO'n, pp. 229-239. Stuttgart. ,I bility of uf/lng clients' opinions (in this was found (Robert and Faugeron J973; pant observation (the Chicago school) and 1/ Baril 1977) that words like "crime" and unstructured interviews (initiated in therapy, *Exce::ptcVfrom unpublished thesis, Uili.v~rsify "criminals" have a different meaning for by Roger~ and later adapted to sociological of Cambridge (Englund), 1978. Ms. 8artl ;s CUr- the spGcialists and the nonspecialists. enquiry by Robert and Faugeron and oth­ ~ntly lit the Univcr$ite d!l~l\~Jmtreld, Montreal.,. 1 ers). However, I have b~en gradually 74 City studies of victimizatioll 1 Quebec. t .. Studies oj se':ious victlmizatioll /Ising police records 7,';; I t

_____~ ______L-~r~~LO J ______~ ______~ __~ ______eO ,« .. =,__ l .. ,~-~----~------

In practice, the interpretation ofthe data is deri~ed; from familiarity with the material and succeSSIve approximations.

molding the techniques to suit illy beliefs radical and the most badly damaged vic­ and ethical concerns. From the tape, each interview was typed tims have not thus been excluded from the by the interviewer in its entirety (an aver­ investigation. Mr. Hawthorne, * on the other hand, is said to myself: "He's so scared, he can age of 20 pages); then r reviewed each tape quite optimistic that he wiII keep his shop Experienced victims often keep cool and Scope of the study and its transcript. Notes were kept on si­ fire." So I acted real cool and quick, composed, Some try to take control of the Almost half the respondents were operating until such time as it becomes impossible: must n~t scare him, it would be too sil­ a "depanneur" store. Other types of com­ lences, hesitations, interruptions, and situation, planning their moves, defusing Considerations of time and manageability For now, I cannot complain too much, ly. (Mr. Lobelia) merce included-lved precludes any role stabiliza­ :' with question I1,!llterial if the need for It Scenarios tion into' more civilized, more stereotyped themselves resist, always strongly adv.ise ers often sell their shops, change jobs, just enough to avoid a robber's anger. ;1 arose, a list of themes was used as an in­ patterns; the reactions remain instinctive, their employees, wives; and children to of­ move, or hide. Of the 55 persons we were Crimfl,)and daily life. The 40 retailers inter­ terview guide. Neatly all the victims have commented on primitive, impromptu. fer no resistance and hand over the money able to contact, 15 refused to participate, viewed reported a total of some 250 armed their aggressor's nervousness. immediately. some expressing disgust at criminologists The recording of interviews. All but two of robberies. The-incidents narrated were not You never know how you're going to who are part of the awful system, others the ,interviews were tape recorded. The two spaced over very many years /iince repeat­ He was a lot more frightened than I was react and you never react the same way. Refusal to comply is typical of t.l]e male being too distressed to talk about the event interviews with respondents who objected ed victimizations, fear of victimization, , r •.. Then, he started to be really fright­ It's easy to say you'll do this or that, owner, repeatedly victimi,~ed. At. the time ~\ again. We can wonder whether the most to taping were reconstructed after the inter­ bankruptcy, and physical di~ability disco~r­ ened, you know. nervous and all, and I but, on the spot, it's not the same. (Mr. of his fifth robbery, Mr. Nasturtium was view, from notes and memory. age staying in business long. The record IS SWeet pea) resolved to protect his property: *A .small comer shop selling groceries, beer, *Ml names are fictitious. (Following the'rrench held by one respondent who has been I hurled beer bottles at him; the thiefj school supplies, and household goods-open 7 ,. robbed 41 times, injure\i a few times and tradition, flower names are substituted.) [Editor] Nevertheless, along the axes of control and days a week, 12 to 15 hours a day. ~, "''''All the Interviews but one were (,;onduc\ed in authority, it is possible to qistinguish four you know, you know, I couldn't help it, flnally permanently disllbled. He is now, 1 French, In the translntirm, a lot of the color is one has to defend oneself. It's hard after 7 years, thinking of retirement! basic patterns: self-control; panic, compli­ il lost. ancy, und resistance. enough as it is to earn a living these 76 Studies of serious victimization using police records days.

8mtlies of serious victimization lIsing police records 77

>. - \ , • '« The victbns least likely to report a crime are those who are no longer insured and those who have had a previous experience with the judicial system ------~----~------~--~--~~------~,------The main reasons given for resisting are­ It can also happen that customers are As for fear- We lose money because, you know, a To understand this surprising finding-sur­ forced to empty their pockets and hand­ shoot for no reason. He is not nervous We work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, "depanneur" is supposed to be open till I! is fear that is there ... I'm afraid of prising in view of the loss incurred and and he is as bold as a bull. to make a living, we can't accept b(')ing bags. Moreover, in a few cases, the. shop­ eleven, but we can't do it anymore. (Mr. everything since. At night, I lock the their fear of crime-it is necessary to know deprived of it. ' keepers suffered material damage to their Myosotis) , door, the windows .... You know, it's how they define clime and criminals. We can now begin to measure the distance property. At the chemist's, drugs are usual­ hard to live in an unceasing fear. (Mrs. between the victim's opinion of his aggres­ If we submit, there will be no end to it. ly obtained through threat. In one case, the fear of crime had extended Perceptions of crime. The shopkeepers talk Chrysanthemum) sor and his ideas about criminals. Mr. Mi­ It would be too humiliating to submit beyond the shop: about crime without reference to their own The money or merchandise was recovered, experiences as though there was no con­ mosa expresses a common point of view and be taken advantage of. among our respondents: in part or in whole, only in 3 out of the Now, I dread everything, everything, Perceptions of aggressors, criminals. and nection between: the two. Indeed, they nev­ I'm telling you, I have become so suspi­ The criminal justice system offers no 250 robberies examined. Compensation or crime er define the aggression they suffered as a You see, the difference between our lit­ cious! I walk in the subway, go on protection; We must rely solely on restitution never occurred. However, a few r crime. Murder;, rape, bank robbery, and tle thieves and the real ones, it's first ourselves. retailers received payment from their insur­ holiday, I hold on to my purse •.. I The victims could provide only limited de­ hard drug trafflc represent the "big crime," their way of doing things and what they ance companies. This is a relatively rare think'the word "thiet" all the time. You scriptions of tile offenders. The encounters which, for them, is real crime. Sometimes, have at the back of their minds. If they In fact, those are the reasons put forth occurrence\us, first, the cost of the premi­ know, we are not rich but you know, lasted only a few minutes and the weapon pollution, corporate crime, or corruption at want $100, they will shake while steal­ when the victim resolves to resist next time we're afraid. (Mrs. Cowslip) monopolized the attention. Almost all the um is almo~t prohibitive for this type of high levels are included, but only ing from you, but when they come to and secures a weapon. At the time of the business; second, claims investigated robbers are said to have been quije young, are: As a result, the shop owners buy, at great exceptionally. $1,000, they have to be very determined attack itself. however, the main propulsive thoroughly and at great length; third, all between 16 and 25. They are also de­ cost, alann systems, police dogs, weapons, and not hesitate to kill. <:Jorces are feelings of rebellion, anger, and Montreal companies refuse shops after the scribed as well or shabbily dressed, clean They are very concerned with motives and exasperation. and various electronic se(~rity devices. third claim. The company executive and looking or unkempt, with short or long causes, as those elements act as criteria in The motives or intent of the criminal are However, these means o(protection do not hair. their definition of what is criminal. Family perceived as different from the hooligan's. Active opposition was present in more than claim agents whom we questioned con­ seem very efficient; with the possible ex­ and upbringing occupy the first place in The first acts deliberately, with premedita­ a third of the events described; a very high firmed our respondent'·§ report. As a result ception of the dogs. It was also said that it Perception of aggressors. The most impor­ of this situation, most retailers carried no their causal theories of crime but all the tion and to satisfy "unreasonable" personal rate, considerilig the risks involved. When becomes increasingly difficult to hire sales tant finding is that the aggressors are not criminological theories-psychological, needs, mostly financial needs. He is al­ fighting occurs, the possibilities of injury insura"uce against robbery or else they did staff. According, to Mr. Daffodil- pel'ceh'ed as criminals. This is sometimes increase conr>ld6tabty, as, usually, both not report the smaller losses: expr~ssed very clearly: biological, economic, etc.-are represented ready quite wealthy. The small thief, on parties are armed. Most male shopkeepers There are lots of people who don't want in the opinions expressed. The criminal the other hand, needs money to buy bread, Well, we don't report all the time, other­ to work there. These things arc known They were definitely not criminals. justice system is often mentioned among clothes, and beer. bought a firearm after one or more victim­ wise, we would not be insured. (Mr. in the profession. If there are lots {if at­ (Mrs. Peony) the causal factors: courts too lenient or too izations and, moreover, several have used Gloxinia) Finally, various circumstances change the tacks in a store, they say; "it's danger­ harsh after a first minor offense, rotten theirs subsequently or are determined to do It was a sick person maybe butn~t a seriousness of an act. To attack younger, Physical injuries have already been men­ ous, I don't want to work there." i prison system, being given the example of so in the future .. In the encounters studied, i criminal. (Mr.. Phlox) older, or poorer people, for a man to injure tioned. Six retailers were seriously Wound­ unfairness. seven persons received gunshot wounds: The fear may have a specific object: a woman, for a gang to beat a lone indi­ ed on at least one occaSion; other people I One common opinion is that those young­ one aggressor and six shopkeepers. reprisals, ~. Perceptions of criminals. There are real vidual-ali those aggravate the criminal received minor or superficial injuries. I sters were inexperienced, ridiCUlous, irre­ I; criminals ("vrais criminels") and other quality of the behavior. Finally, some of the victims who Ilurren­ These, of course, occasioned medical ex­ I was so scared that the guy might come sponsible, foolish; othenvise they would kinds of people-hooligans, thieves, defed the cash chased the thief after he or penses and loss. of earnings which I have back to settle his account. (Mrs. Iris) I not have taken a big risk f(lr little money. These findings represent a step fonvard in she left the shop. : wrongdoers. not attempted to cal::ulate. the study of social reaction. They illustrate We sold our cottage, our restaurant; we Several victims are inclined to excuse their Criminals, i.e., real criminals, arc mon- the gap between the personal experience Aftermath. In several cases, the portrait of Three victims who sustained neither injury also changed our telephone number so robbers; err61~ of youth, bad influence of . strous creatures, different from other hu­ and the stereotypes as well as between the events drawn by the respondents resemble that. he could not track us down. (Mrs. elders, testing·of manhood. or need of nor substantial property loss, suffered emo­ experts' opinions and those of ordinary a light comedy: ludicrous incidents, ineffi­ Chrysanthemum) money; man beings, easily recognizable because of tional trauma from the attack, necessitating physical and moral defects. citizens. Thus, a very small percentage of cient moves, unseemly remarks, foolish re­ hospital treatment. In some cases, assis­ actions, or, as remarked Lobelia- Although most respondents expressed f!;ar He wasn't wicked at all, that guy. It's the people defined as criminals by the pe­ Mr. tants left their jobs as they felt unable to They were youngsters who did not look n for their Hves much more than for their just a test thaI' he did. (Mr,,~weet pea) nal system and by the criminologists would like gangsters ... Sometimes,jt's A frightened kid of seventeen bursting in overcome their acute anxiety. As they have property, they showed generally a deep writ~ also be called criminals by the public. more at stake, it is less frequent ft,lr the I SUppose they had no money to cele­ ten in their face, you know. So well with a revolver to crash an empty safe. concern for their income and a feeling of owners to seek another occupation, yet the brate with. They did it only for the mon­ dressed, short hair, goodlooking young A sharp distinction is draw.", between the Thc.asual immediate. reaction experienced injustice: turnover seemed quite high. f~bur respon- • ey, they were not bad kids. (Mrs. men, not at all like criminals. (Mrs. real criminals (hardened, repUlsive, rich, by first-time victims is shock, sometimes dents were no longer operating their 1,'!1!3i­ It grieves us to be robbed of something d Anemones) Peony) inhuman, professional offenders) and all severe enough to nesessitate medical help. ness at the time of the interview. It l5an we have worked so hard for. The grocer, the other offenders, The latter are de­ Psychological explanations are also offered ,'c\:lUldn't say had the gangster he works hours to make what? $25? But the~ scribed as misbehaving human beings; 1 had a kind of stitch right here; a fit of also be assumed that a high proportion of which can be summarized by Mrs. Zinnia's style. (Mrs. Anemone) nerves. " I was very nervous, I was the 40 victims we were unable to reach had thiW do nothing and in ten seconds, they comment: however annoying their actions might be, shaking like a leaf . " my legs, they sold their shops and were elsewhere (j can make $500, just like that. (Mrs. The real criminal is usually a professional they are al,:\,ays seen as normal persons were like spaghetti and me, silly tWit, [ employed. Cowslip) They just seem to lack something. Who can be identified by certain featUres. with whom it is possible to identify. In­ deed, several respondents view those not as could not speak, I was out of breath ... When they sum up their .experiences. Ibe Victims arc not all as soft-hearted as the First of all, he chooses a lucrative target. Indirect financial losses or costs appear to Mr. Pansy remarks- "real criminals" but as scapegoats, exploit­ (Mr. Carnation) victims take a somewhat different view. oncs quoted above. A few refer to their ag­ be .associated with psychological effects ed, neglected, or unfairly treated, which is SUbsequent interpietations and feelin s arc gressors as drug addicts, overbearing Letus take a look at the losses incurred by and prevention strategies. Fear of crime, in 9 The adUlts, the tough ones, they don't very similar to the description they give of the victims interviewed. In most cases, the various degrees, is present in the daily life distributed along two di.1l1ensions:=~m6tion­ young men who laugh at their victims, and bother about stealing peanuts. recidivists. themselves as victims. onhe retailer~. Mrs. Hilium, like a few al and practical. (. cash 105s was not considerable. It varied He.is an older, middle-aged man, exper­ other women;- had a buzzer instaI!ed on her The research implications arc equally im­ from $25 to $1,800. Once a retailer has Emotionally, disgust and fear remain quite Only one person, Mrs. ImmortelJe. consid­ ienced and cool. According to Mr.. Aubrc­ portant. The data presented here cast Some been robbed, very little money is kept in door and, at night, when she is alone in some time after the incident. Disgust is ers that assailants were criminals: tia- @f doubt on the interpretations of most public the store'~o that when subsequent victim­ the store, she never opens the door to more frequent among inen whose income is Al;cording to me, they are criminals. be­ izations occur, the loss is likely to be strangers. Others have simply shortened comfortable and who did not resist: The experienced criminal. the exper­ opinion surveys on crime matters as the re­ small. their business hours. cause it was no! spontaneous, it was ienced gangster, does not shake as those sult of the gap between the researcher's vo­ You know, personally. thefts don't bOlh~ premeditated. . who come here. He moves and the re­ cabulary and the respondents'. We have been obliged to close at 10:00 er me 'that much ..• it's only the fact of volver does not ~ove. It's there. He because it was getting to be too much. hnving a weapon thrown in my fllce that won't shoot. he knows he WOUldn't

still disgusts:me. (Mr, Allyssum) ,.' 78 Stl.'dies of serious. Victimization using police records Studies of serious victimizatioll /lsi/lg police records 79 II (J cCJ)" --.::::.-:;..-.-....---

\« ., .« .. "- 1

Perceptions of the criminal justice arriving on the scene leaves a bitter taste. ciated among the various agents of the system-the police It would seem, however, that delays are man, there is nothing he can do. (Mr. of people; when it comes to the actual legal system; he i~'considered, above all, Myosotis) f find it's like a play sometimes. Every­ All the shopkeepers interviewed l!ave corne rare. as a human being:\) , thing, we are really jumpy. (Mrs. Rose) body has learned his little bit of text ... into contact with the criminal j~'~ice sys­ Only three Victims were consistently nega­ The respondents were no! only they have some kind of text; as for the Once there, policemen are in no hurry. The You know, they are called dirty dogs unfamili~ tem. The longer and the more i~ltense this tive toward police officers and police work: with the customs of the court, but they also judge, he is the prompter. When one of robber has already disappeared unless the and all /dnds of names, but myself, I experience has been, the more precise and Mr. Violet, who sees the badge as the only knew next to nothing of judicial proce­ them can't remember hi? lines, well, victims caught him themselves. So, says 0und they Were more than O.K., those developed are the opinions expressed. Mr. Phlox- 1 difference between policeman and criminal; dures. None of them were briefed; they all then the others talk for him, and, SOme­ /:,lIDen. They have been nice, polite, pleas­ Mr. Aubretia, who suspects the police of feared the consequences of their testimony: times, they get things all wrong. Once the holdup is over, the aggressor fled ant, and they looked after me. They are 1 They are not in much of a bother; they foul play, and Mrs. Wallnower, who con­ they might get into trouble with the law, or held captive, the common reflex is to real men but they are not really under­ ! Such an analogy with the theater was used comejn and they take their time. "Weil, siders them totally useless. the offender might receive a harsh sen­ call the police. I call it reflex because it well, what has happened now?" They stood. (Mr. Carnation) by six other respondents, to describe the In short, it is generally felt that the tence, or the offender might take revenge seems to be a spontaneous gesture, an smoke, they chat ... not agitated at all. pOli~e court. It was- automatic response. If it is a first holdup, They are not understood. This statement is cannot prevent crime and very seldom lbld on them: ... a show, because every thing' is decid­ the police are always called. With in­ With few exceptions, the victims consi1~r repeated by several shopkeepers who think I the offenders. But the prevailing opinion, The experience was in no way as dramatic ! ed befo~e hand. The lawyers and the creased experience, the decision is taken that they were very well treated by police­ that the public> is blindly negative toiward nevertheless, is that the police personnel us expected. Most of them spent a great after weighing the pros and cons. men who were kind and considerate. Mr. police. If we talked with them mom often, I themselves should not be blamed for this judges have decided every thing before I deal of time in the courthouse, but their they enter the courtroom. Wc have so Carnation told us- said Mr. Dahlia, we would feel a gteat ! situation. They are the only agents of the testimony, if required at all, was very Reasons for not reporting crimes have been deal more secure. Mrs. Peony confessed to I system who showed SOme consideration for much the feeling of attending a show. They started to ask me questions, but brief. The first image evoked by the court analyzed in a great number of reports on a change of opinion after her conta,cts with the victim, and they are the only ones who Let me tell you, the lawyers and the very slowly; because they could see I i was that of It big waste of time and money. victimization surveys. While they are simi­ the police; she went on: t tried to comfort them or at least listen to judge are very good actors; they do it lar to those given by the retailers studied Wll$ in a nervous state; they have been I them. They ask us to come'ilt 8:30 in the really well. (e.g., is not worth it, nothing can be done, very nice. The policemen: too much is asked of morning. Why? I.still don't know why The suspected existence of intrigue, secret the police would not want to be bothered, them, I think; and they are too 'Often I think that the police are the last ones to On the other hand, Mr. Violet claims that i since they only arrive at 9: 15, 9:30. agreements, decisions taken in advance, fear of reprisal, ... ), they might fiiII to ex­ criticized by people who know nothing I blame in this mess. They work for us in he was handled roughly when carried to about them, Some told about waiting aIJday only to etc., renders the participation of the wit­ press accurately the respondents' opinion. the hospital by the policemen. fact; I think they are the. only ones who I have any Sense in the system. (Mr. learn that the case was adjourned. Usually, ness meaningless. The witness haf. no say In the present data, all these reasons were Police work. Despite their sympalihy for f Kindly or not, there is work to be done, Carnation) they were not given any reason and con­ in the charge brought against the defen­ given but they could be summarized thus: '. the men who work in the police force, the .1 reports to be completed, and questions to cluded- dant. While the word "plea bargaining" is the inconveniences would be greater than victims are under no illusion aboiJt the effi­ What is the impact of the victimization on be asked. While most victims saw the po­ unknown, its existen~!e has been discovered the advantages. ciency of police work. Citizens and their the attit.\.ides toward the police? No pre­ They couldn't care less about us. lice work as comforting, Mrs. Periwinkle during the long wait~hn the courthouse. As properties are not protected and criminals vious has been able to answer that The insured who planned to file a claim saw it as a violation of her horne and an re~ciarch Frequent requests to appeal', useless wait­ have been the most common defense tac­ are not caught. However, the police are not called· the police to comply with the insur­ excessive parade of authority. question satisfactorily, due to, among either ing, summary dismissals, uncompensated tics- ance company's requirements. Other rea­ to be blamed; they do what they:can, but- things, technical faults and the omission of At the beginning of the investigations, all \ the time factor in the research design. That loss of earnings, all make plain this lack of Well, the lawyer, when he feelslhat the sons for calling were physical injuries and They cannot be everywhere at the same the victims cooperated willingly, if not is the case for this study too. In the ab­ consideration. The show seems to be run judge is too harsh, he says to the guy: a need to tell somebody. When the thief time. (Mr. Dahlia) by and for the agents of the system: ' 'don't show up, we'll get a postpone- was chased and caught, the police were gratefully, and the level of satisfaction was I sence of a satisfactory measure of attitudes asked to corne take charge of him. Women high. Thereafter, things deteriorated pro­ The job is ~ifficult and dangerous; it is prior to the criminal event, changes in atti­ So, at one point, the judge feels that he ment, you Won't have the wrong judge'. were more likely to call the police than gressively. Detectives came and asked the seen as normal and matter of fact that the tude cannot be ascertained. However, the is hungry. So he says !o everyone that (Mr. Alyssum) men. same questions allover again. The victim policemen are afraid for their liVes. present study has turned up some clues: not it's postponed for 2 hours. He goes and When perceived as a show, the trial was asked either to look at pQotographs at only were the shopkeepers/victims very ap­ It is as though a shared experience had I has lunch for 2 hours, so we go to lunch arouses contempt or encourages disengage­ The victims least likely to report the crime the police station or to particip'ate in an preciative of the police, but they were forged further bonds between police and I too; and then we have to wander about' ment. Seen as a web of intrigue, it gives are those who are no longer insured and identification parade. Both were dis­ more so than a similar sample interviewed ta~~s vh:tirns. The latter experience a :reeling of because 2 hours for lunch, it's very rise to a pervading suspicion, a vague who have had a previous experience with tressing and time-consuming.' The victim the preceding year who had never been helplessness, a feeling which they readily long. (Mrs. Rose) awar-::ness of traps and tricks everywhere: the judicial system. They would agree with cannot or does not want to make positive I victimized. Two respondents explicitly said attribute to the police officers too, whom These agents are either unconscious of the "There is something behind that," or as Mr. Nasturtium that it was just a waste of identification. The first case is easy to un­ they had a better opinion of the police as a they see as outmanned and outgunned by f inconveniences suffered by the witnesses or Mr. Hybrid puts it- time. derstand: the aggressor was seen very result of their experience. This question . both the criminals and the courts: inconsideratelr c~eate them them~elves: A You have to be very, very careful. It's It was found that crime reporting was not briefly and while under stress. In the sec­ needs further and more rigorous study. further hardship IS the c~nfron.tatlOn With,,>, really tricky when YOLl are not educated .. related to the attitudes toward the police, ond case, the reasons given were fear of It's not their fault. As far as they are reprisal or pity for the robber. concerned, they do their job, they collect I the aggIJ.!~or ~ho s~metlmes!~ seated ~' 'f :ou don't know the law, you better sit but it was influenced by previous court The court the evidence, they arrest the guy; but ?lose.t7the!. Itness I~ the wRltmg room o~ JtIght because if you do some.thing,.if experience. Perceptions of tile police. When the vic­ J When they arrive in Court, the laWYers Eighteen out of the 40 retailers interviewed m.the!c\ourt2om. ThiS waS vaguely per- . you open your mouth, you:U get it. tims used the word "police," they referred celved\las VI.- ng and generated some stress . • :1; As far as the police are concerned, the were never summoned to the court asa re~ and even the judges prevent them from and dis\9;hfort. Thc same feeling was Mr. IS not, wrong. ,Would appear opinivns were rather positive. It might be to the Montreal police force or to the po­ suIt of the robbery. To those who received f~J} Hybfl~ ~t doing their job. (Mr. Pansy) at the stand, as Mr. Phlox.-s"ysc::.. , t?C witnesses unease IS due largely to useful to make a distinction between the lice officers or t(,l police work. them. the subpOena came as a $urprise, \~~ess t1lR~ In fact, the police officer is seen as a pup­ , :="" -~-,~==' their Ignorance of th(i proccdure. Even respondents' views as victims and their None of the shopkeepers interviewed usually unwelcome. The victim had not re­ views as citizens. pet, manipulated by the other agents of the You step mto the box: and then you ,after one or several court experiences, they seemed satisfied with the recent integration alized that a call to the police was equiv­ have your guy there, I~ front of you, talk of a trial when they obviously mean a system, and as a clown laughed at by the alent to filing a complaint; further, as Mr. 11 of police forces within the territory of criminals. and. you have to expl~m ,Your whore· preliminary hearing; they are totally un- Satisfaction with police interven(tm: Greater Montreal. They expressed nostalgia Hybrid says, if the subpoena c6mes, "there busmess. That, I dpn t like. The guy aware of the rule of evidence let IUone for the good old police officer on the beat, Policemen are not to be blamed. They is nothing you can do about it. '" looks as to say; 'just you wait until I get their rights and duties. The ignorance that Within a minute and a half, t!\ere were they felt poorly protected because of what have to get the gangsters"And then, Satisfactioll with the court experience. The out." sunounds them so fully would, most like­ 15 police cars in front of the iJoor. (Mr. they perceived as an insufficient number of they are criticized because they act Hybrid) U call to appear in front of a court of justice Instead of the expected quest for the truth, ly, reinforce the existing mistrust. This police personnel, and they were confllsed rough. And the day after, they see the as II witness is disturbing: the tdal turns out to be't;lintcst.between could also ac£ount for the impreSSionistic Swiftness, siren, and display very favor­ by the hierarchy ~nd division of authority. gangsters on the street, right away they .'. two lawyers, in the presence of a deistical­ reports given of their court experience. Un­ We are nervous enough to start with, for ably impress the victims While a delay in were freed, and get laughed at to their /"'. However, 1:)$ an individual, the police offi­ ly unobtrusive judge. like the detailed und ordered descriptions faces. It happens often. For the police- we are not used to that setting, that sort cer is clearly the most resp\'!cted and appre- of the criminal events and police interven-

80 Studies of serious victimization using police records

Studies of serio liS victimization !Ising pollee recim/s 81 1.'

tion, the narration of the court happenings meaned by it, discounted, alienated. They A judge must be fair, unbiased, say the re­ is disjoin(ed, jerky, fragmentary. say things that they have not said or had no role in nor control of the justice spondents, and although most are well in­ sponsibility seems to be elsewhere, in There is no protection against crime system. seen or whatever. The victims feel like a pawn in the system. tentioned, the task is hopeless: some oppressive powers, of which only Robberies are unpredictable. They happen While listening to them and reading the in­ futensely frightening though it might be, This waS the one theme in the study where money was identified. He can't be impartial. He is only a man. at any time, alld all the preventive mea­ terviews, this impression emerges over and the robbery seldom left permanent scars on complete consensus could be observed in Either he likes the guy or he doesn't, One variable Was found to be unambi­ sures the shopkeepers can afford offer little over. .In cou.rt, they declare, the citizen is' its victims; on the other hand, while much the opinions expressed. (Mr. Lobelia) guously discriminant: the extent of the protection, if any. More intensive patrol- '. denied the right of free expression .. The less dramatic,the court experience had court experience. Secondly, sex and educa­ ling by the police would be helpful, the re­ witness cannot state his or her case unless long lasting effects. Only recent victims They also think that the judge cannot be as Justice, the state, and the law: tion, when tested statistically, are likely to spondents say, but studies in that area are invited to do so. Some interviewees re­ seemed deeply affected by the criminal just for the poor as he is for the rich. He } marked that this was also the case for the I prove significant. Educate~ respondents, inconclusive. event while time has no apparent effect on must take sides and the rich win. Justice, which justict;:? u(iually the most critical, expressed only defendant who, having an "interpreter," the perceptions of the court. In other stud­ I The event itself represents a dramatic illus­ Only one victim-witness was hostile to the As 1 see it, there is no justice. moderate dissatisfactions. It could be that cannot utter a word. I tration of loss of power in its most basic ies of the impact of the court on victiins judges, to the point of wishing harm to being more informed about the workings of (only victims of rape have been studied in I think that the justide, the way it's ad­ element, survival. In the situation studied If allowed to speak, their speech is guided, them ,or their families. In summary then, the jUdicial system and having more mas­ that respect), the experience has been de­ I ininistered, it's an inhuman justice. here, the inability to control the situation reinterpreted, translated. As a representa­ the judge is perceived as a distant, rather tery of the language, they were not so scribed asa second victimization, "often as was due mostly to the inexperience of both tive of the common opinion, one may colorless; unobtrusive person, and the sub­ It's a big machine. r have a feeling that crushed and overpowered by the court quote Mr. Hybrid: ' parties involved and the presence of a fire­ traumatic as the event ~f the crime itself' ject of only mild criticism. if you put your hand in it, that will be situation. (Burgess and Holstrom 1974). Perhaps I arm. The male victims who did not resist it. They tried to make me say the opposite most significant is the siinilarity found be­ Lawyers. In contrast to judges, everyone Suggestions for change am scarce. It is felt they had lost face, which is apparently of what I wanted to say, they wanted me suggested that, short of a revolution, tween the victims' im1,lges of the judicial had something to say about lawyers. Con­ t,~. Justic;e, in reality, is not equal for shameful as shown by their eagerness to ei­ to contradict myself. But I was waiting system and the defendants'. Reporting on a cerning the defense lawyers, the opinions everybody. change is unlikely; there are just too many ther excuse themselves or to find some for them and they were not going to get qualitative study of offenders' perceptions are plentiful and varied while prosecutors interests involved. The solutions favored trivial triumph: Justice, so what? Just trying to patch up me like that ... You're supposed to say of crime and justice, Robert and Laffargue are virtually ignored. I by most shopkeeper!' are avoidance and/or things so that people won't grumble too I fooled them . " because underneath what they want you to say, they put the (I977) reached conclusions very similar to resignation. The word "lawyer" invariably suggests much. It's nothing. Nothing makes sense the till, below, I have another small box words in your mouth, sort of. those just expressed here. money to our respondents. The entire dis­ I in it. It's disgusting. Well, if tlmt's what and when 1 have no time, I put money Perhaps the most disquieting finding was A voidance is the answer. In the future, we course of the respondents revolves around justice is all about, I'd rather not thi~ Summary ,there. They didn't ask, they didn't wait that, in Mr. Pansy's words- will keep away from the justice, say the the theme of money. Lawyers are expen­ about it all. A stl/dy of victimization to ask if I had more money ... I was sive, corrupt, and dishonest moneymakers shaking, I was very nervous but I It turns out that it's us who are on trial. victim-witnesses or, as Mrs. Peony put,s it Comment is needless. There is only one more directIy- who provide impunity to the rich .and bring In the process of collecting and analyzing laughed, laughed, when I thought how Tried, or convicted, as an uncooperative discordant voice in tllese variations on the the material, various interpretations sue- trouble to the poor. And this is why justice ! theme of ho justice: stupid they had been, these guys. Suck­ witness and scolded like a child- I hope they won't be caught soJ don't is so unjust; it is seen as proportionate to , ceeded one another depending on the ex­ ers, that's what they are. (Mr. have to go to the court again. . , I jus't could not say exactly how much the amount of money invested in it. Guilt On the whole, the justice is not so bad, I tent to which the datl).iwas mastered and, Carnation) or innocence are irrelevant; only wealth I think. also, on the emotions aroused. The lirst in­ there was in the cash. The judge wasn't At that point, the least of their concerns is Robbery (as indecd any violent victimiza­ matters. The cleverer a lawyer is, the high­ terviews provoked indignation. Later on we very happy with that and he reprimanded having the robbers sentenced. They have I In their elaborations on justice, the respon­ tion perhaps, since the same has been said er his price. Defended,.by a good lawyer, grew wear/of persecuted people obsessed me. It's almost to the point that, we get lost all interest and only Want to go back to dents did not refer specifically to thdr own of rape) is not only humiliating but it is any offender can be acquitted. Of course, by various fears and riddled with problems. robbed and then it's us who get accused their daily routine. Few respondents dis­ I case. They were expressing their views of also felt to be a violation of privacy. This an impecunious defendant can avail himself It seems that underdogs have Sl:ch an effect afterwards. (Mrs. WallflOWer) cussed spontaneously .the outcome of the a social situation or structure. Justice is de­ fact is i11llstl'ated by the reactions of shop­ of state-provided counsel, but public law­ )! on all people, laymen and researchers trial. Upon being questioned, some ex­ , nied to the poor, the powerless, whoever owners compared to the employees and the Branded as perjurer, because of a lapse of pressed satisfaction that the sentence was yers are perceived as inexperienced, in­ alike; we tend automatically to look the memory- they ate: . \1 respondents who lived on the premises competent, and uncaring. other way, to flinch, to flee, and this could inild or severe; others were dissatisfied for compared to those who did nOt. This no­ the same reasons; but most of them had not As for justice, it's very sad because well be one of the reasons why victims are an individual like ule does not write ev­ The picture is bleak, yet no condemnation tion of infringement on a person's privacy been informed of the fate of their those people probably havc" no money so neglected (Ryan 1972). In any case, at erything down in a little notebook. And nor hostility is expressed. The most radical· or personal territory is perhaps a major de­ aggressors. anq so they won't be able to defend that moment, it seemed to us that the inter­ they will say I committed perjury. criticism was voiced by Mr. Hybrid, who terminant of the impact of victimization. themselves as other people, viewees were unduly concerne~ with mate­ Or, through some twist or trick, accused of Experience is closely associated with the considers that society would benefit from rial considerations and that their discontent the very offense itself- direction, intensity, and vividness of the their disappearance. Otherwise, the person­ Why is it so? From this point on, their dis­ was incommensurate with the loss suffered. Victims have no part in the criminal opinions expressed. The victims who had ality and. conduct of the lawyers are accept­ course becomes vague, ,general, sometimes As the work went on, the impact of the and judicial proceedings It was lucky I had a witness ... They not been required to testify in court are less ed as normal features of their profession. If incoherent. i'here must be a reason but the did not have much to convict us with victimization became increasingly clear negative in their evaluations than the wit­ miscarriages of justice are to be avoided­ machinery of justice is so intricate they While the State intervention raised more The real, everyday workings of justice and since our fingerprints were not on the i-J 1) nesses; they are al.so less specific and per- adesirl!ble objective, even gUilty defen­ cannot make head or tail of it, Instead of and more questions. its concrete impact have hardly ever been gUll. Not ours, only his, so they could , sonal in their comments. In fact, they said dants must be accorded the right to legal blaming particular people or groups, they examined. The courts remain the unknown not make anything out of that. little, and that, usually, only when asked counsel. There lies the sourte,olcorruption will accuse impersOMI entities such as the Highly visible and Illuch talked about, the quantity. While police and prisons have The victims who were called to testify all precise questions. and falsehOOd. The defense lawyer is com­ law, the system, or "the government." It financial loss is the only item that is some­ been over-researched (relatively), the pelled by the demands of his profession 10 has been hinted that the justice system acts times acknowledged by governments and courts of criminal justice are left un­ experien<:~ a sense of degradation through The victims interviewed are rather Judges. act wrongly. in collusion with the: government, but the cOUrts. Although it had tremendous impor.f' touched. It is as though this long and cru­ unspoken accusation or open ridicule. tolerant toward the judge who, not unS\lr­ ,. Those impressions are generated in the details of this "dirty" association remain tance in some cases, it did not appear to ~ cial stage in the lives of the people it prisingly, is often denied the prestige chm­ Taking the best lawyers in Montreal, cross-examination and intensified by legal mysterious. the most important loss usually. The psy- touches were neutral; the underlying as­ mensurate with his rank and salary. He they are not honest; it's impossi12Je for ignorance, verbal inadequacy, and the ab­ , chological and social losses produced deep­ sumption beirig that courts can do no harm. was not a highly conspicuous person in them to be honeS'/j They're people who In summary, little respl!ct and much dis­ ~I sence of counsel for witnesses. er and longer-lasting effects on most of the court and the witness felt that he had the operate by seizing on the other lawyer's tmst have been express\~d toward the legal victims interviewed. We observed a loss of My personal observations, * those of Gir­ On the whole, the victims show little re­ easy job of handing out sentences. On the m.istakes or the individual's slips. So institutions, The reSpondents were reluctant self-esteem, confidence, trust, and power. oux and Huot (1978), and the remarks of spect for the justice administered by the other hand, the victims who had no court they take away all the innocence of the !J or unable to apportion the blame to specific Helplessness is revealed time and again in the shopkeeper victims, lead to the same courts. It is a joke, a show, a ridiculous , experience were impressed by the great re­ irldividual and that's the way that they'll'· persons, groups, or professions. Lawyers, the e~pressions used to describe feelings or I *Y15t unpublished systemn(icobservations carried waste of time and money. They felt de- sponsibilities attached to the function of a twist everything around and make people through their actions, and judges, because reactIons and in the facts narrated. This out in Montreal's Puluis de Justice, between judge. of their passivity, contribute to the injustice state of powerlessness is probably the most of the system. However, the bulk of the re- 1975 and 1978, including every stage of crimi­ forceful and striking finding of the study. nul proceedings. 112 Studies of serious victimization us!Jng police records SWdies of serious victimization /Ising police records 83

). \« .. ,« .. ._---' ------' --._------~- " «,I

1 I} j

conclusion: the citizen is completely ex­ They are not told of the outcome of the ~lu~ed from the process of administering References Justice. ~ase eit~et-even if they have participated Cherry, R. R. (1890) Hawkins, R. O. (1973) Nenner, H. (1977) In the tnal. The respondents were quite re­ Amir, M. (1971) I Lectures 011 the grolVth of criminal law See Smith, P. E., and R. 0 .. Hawkins By colour of law. Chicago: University of As far as the victim is concerned, the .citi­ sentful of this lack of information fot two Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago: Uni­ I i1/ ancient communities. London: Wil­ (1973). Chicago Press. zen's duty is to report the crime. Personal main reasons. First, to be left in the dark versity of Chicago Press. liam Clower and Sons. Hobhouse, L. T. (1975) Normandeau, A. (1968) " i~surance and state-sponsored compensa­ se~ms to increase their anxiety. Generally, Baril, M.; et al. (1976) Cockburn, J. S., ed. (1977) "Law and justice" (first published in Trends and patterns in crimes of rob­ tion schemes require ~ victimization to be the authorities' silence is interpreted as Les attitudes envers lacNminalite: ReVile Crime in England-1550-1800. London: 1906), ill Hudson, J., andB. Galaway, bery. (Ph.D. dissertation). Philadelphia: reported. Hospital attendants recommend it inconsiderateness: de lifferature. [Altitudes toward crime: A Methuen and Co. eds, Considering the victim- Readings University of Pennsylvania. review of the literature] G. R. A. C. strongly; not infrequently they will take it We go there all the time, we waste an Conklin, J. E. (1975) in restitution alld v/,;.(im compensation, Pollock, F., and F. W. Maitland (1898) Rapport No. I. Montreal: Centre Interna. upon themselves to notify the authorities, awful lot of time to help them, and they The impact of crime. New York: Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas. The history of English law'. 2nd ed. as will friends, families, and passers-by; . tional de Criminologie Comparee. Ma~ml3.lan. . Holstrom, L. L. (1974) Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Universi­ don't even bother to tell uS how it turned Baril, M. (1977) , and somehow, in the socialization of the out. The least they could do is tell us. DrapkIn"; 1., and E. VIano eds. (1975) See Burgess, A. W., and L .. L. Hol­ ty Press. Quebecois, the idea has crept in that a re­ (Mrs. Cyclamen) . . L'image de la violence au Quebec [The Victimology: A new focus. Lexington, strom (1974). Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1967) sponsible citizen, victim of a criine, can image of violence in Quebec) G. R. A. Mass.: Lexington Books. Holstrom, L. L. (1975) "Public perceptions and recollections protect potential victims by reporting the Notice the expression "to help them." C. Rapport No.4: Montreal: Centre In­ Edelhertz, H., and G. Geis (1974) See Burgess, A. W., and L. L. Hol­ about crime, law enforcemen~, and Ii event to the police. Social pressures are ternational de Criminologie Comparee. Publip compensatioll to victims of crime. strom (1975). criminal justice," in Studies in crime and rather strong. . Fa~ed with adjournments, delays, resche­ Bellamy, J. (1973) dulIngs, anddiscourtesjes, the victim New York: Praeger. Hudson, J., and B. GaJaway (1975) law enforcement in major metropolitan Crime and police order ill England in the Ellenberger, H. (1954) COllsiderillg the victim-Readings ill res­ areas, vol. I., section l).. Washington: <;>nce the is made known to the po­ comes to the realization that he or she ~ri~le later middle ages. London: Routledge Relations psycllologiques entre Ie crimi­ titutiol/ and victim compensattoll. U.S. Government Printing Office. lIce, the VIctim becomes a complainant, means nothing to the legal agents and that and Kegan Paul. nal et la victime [Psychological relation­ Springfield, III.: Charles C. lihomas. Robert, P., and C. Faugeron (1973) whether the change of role was desired or they are totally unconcerned about the vic­ Bickman, L. (1976) tim's lot. They might have added that the ships between the criminal and the Huot, L. (1978) "L'image de la justice dans la societe" not. He or she remains but briefly a com­ "Bystander intervention in a crime" in system does not serve the citizenry but victim], in Revue Illtematiollale de Cri­ See Giroux, J., and L. Huot (1978). [The image of justice in society], in Re­ ~Iainant, enough time to set things in mo­ E. C. Viano, ed., Victims alld i.l!lly itself or, as Cannavale and Falcon ~'ociety, minologie et de Police Techlliqut! 8: 103- Johnson, J. H., et al. (1973) vue de Droit Penal et de Criminologie, tIon; from then on, the victim will be a .pp. 144-157. Wa~hington: Visage Press. witness. As the offense has now become (1976) express it- 121. The recidivist victim: A descriptive April, pp. 665-719. Siderman, A. D., et al. (.1967) Ennis, P. H. (1967) study ill Criminal Justice MO/lographs, Robert, P., and B. Laffargue (1977) public, it is no longer deemed to be an of­ The nature of the court system is to fa­ Report O~l a pilot study ill the District of fense against the victim. Thl'Jugh some Criminal victimization ill the United vol. IV., no. I, Huntsville, Texas: Sam L'image de lajustice criminelle dans Itt vor "insider interests" over "outsider in­ Columbia on victimization and attitudes I States: A report of a natiollal survey. Houston State University Press. societe [The image of criminal justice in mysterious alchemy, it is ttli State that has 1 ~erests." Thus, the majority of" toward law en!orcemellI. President's l President's Commission on Law En­ Laffargue. B. (1977) society], Paris: S. E. P. C" b~e~ injured and bleeds. Consequently,' the Inconveniences affect. witnesses but not Commission on Law Enforcement and VIctim cannot desist or withdraw charges. forcement and the Administration of Jus­ See ,Robert, P., and B. Laffargue Ryan, W. (1971)/ judges" prosecutors, etc. 0 the Administration of Justice! Field Sur­ tice: Field Surveys II. Washington: U.S. (1977). Blamillg the victim. New Yor'i: The victim's only power was to set the veys I. Washington: U.S. Government \I wheels turning. Powerlessness comes from or results in be­ Government Printing Office. Lerner, M. (1970) Pantheon. \\ Printing Office. 1 Falcon, W. D. (1976) "The desire for justice and reactions to Quinney, R. (1972) ':, ing denil.~d "Ie droit de parole," the right to Borges, S. S. (1976) 1 Offenders were apprehended in less than a stale on!~'s case in one's own words.' This See Cannavale, F. J., and W. D.Falcon victim," in J. Macaulay and L. "Who is the victim?" CriminoJogy third of the events reported in the inter­ See.Wei5, K., and S. S. Borges (1976). (1976). '.. Berkowitz, eds., A/(ruism and helping 10:314-323. is refused to every iay citizen involved in Bourdleu, P., et. al. (1973) views. * They were then arraigned in court coUrt proceedings, defendants as well as Fattah, E. A. (1967) behavior, p. 205. Schafer, S. (1970) and evidence was heard to determine if Le Metier de Sociologue [The Sociolo- "Towards a criminological classification Lerner, M. (1975) COII/pensatioll alld restitution to victims witnesses, and, When the occasional leave gists]. Paris: Mouton. . sufficient grounds existed to remand them to speak: is ~ranled, more often than not of victims," Illtematiollal Police Review "The justice motive in socinl behavior," of crime. 2nd ed. Monclair, New Jersey: for trial. It is likely that some suspects Bowring, J., ed. (1843) words are cfianged and me~niJl.&s distorted. 209: 162-169. ill Joumal of Social Issues, 31(3):1-202. Patterson Smith. pleaded guilty to the charge of armed rob­ The works of Jeremy BellIham, vol. I. Faugeron, C. (1973) Maitland, F. W. (1898) Schafer, S. (1977) bery or to lesser ChiU'~~s negotiated be­ !?aving lost all cont~ol of the ~dministra­ Edinburgh: Tait. See Robert, P., and C. Faugeron(1973). See Pollock, F., and F. W. Maitland Victimology: The victim and his crimi­ tween the defense and the prosecution and honof justice, the citizen has become a Brillon, Y., et al. (1976) Fisher, S. Z. (1975) (1898). nal. Reston, Virgina: Reston Publishing that some cases might have been dismissed mere pretext of its operations. The victims Les attitudes ellvers la criminalite: Prob­ . , "The victim's role in criminal prosecu· Mendelsohn, B. (1976) Co., Inc. for lack of evidence. " in particular: have been allocated the un- ' lematique et methodologie. G.R.A.C. tions in Ethiopia." in 1. Drapkin, and E. "Victimology and contemporary soci­ Smith, P. E., and R. O. Hawkins (1973) distinguisheo role of many witnesses for Rapport No.2. Montreal: Centre Inter­ During all these initial stages.of the court's Viano, eds., Victimology: A new focus, ety's trends," ill E. Viano, ed., Victims "Victimization, types of citizen-police ~e prosecution; their participation in judi­ national de Criminologie Comparee. pp. 73-93. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington and society, pp. 7-27. Washington: Vis­ contacts, and attitudes toward the po­ d~al.ings with the robbery defendants, the CIal procedures being dependent on their BrownlJliller, S. (1975) , VIctIms are unaware that their aggressor Books. age Press. lice," Law and Society Review 8(1):135- capacity to bring about the conviction of an Against 0111' will: Men. women, and Fry, M. (1957) Mendelsohn, B. (1956) 152. ~as been apprehended and brought to jus­ alleged offender. The victim has become rape. New York: Simon and Schuster. "Justice for victims," itl The Observer, "Une nouvelle branche de la science bio­ Sumner, C. (1976) tIce. They are notified. only when .the case Burgess, A. W., and L. L. Holstrom an instru.ment in the hands of a pervertedly July 7, London. psycho"sociale: la victimologie" [A new "Marxism and deviancy," in P. Wilson, proceeds further and their testimony is self-servIng, self-perpell\ating System. (1974) needed; the subpoena then informs iliem Galaway, B. (1975) branch of bio-psycho-social science: Vic­ ed., Crime alld delinquellcy in Britain, Rape: VIctims o/crises. Bowie, Mary­ See Hudson, and B. Galaway (1975). timology], Revue Intemationale de Cri­ vol. 2: The new criminololJies. London: iliat SUspects in one of the robberies they I~ the .Canaclian legal $ystem, and most land; Robert J. Brady. . J., likely In the legal system of all societies Geis, G. (In4) minologie et de Police Techllique 10:95- Martin Robertson. sUf!e~ have been found and. arraigned. " Burgess, A. W., .and I~. L. Holstrom 111S Edelhertz. H., and G. Geis (1974). 109. Teeters, N. K. (1949) :r • mIght happen several months after the where equivalent social and economic con­ (1975) !j See InCIdent, when they had thought the case ditions prevail, the victim$ are accorded no" Giroux, J' and L. Huot (1978) Miers, D. (1978) Deliberations of the International Penal "Rape: The victim and the criminal jus­ I had been filed and forgotten. ~t~tus and no prerogatives. The right of the Le citoyen devant les tribunaux [The Responses to victimization. Arlington, and Penitentiary COllgresses. Philadel­ Injured party to participate in the criminal ti:e system," in I. Drapkin, and E. citizen and the court]. G. R. A. C. Rap­ Virginia: Professional Books. phia, Penn.: Temple University 1! their testimony is not needed, the vic­ VIano, eds .. Victimology: A newfiocus Moscovici, S. (1961) BglJkstore. process and to sec redress within it is not Le ·· -~ • port NQI. 6. Montreal: Centre Internation­ tims are not notified ofcourt sessions. The acknowledged. xmgton, Mass.: LexmgtOl1-R~oks. al de Criminologie Comparee. La psychanalyse, son image et son pub­ Tobias, 1. J. (1967) legal agencies see no need to inform them Cannavale, F. J., and W. D. Falcol1 eds. lic. Etude sur la representation sociale de Crime and industrial society in the nine­ (1976) , ' Given, J,; B. (1977) or to have them observe the proceedings. Society and homicide ill thirteelllh cell­ In psychanalyse. (Psychoanalysis, its im­ teenth centllry. Penguin. Witness coopera.tion. Lexington, Mass.: wry EIIgfand. SJlfnford, Ca!.: Stanford age and its public: A study of the social *This percentage is an estimate derived from Lexington Books. .'. data that is not always clear or complete. University Press. representation of psychoanalysis]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

sA- Studies of serious victimization using police records

,~ Studies of seriolls victimization usillg po/lte records 85 IJ

'= \ .L __ ( ' ____ ]< ______Z:=- ,_ I ::::o:: .... ,""";~~ :.1. i~ "~ i \ I ~n! i t~ ; " r

(l Ii "

'-,\ o

o

I"

.0 '" ,J, '~, ' t (, Q o ))

o

o '" J~ .... '.

\~

o

.',

'i) \, ,

.... D , j) o ..

. \ « () I i Psychological effects and behavioral changes ! in the case of victims of serious crimes ------~v~------.,.~----~------~~------~~~·~.------.'. (] 1, U. S. A. 1967. D GERARD J. A. SMALE* Crime and its impact-An asseSsment. President's ComrrUssion on Law En­ forcement and AdrrUnistration of Justice. f Task Force Report. Washington: U.S. l? 1 IntrQduction. I considered to be one involving damages the most serious response category (very Government Printing Office. amounting toat least $250. The victims Vhino,E. (1975) , I The data presented here are derived from often, often; very strongly, strongly; very j an extensive investigation carried out in were all male and were more than 20 years See Drapkin, I., and E. Viano (1975). long, long); more than 52% of the victims ! Amsterdam in 1975 among'~ictims of seri­ of age. They were all Dutch nationals and selected the most serious category at least Viano, E., ed. (1976) , . .! j 1 ous crimes of violence and serious crimes were living in Amsterdam or its immediate once. Victims and society. Washirgton: Visage r.? against property. Ii surroundings When the crime was Press. committed. ,,' As mentioned earlier, we also wanted 'to von Hentig, H. (1948) The aim of the investigation was to gain examine the differential effects of the type The criminal and his victim. New Ha­ insight into the physical, financial, psycho­ The m~terial was COllected by means of in­ of crime and the employment status of the ven, Conn.: Yale University Press. 'I logical, and social consequences of victi'm­ tervie\V's. In. vIew of the often .long periods victim. Violent crirtles appear to cause , Weis; ~., and S. S:l Borges (1976) ization andJo study the victim's attitudes necessary for recuperation' and settlement more frequent and also more intense psy_ "Rape as a crime' without victims or of­ o toward the offender and experiences with of damages, the victims were"interviewed chologicalproblems than property crimes fenders? A methodological critique," In Ie persons and institutions concerned with on an average of 2 years after the crime. (tested according to the Mann-Whitney E. Viano, ed., Victims and society,pp. maintaining law and order, c.ompensation method); Violent-crime victims exhibit 230-254. Washington: Visage Press. of damages, and aid. Results ~ greater fright; 85% o(yiolent-crime victims ~'blfgang, M. E. (1958) I show this effect to a greater or lesser de­ Onlypart of the total investigation will be The psychological effects Patterns in criminal homicide,. Philadel­ gree as opposed to 79% of property-crime phia: University of Philadelphia Press. presented here: that part concerned with the The questionnaire consisted of 20qUt!st.i.ons victims. The crime occupies their minds Wolfgang, tt E. (1962) psychological effects of crime and the be­ about the impact of the crime. FOr each longer (58%' against 44%). They have "Victim-precipitated crirrUmll homicide;" '.' havioral changes which these crimes entail. question it was possible to indicate how of- more sleep difficlllties (36% against 23%). in Wolfgang, M. E., and N. Johnston, The paper briefly describes the framework , ten and how long certain effects hadmani- They have these problems for a longer pe- eds" The sociology of crime and deli- of the.study, the results of the investiga­ fested themselves or what the intensity of riod of time (among those with problems, tion, and, .finally, the outline of atheoreti­ !.;. guency, New York: John Wiley, pp. the effect was. For most of the questions, an .average of 11 months for the vi'Olent~ 388-396.' cal model into"whiCh the data can be there was a choice offour possible levels crime victims against 8 months for proper- classified and accgrding to Which they will .. of answers (e.g., very often,regularly, ty-crime victims). They have u%ed be included .in a general theory, . sometimes, never; very intense, intense, tranquilizers (barbiturates) more often (21 % little, none). The questions and responseso against 6%) and they used them for a long- o Framework of th~ Investigation are listed in Table 10-1. For the frequen~ erperiod of time (among the users, an G' cies in this table,we have combined the.' average of 10 months against 9 months). Four groups of victims were selected for various groups into one, Later, thesewiIl c' After ,the crime, violent-crime victims feel the investigation; tM groups were chosen I. be analyze,~ separately to examine to what' afraid plore often (38% against 22%). They based pn the type .of crime and the employ­ extent the type of crime and the victim's have more fear of acts of revenge by the . I ment status of the victim. There were two employment statils (and.a few other cllarac- offender (32% against 14%). They feel less groups of violent-crime victims:gne con­ teristics) have influenced the.nature andlI'le safe in the streets (32% against 10%), and 1 sisting of 56 .persons from the. lower soCial i) magnitude of the psychological effects. they feel more alone in absorbing the I classes andcone consisting of 50 persons , crime's conSequences (?4% against 13%), { from the h,Jgher social classes,. There were A number of observations pal!., be made on also two groups of property-crime victims: the basis of this table. First, it appears that In contrast to this, property-crime victims if one of 96 persons from the lower classes two types of P~~chological effects are pre­ appear to be more afraid of recurrence of i) and one o~ 15Tpersons fr'Om the higher sent for almost~'l thevictiins: fright (Q. I, the crime; 73% of them exhibit this effect . classes. Unskilled and skilled labor Wi:!re Table 10-1) and fear of recurrence (Q.9). to a greatp.r or lesser degree while for vio­ defined as lower Social class and all other For a quarter to a half of all the victims, lent-crime victims the percentage is 51 %. occupations as higher social class, the follOWing types ofeffects occurred:. the Property-crime victims more often think need to air feelings (Q. 17), distrust of oth­ that they themselves are. to a certain extent These groups were formeci on the basis of ers (Q. 15 and. Q. lI),sense ofsharingre­ to blame for the crime (33% against 18%) data from the Amsterdam City Police. The sponsibility (Q. 19 and Q. 18), and fear and, finally, they more .often think that the victims selected had reported a, serious vio­ (Q. 7 and Q. 8). All other effects appear crime could have been prevented if they ... lent crime or a serious property. crime in " .. only for less than a quarter of the victims. had acted differently themselves. (37% , the period between January 1972. andJuly Q Although infrequent, however, a number of against 23%). As far as the other psycho­ 1974, A serious violent crime was.defined fairly serious effects areevictent; e.g., logical effects mentioned in Table 10-1 are as one inVolving stab wounds or shot I} sleep diffiCUlties and a feeIingof inSecurity concerned, there are no significant differ­ wounds, 9Pts in the face, fractures, concus* even at home. ences between the two type~, of crime. ~\ sion of the brain. injury to the teeth, eyes, or ears, etc.; such cases usually involved High percentagesiri the c.olumn "nonel In cQntrast to the type or crime, the em-" /1 medical treatment and entailed absence < never" might give the impreSSion that for ploymenttstatus of the victim'shows hardly 1) rromwork; A seiiousproperty crime was quite a large number of victims there were any connection with the nature and the (y .' .. I! II ,. no psychologjcal effects at all. This wO\lld magnitUde of the psychological effects. q. *Gefll\"d Smale died ill the time between comple­ only be the' case iUhe !'none" <;olumn for Only lout of 20 comparisons yields asig­ 0. tion of this research and itspublicnlioh. Ques.~, each question represented. the same per­ nificant resulk, therefore, no conclusions tions about the. study should be adQressed to R; () sons~ ThiO is not the case. Individual anal- . can .be drawn.' Jongman at the Institute fot Crimino!Qgy, Uni. ysisshows tllat not. a single victim was ·free <;) versity of Groningen, The NetherlnndS. .' from psychological damage. Each person '" 86 Studies ofse~ious victimization using p()lic~' recorc/s responded at least once in the serious or

·0 () t) .. , Studies of §erious victimization using police records 87 ------:---~------~-~-~-----~,-~-.~-- () \,: -...~" <. ()

tl j' 0==7/ c·

Factor------~~~------~~~------analysis: Psychological effects 10-1. Psychological effects of serious crimes crimes, as the. total damagel\nd the part of Besides relating the nature and the magni­ Magnitude (frequency/intensity/duration) it to be borne by the victim is greater, fear 10-2. Result of a factor.analysl~ of the various psychologfcal eff~cts (product:ii\oment tude orthe. psychological damage to the of recurrence or revenge is greater. Fear is correlations ~Ith a polling of four groups, principal components and varimax rotation) type of crime and the victim's employment Very oftenl Often/. Sometimes! also greatc\' if the Victim loses property to status, we were also interested inexamin- , very Intense/ intensel clittle/ NOne/ which she or he is particularly attached and F~ctor ing the relationship of psychological dam­ very long long . short never if it is the first victimization experienced . Psychological effect II III IV V age to other characteristics. If we were to Nature of the Effect percent percent percent perceht Number" Factor 1//: The feeling of insecurity is do this for every type of damage separately Duration of medicine use (question 6) -841 1. Were you very frightened when greater for violent-crime victims than prop­ 72 -157 -194 53 the result wOuld be unreadable, we there­ Periods of sleep difficulties (3) 815 347 7r;, 131 -6 the crime took place or when you erty~crime victims. Here too, for violence I fore used a factor analysis to reduce the Total duration of sleep difficulties (4) "realized .It had taken place? 33.1 24.6 23.0 19.3 357 victims, there arena characteristics that are -786 -331 ,,---jr'" 41 -101 86 differertt types of damage to a smaller 2. Do you still. often think of what Use of medicines (5) 799 -56 165 209 -53 happened to you then? 6.1 related to the magnitude of feeling. For number of homogeneous subtypes. The re­ 13.9 33.0 52.0 358 Feellng~of loneliness (16) 595 161 294 209 3. Did the crime ever cause ~eriods property-crime victims, the feeling of inse­ 17 sult of this compilation is presentedi~ Ta- Fe~lIhg~l)f fear (7) 193 840 252 of sleep difficulties? . 4.6 u 6.7 12.4 76.0 356 curity is greater if the victim Is insured and 173 -69 ble 10-2. ,- " feelings of fear (8) 4. For how long did you have these is satisfied with the. compensation received. Int~n~~~of jf -134 -839 -280 -176 23 sleep difficulties? 7.4 8.3 7.7 76.6 co 351 of fright (1) 467 As the table shows,'flve factors were ex- 5. Did you take opiates or This rather surprising finding perhaps Rea~~~s -77 226 -1 Fear of going out into the streets (12) j tractedfrom the data. This number was ob- tranquilizers as a result of the crime? should be interpreted as suggesting that '!:, 81 800 337 5 10.7 90.3 336 Not feeling safe in the streets (13) tained after examining various rotations. - 6. For how long did you take opiates many victims were insured because they 206 -9 713 486 -28 Not feeling safe at home (14) . f hre " I' Id d . or tranquilizers? 3.3 3.3 3.9 89.6 335 felt less safe even before the incident. The 307c 232 664 -53 58 Rotation a .t e lactors a so Yle e a re- 7. Did you ever have feelings of fear Fear of revenge (10) suIt that could be interpreted quite easily. as a result of wnat happened to you? crime only adds to their feelings of . -52 445 547 28 1 5.0 5.0 16.4 73.5 359 Wariness of strangers (15) In.this rotation, however, factors II, III, 8. Will you please indicate the insecurity: 103 79 209 698 32 and IV coincided. These three factors indi- intensity of the fear at such Less t~st In people (11) 268 138 37 630 110 · I moments? . . 3.6 19.5 Factor IV: This factor does not reveal any Fear of recurrence (9) 9 283 106 549 -228 cate a certain fear a f unexpecte d, unp eas- 9. Are you afraid that something like ~ 2.5 74.4 359 diffeI'ence between violent-crime victims Feelings of guilt (18) -32 ant events. A five-factor model was chosen that will happen to you again? -21 -99 81 827 10.1 \\ 17.6 ".\~d-r i} 357 , Feelings of coresponsibillty (19) since it makes' a more detailed description 10. Were you ever afraid that the and property-crime victims. However, oth­ -30 -53 -34 201 769 i er features do indicate a difference. Vio­ Regret at having reported the crime 50 of the psychological effects possible. This offender might take revenge? 3.7 3.7 11.9 80.7 353 \ 59 166 -175 497 11. Do you, as a result'i>f what lence victims exfnbit greater distrust of Need to talk 206 307 is because the general fear of the unexpect- happened to you, trust people less? 1, 117 472 145 8.1 10.9 12.6 68,3 357 I others if the total damage or the part of it Preoccupatlgn with the crime (2) 394 253 71 400 132 ed is then divided into three independent 12. Do you, since the crime. go out I orthogonal dimensions. into the streets just as easily as you to be borne by them is greater, they are dissatisfied with compensation received, Explained variance per factor: did before? II '.. . 2.2 3.4 5.6 88.8 357 17.3% 12.1% 11.5% 11.1% 8.5% Factor I .can be.·described by the,term "psy- 13. Did you then feel less safe in the ! they have been victim to such a crime of­ Total explained variance 60.4 percent chosomaticdamage." The genera} fear streets than before the crime? 2.8 6.7 7.0 83.4 356 ten before, and they d6 not know the of­ Note: Underscored numbers represent primary variables loading on each factor. questions. load velY high in factor II. From, 14. Did you feel as comfortable fender personally·. For property-crime . alone at homeafterihe crime? 2 .. 0-' 3.7 the answers to an open-ended question in- 15. Were you. after the crime, more 3.7 3.7 90.7' I victims, the distrust is greater if the dam­ cluded to clarify the meaning of fear, it ap- on your guard .in your dealings with age the victims have tobear is greater, if cord, and the mest and punishment of th~ whether during the first 6 months after the offender. peared that'the victims mainly feared strangers? . I ' 6.1 19.8 14.0 60.1 358 they are dissatisfied with the compensation crime, the victim had taken these measures recurrence of the crime and acts of re- 16. Did you feel that you had to more often, as often, or less often, than absorb .what happened to you all payments, if they are not insured,. if they venge. Although the two direct questions alone? have been victim to such a crime often be­ before. Table 10-3 presents the behavioral 3.4 5.. 3 7.3 84.0 356 Behavioral changes relating to these types of fear disappear 17. Did you often feel IQ,e need to fore, and if the offender is personally changes investigated and the magnitude of try into factors ill and IV, they also load on talk about the crime witli btners? 6.7 13.7 32.5 47.1 357 known. In general , people tend to avoid or to the reported changes. For each measure, factor II. We therefore feel that this factor 18. Did you ever have the feeling o prevent unpleasant experiences. This ten­ the tal:ile presents the percentage of those . '" that you yourself were somewhat to (factor IT), can best be descnbed as fear , blame for what happened to yOU? Factor V: Here, too, there is no difference dency becomes even stronger after unpleas­ who teported that they always took the 3.4 5.6 19;4 7'1:5 355 , ! of recurrence and revenge." Factor IIIre-' 19; Do you think that the. crime between the two types of crime. Features ant events take place. Victims ofcrime, measure before the crime imd the percent­ fers to "feelings of insecurity." Factor IV \

Studies of serious victimization /Ising police records 89 " often, or les's'" often") were combined in or- der to deternline the post-crime frequency 10-4. Results of a factor-analysis of the preventive measures of the measure. (The frequency mentioned (product-moment correlations with a pooling of four groups, in the first question was increased or de­ prinCipal and varlmax-rotatlon) creased one c;.ttegory or stayed the same depending on whether the answer to the Measure Factor second question was "more o::en," "less II III often," or '~ust as often .") Taking extra measures against burglary during holidays (8) . 0 An individual analysis, carried oUt on this MIl 33 -56 Checking doors and windows at night (5) .21Q 104 constructed scale, shows that after the Installing an extra safety device on the door 84 crime almost all victims are classified in for the night (1) ill the "always" category for at teast one of Leaving a light on (6) , 0 80 lQ.Q 75 125 the:: measures; they form 92.5% of the total Stowing away money and valuables safely (9) 185 AvoidIng certain places (10) MZ 289 sample. Ninety-seven percent were classi­ -117 ill -24 Avoiding certain areas or streets (14) 134 fied ill least once .as "always" or "often." UsIng the car or public transport 1U 9 Therefore, only a very small number of for safety's sake (11) . 49 Using caution in cloakroom or changing-room (12) m 307 victims do not indicate some form of pre­ 225 ~ -46 ventive behavior. Checking the ,bedroom to make sure there is no one there (4) -49 Consciously taking something along 52 m for protection (13) ,. Factor analysis: 5 44 Q1Q Looking first before opening the door (2) 358 Preventive behavior Not letlinR, strangers In (7) 111 ~ 265 -42 Not carrying more money than strictly .1ru2 . To be able to describe in an orderly man­ necessary (3) 288 259 )) ner which characteristics are related to pre­ 220 e ventive behavior, We have used factor Explained variance per factor: 16.2 12.6 Total explained variance 40.3 percent 11.5 analysis to reduce the 14 measures to a percent percent percent smaller number of homogeneous sub­ , groups. The results of this

o .. " .....

~>'> Victimization surveys and public policy ,/::",/ II manner, the world would become impossi­ feelings of guilt': The relationship to the of­ '. bly complex, chaotic, and completely un­ they are concerned with the integrity of the fender was important for suspicion of system of institutionalized trust. Precisely Victim-oriented social indicators, knowledge to reduce crime predictable. Social life would be strangers and feelings of guilt. completely impossible. Behavioral rules, at this point institutions such as the police, and its effects, and improved use of victimization techniqu,~~s norms, .reduce this complexity. Norms ex­ From our theoretical point of view, the na­ courts, and insurance and social work \1 clude certain alternatives and make others ture and number of psychological conse­ agencies furnish a very modest contribution IRVIN WALLER* very possible. Norms allow for trust that a quences of crime are the result of the to the restructuring of communal perspec­ particular course of eventswilJ occur. The victim's position within the system of insti­ tives. Frequently, they stop too soon. Po­ context of that trust is therefore solidified tutionalized trust and fronl the perspective lice and courts work from a control perspective in social relations; they fullfil Introduction through norms. These norms, those which from which he or she orders that position. become a simple well known index or set have left us with anxieties-the knee-jerk no restorative function in instances of of indices to balance the UCR index or actually function, are expressed in organi­ Confronted with a crime, the community is Apparently, property and violent crime in concern with burglars and ,"obbers-but it crime. opinion polls. Further, it is not used to zational structures, police, courts, insur­ suddenly, for the victim, no longer asys­ countries such as the United States and does not focus our attention on crime hold public and political interest on crime ance, social agencies, and so forth; said in Above all, the work of judicial and Canada has risen dramatically in the past prevention or victim assistance. Before tem of institutionalized trust as previou~ly styl~ and justice problems. So, ways must be another way, trust is institutiona1ized. believed. In other words, his or her per­ other institutions is bureaucratically anony­ 20 years, more than doubling on a per examining the need and use of a victim­ capita basis. Rape victims, battered wives, found to highlight trends in the essential Every interpretation, dependent on tlJe so­ spective has lost its self-interpretability-:' mous, case oriented, and routine. Special­ oriented social indicator, we look first at and abused children have brought political elements of victimization, such as financial cial position in which a person is placed, Emotional reactions result. In eXtreme ization leads, therefore, to putting the the role of social indicators in general. attention to the plight of the "forgotten" losses, physical injuries, emotional trauma, institutionalizes trust in its own way. For cases, rape, burglary of old ~0p1l!, there is victim into a box. The result is a discre­ victim of crimes of all sorts. 'the numbers and fear. These must be highlighted to example, people for whom the use of force a destruction of existential belief. Psycho­ pancy between the way in which someone of persons employed by criminal justice contrast 'With indicators in other areas of Role of social indicators in conflict situations is not wholly unusual somatic reaction, fear, loss of trust, and defines his or her own victimization and agencies, such as policing and prisons, social policy. (in certain informal groups and in certain feelings of danger and guilt are often con­ the way that institutions define it. In other Lineberry (1977:116) states that social have doubled per capita. doubts occupations) should less quickly interpret $equences. In situations similar to the words, there is a discrepancy between the Serious Second, the technique has been used both indicators for policy purposes- have been 'raised by systematic rcsearch violent crime as a violation of trust; from crime, the victim tries to restructure his or victim's own rationality and the rationality effectively and ineffectively to provide Allow comparisons over an extended their perspective it is appropriate. They her perspective to take into account the of the institutional system. about the ability of increases in personnel information on how to solve problems of for the police and corrections-doing the period and ... pern1it one to grasp long­ should also be less quick to define them­ possibility that another crime might be suf­ victimization. The ineffective applications The conflict between the victim's own per- same as before-to reduce the rise in term trends as well as unusually sharp selves as victims of violence than people fered. This translates into preventive be­ arise from researchers using social --'spective and the institutional definition of ,-fluctuations..., crime. Not surprisingly, the public in these indicator data, where separate instruments, whose salient norms include opposition to havior. The type of precautions depends on victims can also result .in emotional and violence. the person's position and readjusted countries has become significantly more ill surveys, and processes would be more Thus, they enable policymakers to identify psychological reactions. There is displeas­ perspective. at ease with present crime and justice effective to build a much needed "performance gaps," where social action is ure over the institution's lack of concern. In general, the norm forbidding violence is policies (SoliCitor General of Canada knowledge base. Essentially, the technique needed. They consist of- Older people more than younger people ap­ There is irritation over lack:Of personal 1979). given more weight than the norm forbid­ would be used to understal1.d why certain ding property crimes. We found that the pear to stay at home to protect their prop­ thought and interest. The victim is angered Trend data showing changes in some During these same 20 years, millions of situations are more likely to lead to crime, psychological damage to victims of violent erty. Victims of assault by unknown over the formal and ritualistic a'pproach, normatively relevant aspect of social dollars have been spent in several countries losses, or emotional crises, why some crime was generally greater than that for offenders take more preventive precautions and disappointed in the time allocated for life. If one values safe housing, lower on a victimization research technique citizens fcel more afraid and less at ease, victims of property crime: communal trust than those who were attacked by someone his or her problem. The victim feels left crime rates, and equality for blacks and conceived in the 1960's in the USA. and how police and the courts meet the was interpreted as being more damaged by they knew. Thus, we observe more preven­ out in the cold. Thus, after being a victim whites, one will be greatly pleased, Statisticians and researchers have made needs of citizens. violent crime. After the type of norm vio­ tive behavior among people who were of crime, one is next a victim of the ways chagrined, and modestly optimistic as a substantial progress in validating sampling lated, the seriousness of the incident was more strongly dependent on the system of in which various institutional regulations The chapter is organized around these two result of changes in the social indicators techniques, controlling methodological also important. More psychologicill conse­ community trust. define victimization. There is no doubt purposes. In the first section, we clarify" set out below for the USA: about the victim's view of what he or she problems, and assessing the usc of the role of a social indicator, examine the quences were related to greater injury and The direction of precautions is aimed at the Housing, 1940-70 Percent in substandard has experienced. There is a double victim­ telephone interviews. Yet, surprisingly need for a victim-oriented indicator, and greater financial loss. subsystem of institutionalized trust which units declined from 49% (1940) to 7.4% ization and a double undermining of trust. little of this overall effort has influenced outline the changes that could be made in was damaged: victims of property crime try (1970). From the perspective of the victim, this the way communities or countries deal with instruments such as those used in the U.S. to forestall new thefts; victims of violence This double problem is still more valid for normative elel1)ent by definition cannot be crime and justice. National Crime Survey. This section Public safety, 1960-72 Violent crime per try to protect themselves. groups which can do nothing to successful­ separated from his or her position in the finishes with a review of the action that capita doubled.• ly oversee the functioning of community This chapter argues that this victimization system of institutionalized trust. In general, Finally, we observe that victims will take governments should take to make the social institutions such as police, courts, insur­ research technique has tremendous income, 1947-7i Blackproportion of positions and perspectives must be recon­ precautions in proportion to the strength of indicator an essential part of the social ance companies, and social agencies. For potential-largely untapped-for informing white income up from .51 (1947) to .63 ciled with each other. Working class peo­ the shock to their trust, in proportion to the fabric. these victims, the institutions lack both and reforming policies relating to crime, its (1971). ple, with lower incomes, are financially psychological consequences they exper­ adequate knowlel:fge and skill. Many of the effects, nod justice. To realise this In the second section", the use of (Lineberry, 1977: 1(7) more vulnerable and therefore more depen­ ienced, and, thus, in proportion to the level dent on the system of trust than people actions of these institutions are insufficient potentiill, some more work and thinking is victimization techniq~\s to improve the of adustment they must make to their com­ required, but above all better use must be Social indicators have most effect in the with higher incomes. Old people with un­ munal perspective. given the high level of physical injury and delivery of program~~ discussed under the economic area (Biderman 1966). The insured valuable possessions are more de­ property loss suffered by the victims. The made of our present knowledge to improve four headings of pre enting crime; the content and use of victimization development and appreciation of survey pendent. People living alone cannot count A contribution can be made to the rebuild­ victims feel shortchanged. assistin!?,~police and :Jburts to meet public techniques enabled the development of '. ~ ing of the destroyed balance-to the re­ I studies. needs, ~eviating,,~iifrm from crime, and on the help and support of others. General­ A special social agency is needed for vic­ indices for consumer prices and structuring of perspective through adjudica­ reducing ~ ., Iy, in financial matters, acquaintances are tims; its function would be the replenishing Essentially, victimization research unemployment. These, together with the tion of the offender and repair of the dam­ given more trust than strangers. Thus some and restoration of the victims' perspective. techniques have been used for two separate foreign exchange rate and the Dow-Jones, age. Indeed, the victim can stilI be less people have a more dependent position in Such an institution can supply missing .1 purposes. First, the victimization survey Victimization surveys to provide have focused considerable attention in the trusting but can have the security that inci­ the system of institutionalized trust than knowledge and skills and, most important, has been Q,cveloped as a social indicator of victim-oriented social indicators ongoing political process to improve the dents can be anticipated before they begin II others. In general, violation of trust results bring together the compartmentalized defi­ the numbd· of crimes and the effects of for public policy state of the nation; that is, to control and injurious consequences avoided. . "!O in greater psychological damage to persons nitions held by other institutions into a crime. Unfortunately, it has not y"i"" inflation, reduce unemployment, or Social indicators such as those on in some social positions than in others. For Victims tum to the police for the following common definition, and with that, functio~ improve the buying power of the'dollar. unemployment, conSUmer prices, or the example, the victim's living arrangement reasons: They want material damage re­ tb reunite the community and the . *This paper was prepared in part While the Their role as a guideline is first of all to stock exchange are so much part of our life plays a role in psychosomatic problems and paired, they want psychological help, or individual. author was Director General, Researeh and remind politicians of the importance of that Statistics, Sqlicitor General of Cannun. Professor that we do not realize how they focus our particular goal and, secondly, to prOVide a Waller is now a member of the Department of attention on the abilities of governments to measure of the extent of the Success of Criminology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, create employment, control inflation, or policies or programs in meeting that goal. 92 Studies of serious victimization USing police records Canada. have a buoyant economy. The U~R may

Victimization surveys alld public policy 93 _____1~ .. _

Some commentators argue that the cn'minaljustice code is not concerned with protection from harm but with reinforcing basic values which it defines in a negative way. 4

improve the ability of the techniques to The Unifornl Crime Index has to some been careful to circumscribe their These results have made politicians including the offender himself, from measure accurately and reliably the nature inclusion in future national surveys. extent peqomed a similar function, as consider much more conservative crime objectives, it is easy to assume that the have the indices of prison use and public seriously hamful and dangerous conduct" and extent of crime as well as its direct Finally, the instrumentation must be policies. Even when Canada abolished 2 measures used by NCS of financial loss, opinion. As Clarance Kelley (FBI 1976) (OUimet 1969:21). Second, it is a moral and indirect costS. These have been developed specifically as a social indicator. capital punishment, the polls appear to hospitalization, and areas avoided are the I ~-;I said in the foreword to the Unifom Crime system that serv\!s to affim fundamental followed by national surveys undertaken have been the major justification for the key indicators of the direct costs of crime. \ \ Reports: values (Law Refornl Commis~ion 1976: 16- from 1974 onward. minimum sentence of 25 years, which was Indeed, for insurance companies and Some considerations in deveio';) .')g 17). Third, it protects the right to a feeling Victimization indicators Whatever are the uses or whoever are introduced as the alternative. The counts provided by the NCS as well as medical aid programs, who exclude of "domestic tranquility." to influence policy the users of criminal justice data, the the data basel;! made available arc already emotional disorders from their coverage, Many other indicators could, potentially, One could' expect citizens to agree on the having a prof6und effect on "experts" Uilifom Crime Reports provide the only playa crucial role in criminal justice. One they may be. However, for victims, the For a statistical measure to become an comprehensive, periodic accounting importance of freedom from avoidable views of crime, victim trauma, public fear, feelings of the violations of lhemselves(1 effective social indicator a strategy is the ratio of expenditures per offender, harm and assistance in recovering when and the use by the public of police available of reported and discovered per year in prisons to that in the their home, or their property go beyond involving several identifiable considerations crime. Accordingly, they can serve that harm occurs. There are marlY different services. Generally, they suggest that much loss of money and injury. Further, for is required. community, showing a 10 to I differential types of avoidable ham. For the purposes crime is minor in its financial constructively to organize public opinion (Solicitor General of Canada 1979). Linked police agencies concerned with victim ~~. h th t b' . th t th consequences and that compensation to '. '.. I' / 'er aps e mos 0 VIOUS IS a e against lawlessness and marshal our of discussion of crime, there are hams that rea~tlOn to cnme, ,or courts, or ,or ( ,~'Indicator must be made available on a to this has been the so-called "unit cost" are intentional and those that are victims of crimes of violence is affordable legislators, these measures overlook one 01' • resources to combat crime. and staff-inmate ratios, showing in the unintentional. Most acts defined as crimes (Garofalo and Sutton 1977). They provide, tl Ie mos t cruCIa. I d'ImenSlOns- . th a t 0 f regular• baSIS such .as annually. It must also In the crime area, it is the police who have Canadian federal system an average I tr ft'·· W'tl t d' . be rehable and vahd. These arc necessary, in the criminal codes. i:!vc!ve ham , directly from victims, national data on how a~ma Iz.a Ion or cnsls. . I lOU. .Iscussmg but not sufficient conditions. been most successful, using the Unifom expenditure of $28,000 per inmate per committed t9anothe.,Lpe(son or thhlr " many index crimes (other than homicide) their feelings of unhappmess, victims who \\ Crime Indexes of property and violent year, and approximately one employee to I property intentionaliy:-Of ~oui-se, tilac iq: ! occurred, and have fimly established for are traumatized by the event can be the The strategy 'used by those responsible for crime to create public anxiety and focus one prisoner (Solicitor General of Canada many intentional harms, from lying to the USA, that upwards of half of all index 1979). More recently, indicators of the most aCJive writers of letters to the press or the police statistics provides some lessons attention on the need for action in relation pollution, that are not defined in legislation crimes knoWn to victims are not reported to legislators, the most disillusioned with on how to do it. First, the indicator must to crime problems (Biderman 1966; Weis number of police and private security 1 with a penalty of imprisonment, nor in to the police and so could not be counted police services, and generally the most be made pUblic. It must be made available 1974 ). guards per 100,000 have drawn attention to criminal codes. There arc also some strict in the UCR. Further, they give estimates of the dramatic growth in expenditures on dissatisfied with criminal justice programs. aggressively to key policymakers and liability offenses in criminal codes and I~ financial costs, extent and nature of Press reports, in which burglary opinion leaders. Second, it must be Another social indicator used in the "protection." Curiously, the average prison other statutes which may not involve either , injuries and estimate fcar, for example, by criminal justice system is that of the unit cost and the police salary have grown victimization surveys arc quoted as communicated in a way to catch the average number of persons incarcerated on intention or ham. measuring the extent to which persons do showing serious events to be rart:, tend to interest of these individuals. For instance, (,';,~ approximately the same absolute levels not go out it night. All this information is a given day per 100,000 population from ncar $10,000 in 1968 to the mid­ Some commentators argue that the criminal I generate vitriolic leiters to the editor from the "time clock" is a way of bringing home known by the age, marital status, income, (Waller 1974). This statistic focused $20,000 in 1980. code is not concerned with protection from I those who have been traumatized by such frequency of events to citizens. Thus, considerable political debate in Canada, and race of the respondent, These measures events in the past. That is not to say that special efforts must be made not only to harm but with reinforcing basic values are limited to cases for which there is a when it was believed falsely that Canada which it defines in a negative way; that is, all victims are traumatized or indeed that develop an appropriate indicator but decide had one of the highest incarceration rates Victim-Qriented indicators victim, either a person or a company who all Jraumatized victims suffer equally. Nor how this will be communicated. i! defines acts that should not be done and, iii ,1lware of those harms. sh6t\ld public policy be determined in the world; it is now accepted that the in so doing, it implies what should be If we review the present indicators in uniquely by such reactions. The indicator must be available on both a Canadian rate is at a similar level to that of done. Its role in clarifying basic values is These measures omit some of the most criminal justice, we see that they have national and local level so that citizens can Australia and England and Wales, although crucial to the discussion of victimization I important elements of crime. They could Even though much crime is minor, the reinforced the traditional orientation of identify with the infomation. Further, nearly four times that of Holland and surveys as social indicators. be compared with the impact of traffic discussion above has shown some crime to criminal justice toward crime and the local managers of crime prevention, victim " substantially less than half that of the offender. None of these indicators focus on accidents, accidental fires, or accidents in be more traumatic to its victims than the United States (Waller .1974). This debate the home. But such an indicator would be financial loss or physical injuries alone service, or law enforcement agencies can harm done by crime, or the way it !\ improving victimization surveys appears to be heating up in the United misleading. Crime for a victim is not would indicate. However, these costs of .then be held accountable at least in part for threatens the right of the individual to as social indicators action relating to the indicator. States. For instance, Rector (1980) either "life, liberty, security of person and I simply an accident. The essence of its crime may be small compared to the effect suggests that the USA is hypocritical; it the enjoyment of property" (Canadian Bill A social indicator must be simple and " impact is the apparent intentionality and of widespread" fear ()f crime, which may be The effective usc of a valid indicator can criticizes other countries for lack of respect of Rights) or "domestic tranquility" (USA). comprehensible to be successful in violation of moral values involved. It more of a social problem than crime itself. result in the identification of a national for it1dividual freedom and human rights, Over the last two decades, there has been a focusing political attention on a problem. appears that the victim is outraged more Anxiety about crime is the converse of goal and the focusing of substantial yet it is a world leader in the use of growing realization that not only the The UCR index, the prison use index, and because another person decided to commit domestic tranquility. As citizens, we not resources from several different levels of iniprisonment, with a rate more than offenders and criminal justice agents, but the opinion polls arc all simple and the act, which was wrong. These three only want to be free from attack and government and the private sector on the dou~le that of any other western "victims have rights too" (New York City comprehensible. Although its validation elements are measurable. The victim can helped if such an attack occurs but to have target problem. Of course, to achieve the ,industrialized democracy. B1;'eed (1980) Police Department 1978). Partly as a result may require indepth interviews in person, provide information on emotional impact a general feeling of security or freedom goal one needs to have reliable knowledge quotes this rate as higher than Russia and of the feminist militancy in the 1970's, the indicator itself may consist of one or by giving details of anger, hysteria, and from anxiety a,bout attack. It is difficult to about what works to achieve what South Africa, if one omits political victim advocate groups have appeared to two questions, which can be asked in ~ other symptoms we will discuss below. measure such feelings, but central to policy objective. prisoners. (See also A.I.C.J. 1980.) fight for these rights in the caSe of rape, telephone interview. Thus a victim survey The victim can also indicate the degree of that we have Un indicator of this most The third social indicator that has battered women, and abused children. designed as a social indicator might be intentionality and Violation of moral insidious impact of crime. values. Victimization surveys to provide influenced public policy in criminal justice Authors (Skogan 1977; Waller 1978) cheaper than one designed for other purposes. In summary, the technique of obtaining knowledge to reduce crime is the opinion poll. Directing questions to suggest that the lack of attention to victim While the managers of the United States data on systematic samples of the public and its effects the retention of capitalcpunishment and traumatization is one of the principal Since the pioneer work in the' 1960's by NCS (National Crime Surveys) and SUrveys about crime provides the basis for a social It is time to turn to the treatment of the severity of court sentences, the pollsters causes of fear about crime and anger with Ennis, Biderman, Reiss, and others in the in other countries, modeled on those. have indicator of the harm done by crime. In its disease. The social indicator is like the haveprovide,p a simple statistic suggesting present criminal justice policies~ In short, USA, the criminal victimization survey has present form, it can focus attention on the thermometer or pulse rate that indicates a that a majority of the public wants to retain there are pragmatic reasons for developing been used in several industrialized 20ther major Ilims cstimtding the ;ev­ reduction of this harm and assess the in~~ problem. Using victimization surveys to capital punishment and to see the courts a good victim-oriented social indicator. countries and developed in more effective II, cJ of nQnreportin~i crime to the police and (b) Success of programs in achieving that' " provide knowledge is like systematic give more severe sentences (Fattah 1979). There are also more fundlll11ental values at ways (see Sparks 1977:3; Waller 1978:8. comparing p~? recorded (very different from objective. However, it would be Iimited to research into cancer or heart disease. stake, of which this shift iii pragmatic reported-se~ for instllnce Sparks 1977) crime financial loss and physical injUry. 22). The best known examples, which stay with NC1Ytstimllied crime. The aims of the ITo avoid repetitive use of "et al." and for rea­ concerns is just a symptom. In criminal close to the methods of the pioneers, j)l'e Therefore, there is a need to develop sons of space, references are cited by the first study dId not include estimating the amount of justice, there appear to be three major probably the NCS (National Crime crime reported to. but not necessarily recorded meaSUres of emotional impact, offender author only. \ goals. First, it is concerned with Surveys) in the USA, where sophisticated I by. the police. intentionality, moral wrong, and fear for "protecting all members of society methodological tests Were undertaken to I, 94 Victimization surveys and public policy :'1' Victimization surveys and public policy 95

. = \ " ' . ,)

Ii Compared to the mammoth sums devoted • Orient the police and /;he courts to meet to the NCS,3 the investment in explanatory crime," "family violence," "'sex crime," Or The planning of an interview schedule in­ the needs of the public, ,by considering not "residential crime.,,6 This literature pro­ call the R~:lI:c'(lfs6c;!ity feels that crime research on criminal justice and victim volves tradeoffs between the numbel's of pose in sentencing the typical burglary only reasons for reporti~ig, but also explain vides a "conceptualization" as to why a v.:iIl be(6etter repres?ed\\nd. soci.ally criti­ issues has been miniscule. As victimization types of crime to be studied, the detail of offender; 28% saw retribution as the main why the public calls on1criminal justice person gets victimized. CIzed o\~denounced If all'cnme IS reported, purpose. Further, respondents were likely indicators increase the public attention on agencies . environmental factors measured. and the how can victims be encouraged to report? the problems of victims, we .canexpect targets of the. study. The survey of "crime" to want severe sentences when they wor­ • Alleviate the harm fT'om crime, by en­ Although there are some specific behavior­ Equity in the criminal justice process is an­ ried about their own victimir-ation, when some changes. Criminal victimization larging the concept of;':impact from only fi­ al questions in the NCS, which might be !mplicitly opts for information that will be other issue affected by the public's deci­ studies4 have a potential (that remains useful to explain all crimes. As a result, it they were not covered by insurance, when nancial loss and phys(bal injury to include useful in explanations of robbery, burglary, sion to invoke or not the criminal justice the case invo\;';..d an older person (age 30 largely untapped) for informing those who a better understanding both of how the and assault, these are mostly limited to de­ omits some of the key elements that are process. In fact, it appears the public se­ take action to improve the world we live known to explain a specific type of crime. instead of age 18), and when the offender event is experienced by the victim, particu­ mographic variables, which are extremely lects out more persons from further crimi­ had been cOllvicted of assault previously. in, if the studies are designed with this larly in cases of traqrna, and of how this indirect measures of lifestyle or routine ac­ The factors correlated with the occurrence nal processing than do the police, objective in mind. If results are to be used, can be managed; aqa tivity. 7 A questionnaire designed around of acquaintance crime are substantially dif­ rirosecutors, or courts: there are many The victim's view of the need to report an ferent from those of bank robbery which the studies will have to be undertaken in • Increase feelings of domestic tranquility, residential crime would include questions crimes known to the public but not report­ event appears to vary with both the victim collaboration with, and communicated to, relating to ecological vulnerability (Nation­ are very different from residential burglary ed, particularly face-to-face crimes. In both and the event's objec,tive characteristics s by reconsidering v/hat .is meant by the fear those responsible for such action. of crime and hO\y it originates. al Research Council 1976:97) which has and different from auto theft. It may be absolute and proportional terms, this loss such as financial loss or damage. We However, on the part of researchers, r;;'re been the subject of substantial research possible in some instances to go from a due to the citizen far exceeds attrition in showed (pp. 40-41) that, at least in Toron­ will need to be an appreciation of hO\~J We have shown elsewhere (Waller 1978, (Mayhew 1979), some using victimization general crime survey, which identifies the criminal justice process (Solicitor Gen­ to, a majority of persons say that they call such techniques can be used to explain 1980b) that surveys are just one technique survey techniques outside of the Census areas where specific crimes are more fre-. eral of Canada 1979). How does the public the police out of moral duty. However, why outcomes occur. The designers of that can be substantially more useful when Bureau surveys. In Toronto, for instance, quent, to supplementary surveys. These select? Is their selection consistent with they also give reasons such as getting their explanatory studies must be sure that they they are part of a battery of approaches­ physical characteristics of residences or would then be used to collect the compre­ that made by the police and courts? goods back, stopping the offender from do­ have changed their emphasis from counting triangulated-to address these issues.Fi­ neighborhoods and the extent to which a hensive explanatory data in areas where ing it again, and"because their insurance and measuring to explaining and . nally, it is possible to undertake victimiza­ residence is occupied are important charac­ such crimes are most frequent Victimization surveys have established in companies require them to do so (see also tion studies with samples that are neither Australia, Canada, England, and the USA understanding, particularly for action. Both teristics (providing an independent expla9ta- Spar~~ 1977:124). Persons owning their national nor massive-thuslimiting costs­ that between one 'in two, and one in three, researchers and practitioners must develop tion) associated with burglary (also see 1.1 " , Making police and courts own i3me were more likely to report to achieve these purposes, if greater use is serious crimes are never reported to the po­ conceptualizations or theories, which build Reppetto 1974). Further, the extent to (f accountable to the public crimes. on hunch, practical know-how, and made of present criminological knowledge lice (Waller 1978:21-42; Braithwaite* which a house can be watched by al1e\~h­ Value of property stolen or damaged was accumulated knowledge; this should guide and developments in victimization survey bar is important, particularly iCthe neigi\­ In many industrialized countries, there is a 1979; Waller 1981; Sourcebook 1978) be­ the selection and analysis of items that are technology. growing concern with service to the public cause the victim did not consider them a an important determinant of reporting to bor takes responsibility to intervene the police (pp. 40-45), but disarrangement likely to have such explanatory power for (Mayhew 1978). For apartments (though among politicians and program audit agen­ police matter or the police could do little action. cies. This tends to be part of a swing to about them. Both the U.S. and Australian or vandalism in the residence was an im­ CoUztrolling crime not for houses).another important variable portant additional factor in explaining the is carelessness in locking doors or taking the new conservatism and so police agen­ national crime survey material, on which Building on some of the findings and AI.l persons working in criminal justice, the cies sometimes escape this questioning. this statement is based, assumed that every desire for the offender to be imprisoned. It methodology of Burglary: The victim and similar precautions. These findings suggcst appears that such vandalism tends to create grmeral public, and offenders, agree that that systematic surveys involving inter­ Nevertheless, police chiefs themselves and victim should report a crime to the police the public (Waller 1978) and recent publi­ a trauma similar to those in rape or more We should reduce crime. At first sight, vic­ views with victims and the general public many others are showing a growing interest and so the survey directors only asked why cations relating to victimization, we will the citizen did not call the police. drllIJ1atic robberies, where the victim feels timization survey techniques provide an can provide more relevant and better sub­ in how the police and the courts can be or­ review some of the approaches most likely ideal vehicle for reducing crime. Studying ganized to meet the expectations of their that his or her personal safety was stantiated measures if they include some Kftowing the rate of nonreporting is .no to give valid information guiding action. victims and their environment can increase clients as well as play an appropriate role threatened. physical (defensive or environmental) fac­ more than an indicator of lack of public re­ We will conclude that we may get further our knowledge of the factors associated in crime prevention. H O[course, the term tors as well as sociocriminogenic (positive sponsiveness. In England .and Canada, Thus the victim experiences an offender, in knowing how to- with crime. Further!110re, they seem ideal ',client could mean the offender, the victim, or social fact) dimensions. there is research that examined both what whose motivation the victim does not un­ ways to provide knowledge of variables or the general public. If we consider just • Reduce crime, by concentrating on fac­ is expected from the criminal justice sys­ derstand and so feels might have done any­ that are amenable to policy intervention: the Victim and the geneml public, we are tors other than demographic ones thougbt 6For Thither discussion of acquaintance crime tern and why the public calls the police thing. Such victims feel that if they had to be related to crime that are 'amenable' to the victims of crime are motivated to take and crisis amelioration see Brown and Rhoades left wondering what they expect from the been home they might have been attacked. simple precautions, if they know what to (Waller 1978; Sparks 1977). The public's policy intervention associated with specific (1979). They define "acquaintance" crime as the police and the courts after criminal victim­ expectations of criminal justice are much This reaction to irrational offending cannOt do; these surveys can identify what those ization has oc9'/,lrred. Why does the victim crimes rather than crime in general crime of persons in ongoing, mutually recog­ more difficult to explain precisely. We did be measured in surveys of nonviCtims. Fur­ precautions are. They also have potential nized, personal relationships whh the victims, ::------;;(." this (Waller 1978:66-97) by examining the ther, it has generally been overlooked in for obtaining useful self-report data, which such as certain types of rape, spouse battering, sThe commentators f:ttve emphasized the need.to surveys of victims like NCS, either be­ 3The U.S. Federal Government has spent in ex­ or child abuse. public's general participation in. the system cess of $54 million without counting money can provide a different perspective or trian­ look at subgroups of crime. in ways that will be" cause its importance has not been under­ gulation on why crimf; occurs. Let us now useful for organization of police resources. as indicated by their having called the po~ spent by State agencies on "National Crime" or 7Hindelang (1978) in Ilsing the NCS, showed for lice in the past or having appeared in stood or because insufficient effort has "Victimization" surveys. turn to some of the key issues in how"vic­ Goldstein and'vihers (1977 and 1979, Engstad the USA the extent to which the poor, the blac,~t:,. and Evans 1979) have argILed recently thut po­ court. We stUdied also the expectations of been made to develop adequate measures. 4In this paper, a criminal victimization study re­ timization sllrveys can be used to reduce the single, and the old are more likely to be vi~ fers to a project which uses a variety of research crime. lice and other social service resources should be the public when faced by a common bur­ Seriousness can mean many different ' tims, suggesting that these demographic varia- ~: organized more appropriately around whut the glary event. methodologies to investigate aspects of criminal bles depict persons following specific lifestyles ) things. It can be confused with culpability Surveys to provide guides for action to re­ community wants. Some of this. requires more victimization. One part of that study will be a and who tend to live in certain areas. These ,,llre It j,s the latter that is most worth reporting or degree of responsibility for a morally survey using a series of questions to identify if duce crime need to focus on types of be­ meaningful sUl:)cntegories of crime. Brown indirect .measures of vulnerability through hy­ here. Fitty-seven p~rcent of the respon­ reprehensible act. Wcan allUde to the im­ the respondent has been a victim of one or more havior that have common or homogeneous pothesised exposure. (1978) has set up an information system for the Hartford Police Department which distinguished dents saw rehabilitation as the main pur- pact on a victilll j potential danger, or influ­ criminal incidents within a specified range of explanations. As it is difficult to cover all Felson and Cohen (1979) in the routine activ­ ence on societal values. The measures used time. These questions are posed by an interview­ events on dimensiOns of "solvability," "serious­ explanatory variables for all crimes in one ity approach appear to be focusing on similar is­ ness," and "extel)t to which it CQuid be in the NCS are similar to those found in . er using behavioral rather than legel terms. They interview, seems such surveys should be sues, However, they provide specific measures '1'he data presented in the Sourcebook of crimi­ it "prevented." lIaljllslice statistics (1978) suggest that attitudes the Sellin-Wolfgan&Seriousness Scale can'be directed to members of the general public focul\ed on specific types of crime in ap­ of transportable, yet valuable, goods available either over th~J;'pone or in person. to the police in the abstract are highly positive. (1964). Limitations on the Sellin-Wolfgang propriate areas. Further., there is a growing and gaps in protection of houses thnt are more sSome of the issues surrounding this type of col­ Howev\lr, perso,ns who have called the police scale may be disguising some important is­ research literature separate from the victim­ relevant to understanding events like burglary. laboration are discussed in Waller (1979). Such work still needs to be placed ill a multiple­ are much less likely to have such positive atti­ sues for measuring seriousness in the con­ ization stUdies that analyzes "acquaintance factor explanation such us that in Waller (1978, tudes. Sparks (1977: 137-8) shows that those text of invoking the criminal justice chapter 5). victimized are generally less satisfied with the system. police. The first limitation is that the scale may'" , *See Chapter 2 of this volume. (,~, only represent certain subgroups in society. 96 Victimization ,-surveys and public policy

Victimization surveys and public policy 97

0

J:lr f >. ), = \ • . • -

:,';.., '\Y." -f) U -.,,---~­

There seems to be increasing agreement that general social attitudes are primary determinants i :1)' of beliefs about the a,tpHQt of crime and fear of . \ , cnme. \../ J ~~. Thus poorer persons may weight violence victimization to be reported to the police. In exploratory interviews and from pre­ some of the themes from the rape litera­ accident for a car crash to imply that no a state of discomfort that is ditferent from relative to financial loss differently than These technicat,constraints work in a high­ vious literature, we (Waller and Okihiro, ture. For instance, the study of crisis in one was really responsible, yet we see rob­ the calm decision to install a "Buddy buzz­ richer persons. Members of lower socio­ ly differential manner. We found (p. 84) 1978, pp. 35-39) identified fear (of being l! rape gives a broader understanding of the bery as the deliberate acts of persons who cr." This distinction is crucial to the under­ economic groups (Waller 1978, Sparks that only 64% of the residences in metro­ alone and entering the residence or rooms), possible impact of crime af!d the general are responsible for the consequences of standing of the effect of action taken to 1977) and immigrants (Sparks 1977) are politan Toronto were insured. Thus insur­ anger, general upset, sleeplessness, head­ comparability between crime victimization their behavior. These notions of intentiona­ reduce crime. InstaIling a lock may give a mote likely than others to want arrest for ance does not cover all persons, nor in fact aches, and general increase in sllspicion, as crisis and other natural crises. Curran and lity are linked to cultural perceptions of be­ feeiing of greater security when nobody is offenses involving the same level of finan­ those ostensibly most ill need. This seems common reactions to burglary'. Even Wortman (1977) building on Burgess and havior: for some time robbery has been at the door as in "tiger prevention" .in New cial loss and physical injury. to add insurance to the list of victim ser­ though the more extreme reactions such as Holstrom (1974) and Srriith (1974) have perceived as an intentional act not to be York City CZimring 191 1). It may also re­ vice agencies (such as boards of compensa' general u!,set, fear, and anger were men­ shown how the degree of crisis cannot be perpetrated-it is "mala antiquita~;; killing duce the likelihood of a burglary (princi­ A greater degree of explanation may be tion of victims of crimes of violence) that tioned in less than 10% of the cases, in­ measured by external symptoms alone. people through profit-motivated decisions pally in high rise apartments). However, it achieved by overcoming l()second limita­ are criticized for being too restricted. crease in suspicion was mentioned by 50% Some allowance must be made for the situ­ . 'on the design of the gas tank of a car may could mean the resident is more likely to tion, which is that the work o!) seriousness of the respondents. Women were more ation of the victim: if they are already in be just as intentional, but the remoteness of go to the door in a state of fear having has not dealt with victims directly and par­ In summary, some of the public emphasize "likely to 'mention fear. as they did in more crisis, then the victimization may not be the managers diminishes both their criminal been warned that the lock was necessary ticularly has not included information on that they expect protection and others, ret­ than 30% of the cases in which there was a able to make matters worse and the ap­ responsibility and the degree of emotional for protection. the offender. Many analyses assume that a ribution, from the criminal justice system. proach to crisis amelioration would be dif­ for the victim in a crisis that is female respondent. Bourque (1978) 11 iden­ \. traum~ There seems ,to be increasing agreeme;nt $50 theft is viewed in the same way by the They call the police for insurance reasons ferent. Similarily crime by an acquaintance widely accepted as horrendous. tified seven symptoms"which they scaled that general social attitudes are primary de­ poverty stricken and the affluent. They also as well as instinct or moral duty. They of­ lIsingcthe Guttman procedure. These were can be milch more enduring and disrupting, assume that a theft is as "serious" whether ten will not call when they feel the event is bcause the victim's close social network To date, most of the research done on the terminants of beliefs about the amount of serious residual effects; memory loss, fear of crime and its effects on behavior ' committed by a first offender, a child of minor. Their perception of seriousness may be shattered. Knowing more about the.. crime and fear of crime (Hindelang 1978; physical upset or nausea, confused state of have used different terms interchangeably. 10, an adult of 25, or a person with two seems to be a function of the degree of victim's situation and basic feelings of se­ Robert 1978; Sparks 1977:207-211). It is shock, f5':U-, crying or shaking, and ner­ Furstenberg (1971) has stressed the differ­ not clear whether victimi7,ation affects previous convictions. Using a representa­ personal threat te types of trauma should be studied,\n victim as~i~tance programs and the police. when m:talone at night. For instance, Hin­ sensational event. ~he actual experience of thet';onlext of crisis theory to lead to effec­ delang (I978:201) shows that the poor, the victimization then gif.~:qhe· person & real involving either an offender over age 30 as Allevia!ing harmJrom victimization opposed to age 18, an offender with two tiv,e programs to reduce or alleviate the im­ Reducing fear old, and females are more likely to report example on which t~, (mhe' their fear and so previous convictions for shoplifting (com­ ~ Given that crime can be reduced but never pact. The debate on victim assi~tance feeling unsafe in going out alone; they con­ reduces the anxiety .'i!~jlrij' from qualitative pared to none), and an offender with two eliminated, it is important to see what can seems to be fixated generally on compensa­ Fear of crime is one of the concepts in the trast this with the objective risk of victim­ research with the victims of robberies of previous assault convictions. Because as­ be done to alleviate its impact. The NCS tion to victims of crimes of violence. Some general areas of victimology and criminol­ ization measured by surveys which show small businesses partially disagrees on the sault (;Qnvictions make such a difference, it have provided S001l: important information discussion has occurred on insurance. ogy that is most weakly operationalized that risk does not vary by the age or sex of effect of the event. The majority of victim­ appears that the public is much IU9re con­ on the direct impact of crime. It "Is easy to 'Some concemhasbeen expressed for rape and most in need of further review. The /J the respondent. They concll!de (Hindelang izationsas reported in the research were sense of malaise associated with "fear" is \:emed. by the potential for personal vio­ infer from these measures that what is victims. Indeed, we can probably see more I 1978:224) that going out in'the evening, experienced as less serious than the media lence. This can be extra:polated to infer that needed is simply better victim compensa­ of the potential of research that is sensitive 1.', ( difficult to operationalize. As yet, little ef­ moving from a residence, and choosing image (Grenier and Manseau 1978); but the the victim is more concerned with what tion or insurance programs and better to policy-tractable variables b'y examining i fort has been focused on understanding where to shop are affected by other issues victimization did not reduce fear. It did might happen than what did. It is not the medical care. Undoubtedly, sueh programs 1 what is fear or what are its origins. Can.,we mpre than by crime. Overall, it appears teach the victim how to weather the experi­ actual physical injury but the victim's per­ would be progress. Howevl!r, the NCS liThe analysis by Bourque (1978:12-19) is par­ ! t make use of knowledge of fear in animals more likely that the feeling of insecurity is ence. In a twisted way, victimization may ception of the degree of life thnsat that is measures do not illustrate how the crime is ticularly interl!sting in suggesting types of bur­ where the body takes precautions to fight only a symptom of a general set of feelings reduce trauma but not general fear. crucial. experienced by the victim. glary and robhery likely to precipitate crisis. The f an attacker or avoid a dangerous situation 'unrelated to crime that a resident has in a approximate percentage incidence is estimated by running? How do we distinguish what is particular, neighborhood. Little research has The feeling state of fear is much more like­ The interesting qualitative work by Brillon Our own studies as well as Bourque (978) for their 30-da)' police record study in Fort \IJ only stimulating, from what is also un­ examined these issues, particularly in the ly to be precipitated by life-threatening and Baril with small businesses in Mon­ using a different methodology tried to mea­ Worth, Rochester, or Birmingham, for burglary pleasant? In much of the victim Iitemture, context of how such research could be used possibility. In which case, discussions of treal shows another aspect of importance of sure these emotional reactions and charac­ as follows: loss of sentimental possession (5%). ,, we see authors associating trauma with the ,.to create stronger feelings of security. fear of crime should not overlook two im­ the offender to perceived threat. * The vic­ teristics of victim crisis for offenses other high loss $1,000 (9%). malicious destruction of feeling of loss of control: events that are '. portant observations. First, \';rJme is not tims were surprised that the offenders were than rape. 10 . property (1 %). ransacking (2%), victim presence Avoiding the feeling associated with in- "normally" distributed in cities. Like (1 frightening can become pleasant thrills in residence (5%). prior victimizations %). f creased adrenaline is differeht at least in less dangerous than the stereotype they Ij Schmid (1972) and Boggs (1965), our re­ when we volunteer to experi~nce them or and miscellaneous (2%); for robbery these were: degree from concern for security. One does expected.,,~, IONo attempt has been made in this paper to re­ bodily harm to victim (23%), use of weapon toJerable pain when we choose to accept it. search showed most census tracts or enu­ view the'\itemture relating to rape. In passing,il not wear a seat belt to avoid adrenaline, meration areas in Toronto to have a very There are technical constraints which must (63%), assault with no injury (2I%).and multi­ It is the "locus of control" that is crucial. is important to note that the NCS does not mea­ ple offenders (33%). This seems to be one clement that distin­ but !?eclluse it is believed to be safer. If low incidcf1c~, of victimization. Also we not be overlooked, of which the most im­ sure the incidence ofrape directly. That is, the older persons are worried about being has­ 12Boutque et al. (1978) do nol explain this. It is guishes crime from rides in ro1\er coasters showed in our Self-report section the small portant is insura~ce (Biderman 1966). Most respondent is given the,;gPP?rtunity (0 ment!on sled by teenagers on the street. they will likely that the longer term impact is a1~ociated or visits to tile dentist. Another element is number of offenders who commit several inwrance policies covering losses from rape only when asked questions such as "Old go out less and so will be less often at risk with negative feelings for a place to \~ihich one the reality of the danger: in horror movies offenses (see also Leblanc 1976; West and theft or burglary require the event to be re­ anyone try to attack you in some othllr way?" (Hindelang 1978). Tliis worry could)e The incidence of trauma in rape situations is goes regularly. Robbery victims can Ij,void the the'danger is simulated. Farrington 1977). A few areas have 'Very ported to the police before a claim can be scene of the crimc; however, burglary' \I.ictims concern for security. However. it could high crime rates. Perception of the danger­ reimbursed. This type of constraint can probably much higher than for burglary or rob­ All of the previous clements, would h,e true bery. For further references on rape see Viano can only do this if they move. Secondly, as also be induced by fear felt by the older ousness of an area may be a function of also be a condition. of victim service agen­ Bourque (1978) shows. the police are !lotns in the fear of accidents. There is special (1976) Or, Brodyaga (1975), Burgess and Hol­ a. person when walking near teenagers. Per­ spectacular newsworthy incidents. ,Howev­ cies. Boards for thfi,compensation of vic­ strom (1974). or Curran and Worman (1978). sensitive to crisis in burglary situations and so fear associated with lhe way harm from sons who go to their doprs preparing for an er, if crime is seen as "non local and non­ tims of violent crime probably require the may not only fail to alleviate thc cHsis hut exac­ crime is defined. Perhaps another elemellt attacker arc different (rdm those who calm­ personal" (Hindelang 1978~ 167) it is erbate it by careless remarks recalling spcctucu­ is the societal perception that thc event is ly put another lock on their door. In short, .hir burglaries that the officer remembers. be-cause life-threatening crime is just that. *Reported in Chapter 9 of this volume. unnecessary or avoidable: we usc the term fear may precipitate precautions. but fear is • "0 98 Victimization surveys and pubUr' policy Victimization surveys and public policy 99 ;

\ . > ';" ------>. - . .. -"., , "..- ~-.-~----- ... ~

, '.l ,\ ~f i Second, as poihted out above, perceptions cators must be reported in a form that will Biderman, A. D. (1966) J f' r t .~ of dangerousness are not only a. combina­ focus the policy ,priorities appropriately. "Social indicators and goals," in R, A. ~., Clarke, R. V. G. (ed.), F. J. Gladstone, Geis, G. (1975) New York City Police Department (1978) tion of money taken or injuries incurred, The harm measu.';ed must include financial Bauer, ed., Social indicators research, ~ A. Sturman, and S. Wilson (1978) "Victims of crimes of violence and the "Victims have rights too." they are a function of threal of harm, par­ losses, typical injuries, and emotional trau­ Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co. ~ Tacklil/g vandalism. Home Office Re­ criminal justj~e system," in D. Chappell, Ouimet Report ¥. ticularly death or severe debilitation. The ma. Social impact must define fear. mea­ Biderman, A. (1967) h search study, No. 47. London: Her Maj­ and J. Monaban (cds.), Violence and See Canada (1969). ~ public is probably not very concerned by sure its extent, and analyze the Report on a pilot study ill the District of " esty's Stationery Office. criminal justice; ,Toronto: Lexington. Rector, M. G. (1980) ~ an increase in $lO property losses, even if intentionality of the harm done. Columbia on victimization and altitudes 1 Cohen, L. E., and M. Felson (1979) Goldstein, H. (1977) .C-, "Reduce imprisonment-Why and how?" there are 26 tiIllesas many events so that it toward law enforcement. U. S. Presi­ "Social change and crime rate trends," Policing a free society. Cambridge, Paper for Alternatives to Imprisonment We saw four areas of action where. crimi­ would score as cumulatively high on the dent's Commission on Law Enforcement American Sociological Review 44:588- Mass.: Ballinger. Conference, York University, Toronto, nal Victimization studies can make'il useful f SeWn-Wolfgang scale. 13 However, tbey and Administration of Justice, Field Sur­ 608. Goldstein, H. (1979) June 8,"1980. Hackensack, N.J.: U.S.A. contribution to a knowledge base for effec­ ! are concerned by an apparent or real in­ veys No.1. Washington: Bureau of So­ Community ~rime Prevention Program "Improving policing: A problem oriented National Council on Crime and tive programs. These were in efforts to re­ crease in "irrational" murders. The. public cial Science Research. (1977) . appr9ach," Crime and Delinquency, Delinquency. duce crime, to orient the police and the is probably following the "minimax" prin­ Boggs, S. (1965) See Cirel (1977). April. Reppetto, T. (1974) courts effectively to public ne\!ds, to allevi­ ciple of trying to minimize the possibility "Urban crime patterns," Americal/ So­ Conklin, J. E. (1972) Gottfredson, M. R., N. Parisi, M. J. Hin­ Residential crime. Cambridge, Mass: ate the harm from crime not prevented, and of the maximum h:mn. ciological Review 30:899-908. Robbery, and the criminal justice system. delang, and T. Flanagan (1978) Ballinger. <\ rito increase public feelings of domestic Bourque, B. B., G. B. Brumback, R. E. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, In summary, we cannot start with explana­ . tranquillity. These goals can only be Robert, P. and C. Faugeron (1978) Krug. and L. O. Richardson (1978) Conklin, J. E. (1975) 1978. U.S. National Criminal Justice In­ tions of fear, because we have not opera­ achieved where the techniques are usc;4 in La Justice et son Public: Les representa­ Crisis interventioll: Investigating the The impact of crime. New York: formation and Statistics Service. Wash­ tionalized the concept in the most effective a focused manner designed to guide action. tions sociales du systeme penal. [Justice • need for new applicatiolls. Washington: Macmillan . ington: U.S: Department of Justice, way .. If we adopt the Whitrod l4 suggestion This requires a conceptualization of how and its following: The social representa­ American Institutes for Research. Curran, A., and L. Wortman (1978) LEAA. of letting the citizen define fear by record­ policy-tractable variables Can impact 011 tions of the penal system]. Collection Braithwaite, J ,,) and D. Biles (1979) diagQ2~~c Harland, A. T. (1978) ing in a diary both the events that created outcome, together with empirical tests of "Rape: A thesis." M.A. the­ deviance et Societe. Geneve: Masson­ "Crime victimization and reportability "Compensating the victims of crime," (ear and what he or she felt in reaction to the extent to which these variables are in­ §.is.~alt Lake\:City: University of Utah, Medecine et Hygiene. rates: A comparison onhe U.S. and f-uepiirtment of Social Work. Criminal Law Bulletin, pp. 203-224. that event, we may make some progress:, deed associated with the outcome. Such fo­ Scarr, H. (1973) Australia." Unpublished draft. Canberra: Hindelang, M. J. (1976) We must then focus on factors associated cused surveys are likely to be more «Doleshch~l, Eugene (1979) Patterns of burglary. Washington: Na­ Australian Institute of Criminology. " "Crime--Some popular beliefs," Crime Criminal viclimlzation in eight American with different levels of this fear, such as successful if they examine- tional Institute of Law Enforcement and cities: A descriptive analysis of common second-hand reports of victimization, me­ Breed, A. (1980) and Delinquency, January 1979, pp. 1- Criminal Justice. dia coverage of the sensational and excep­ e Specific crimes rather than crime in "Facing reallty." Speech given to Pretrial 8. theft and assault. Cambridge, Mass.: Schmid, C. F., and S. E. Schmid (1972) tional, use of UCR or an effective general Services Conference. Denver. Engstad, P., and J. L. Evans (1979) Ballinger. Crime in the state of Washington. Olym­ victimization social indicator, personal im­ • The broad envitl)nment within which the Brillon, Y. (1979) 7,~ '. "Responsibility, competence and police Hindelang, M., M. Gottfredson, and J. pia, Washington: Law and Justice Plan­ uLe role et I'utilite diiIllIblic dans I'el­ ages of the crime problems, feelings of public needs to use the serVices of the po­ effectiveness in crime control." Paper Garofalo (1978) ning Office. persol1al security and community lice and the courts rather than the unique boration des politiques criminelles" [The presented to Cambridge Criminology Re­ Victims of personal crime: An empirical Schwartz, R. (1970) role of utility of the people in the elabo­ search Conference. Unpublished. Otta­ foundation for a theory of personal vic­ integration. C:ssue of whether crime is not reported "On legal sanctions," R. Schwartz and J. • The harm from crime within the context ration of crime policy], Crimil/ologie, wa: Solicitor General, Research timization. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Skolnick (editors), in Society and the le­ of how the victim experiences the event vdl. XII, no. 1, Montreal: Les Presses Division. Hood, R. G., and R. F. Sparks (1970) gal code, New York: Basic Books .. Conclusion alld knowledge o{cri~is management; and de l'Universite de Montreal. ,~. Evans, J. L., and G. J. Leger (1979) Key issues in criminology. New York: Sellin, T., and M. Wolfgang (1964) We have distinguished separate purposes • The issues of domestic tranquillity and Brodyaga,L., et al. (1975) . "Canadian victimization surveys," Cana­ McGraw-Hili. The measurement of delinquency. New for victimization techniques-first.as social fear in considerably more depth. Rape alld its victims: A report for citi­ dian Journal of Criminology. 21(2)(April Law Reform Commission of Canada York: John Wiley. zens, health facilities, and'cr/mil/al jus­ 1979):166-183. (1977) indicators to influence priorities of public Considerable progress has been made over Silberman, C. E. (1978) tice agencies. Washington: U.S. Evans, J. L., and G. J. Leger (1978) Our criminal law. Ottawa: Department policy and, second, to inform specific pro­ the past 15 years in improving our under­ Criminal violence. criminal justice. To­ grams. Victimization surveys can provide Government Printing Office. "The development of victimization sur­ of Supply and Services. ronto: Random House. ~; - standing ofi!he impact of crime and its pre­ ... Brown, W.P., and P. W. Rhoades (1979) veys in Canada," Review of Public Data Lineberry, R. L. (1977) public policy with simple, comprehensible, vention. However, the increases that Skogan, W. G. (1974) "Policing and the acquaintance crimes." Use, vol. 6, no. 6 (November), American public policy: What govern­ "The validity of official crime statistics: broadly based indicators of the harm done .occurrgQ in-·thls-time·jn crime'l!nd ·:jn-oex.. ~"'.'; Unpublished draft. Albany: State Univer­ Fattah, E. A. (1979) ment does and what difference it makes. by crime and its social impact. These indi- pendituressupposedly focused against it, An empirical investigation," Social Sci­ sity of New York, ~chool of Criminal "Perceptions of violence, concern about New York: Harper and Row. together with our realization of the" general ence Quarterly, pp. 25-38. Justice. - crime, view of victimization and atti­ Manseau;' H., and H. Grenier (1979) 13It is unclear how additive the Sellin-Wolfgang inefficiency of those programs, require Skogan, W. G., cd. (1977) Burgess, A. W.,and L. C. Holstrom tudes to the death pellalty," Canadian "Les petits commercants victimes de vol scale is. Wellford and Wiatrowski (1975) have greatly enhanc,"d efforts by government, Sample sun'cys of the victims of crime. (1974) Journal of Criminology, vol. 21, no. 1 a main armee enquete de justice." [The shown for 118 Florida State students that sepa­ reform agencies, and citizens to deal with Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Rape; Victims of crisis. Bowie, Mary­ (January), pp. 22-38. small businessman as victim of armed rate events are found to'oe equally serious to the these problems in a rational manner which Smith, L. L. land: Robert J. Brady Company. Furstenberg, G. (1971) robbery question of justice], Criminolo­ accumulation into one event of the components' will require resources to be devoted to Crisis intervention theory and practice: A of these .separate events. This does not appear to Canadaq 196-9) "Public reaction to crime in the streets," gie XII:57-65. "these issues over the next few years. sourcebook. Millburn, New Jersey. have been replicated in other samples. Wagner Toward u/iily: Criminal ju~;tice mul cor­ American Scholar 40:601-6lO. Mayhew, Pat (1979) Solicitor General of Canada (1979) and Pease (1978) argue that the combin!ltion of, rections. Report of the Canadian Com­ Garofalo, J. (1977) "Defensible space:tne current status of Selected trends in Calladiall criminal jus­ these judgments hkfar more complex and sug­ References mittee on Corrections, Chairman, Mr. Lot:;al victim surveys: A review of the is­ a crime prevention theory," The Howard tice. Ottawa: Solicitor General, Research gest that it is not adllitive., It seems to defy com­ Justice Ouimet. Ottawa: Solicitor sues. Washington: U.S. Department of Journal XVlIl (1979): 150-159. and Statistics Group. mon sense that 26 thefts of $10 are equival~nt to American Institute of Criminal Justice General. Mayhew, P., ~.. V. G.Clarke, J, N. Bur­ a murder ~Even if it were true, the public do~s (1980) Justice, LEAA National Criminal Justi9J! Sourcebook (1978) II Cirel. P., P.Evans, D. McGillis, and D . Infornlation and Statistics Senljce, - rows, J. M. Hough, and S. W. C. Win­ . not reacJ.l the "scaled" nianner; a death has a "Just the facts." Philadelphia. See Gottfredson et al. (1977) Whitcomb ( 1977) chester (1978) \~peciaJ:

,--~..,..-----~-

------~----

! ! 1 , , ~ President's Comm~;?n.on Law E~orce­ \ ment and Administration of Justice GOLD MINES OF (1967), ,i \\ The challenge of crime in afree s?c~ety. Washington: U.S. Government Pnntmg DATA ABOUT Office. lj Waller, I. (1979) , "Organising research to improve criminal I AMERloCA'S justice policy: A perspective from Can­ ada," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, July. Waller, I. (1980a) ,,' AGED "What reduces residential burglary: Re­ Five Publications From Federal Agencies search and action in Seattle and Toron­ Focusing facts on Problems Faced to," in H. J. S~hneider, The victim in international perspective, New York: by Older Persons and Walter de Gruyter. c)-Their Families Waller, I., (1980b) "Victimization studies as guides to aC­ tion: Some cautions and suggestions:" in H. J. Schneider, Victims in international perspective. New York: De,Gruyter. Waller, I. (1981) ,

"La criminalite au Canada et aux Etats­ i i Unis: Tendances et explications compar­ I atives, 1964-1978" [Criminality in Canada and the United States, compara­ tive explanations],Criminologie XI-V (1). , Waller, I., and N. Okihiro (1978) c:::::, Burglary: The victim and the public. To- Hcalth C""'l:uu...ct ronto: University of Toronto Press. 11ll Pro~m Waller, I., and J. Chan (1974) StatUti .. "Prison use: A Canadian, and internation­ al comparison," CriminalLaw Quarterly 17(1974-75):47-71. , ' Weis K. and E. Milakovich (1974) "P~liti~al misuses of crime [atl:\," Society II J 11:27-33. Wellford, C. F., and M. Wiatrowski I Medicare: Use of Physicians' " ')1 America In Transition: Services Under the Supple· (1975) " r An Aging SOCiety . Tr«:nds In Nursing lind Related mentary Medical Insurance ~ Care Homes and Hospitals, Program, 1975·1978. "On the measurement of delinquency," I Examines Ihe historical and Income of lhe Population 1969·80 0 projected growth of the older 55 and Over. 19;~2 . Provld~s a variety of Informa. Journal' of Criminal Law and Criminol­ Numbers" of beds In .m1'~lrt9 popUlation. An overview of In 49 tables this blennl,;1 colhic. Han on Use -cf-ophy:h:!~n:;\a~:v~ -"-' ·~·A-.5paikiinfreapsuie';-of-Z;color-"" ogy 66(2)(June):175-188. homes In the U.S, increased 73 rees by Medlcare's aged bene. charts portraying In prize. demograpnrC. SOcial, economic. tlon of statistical dala details percent In the t Q70's, ac;cordlng and health characteristics of the economic situation of the fielarles. In addition to use and wli,"l.ng g.raphlcs the financial West, D. J. ,and, D. P. Farrington (1977) America's -older population to this new report. Other Infor. 0PUlatlonmovlng from the mation, on (a,cUltie$, residents, cost of services, It Includes data resources of the Nation's elder- The delinquent w!lY of life. London: today a,nd for the nex(50 years. as\ years of employment Into 00 site of service. beneficiary Iy. Designed to highlight, for the PUblished by the Census r. and employees ai, '5 av.Uable liability. and on the disabled nonspecialist how Income and Heinemann. the age of full retirement, . In this publlcati<' -.lm the Bureau !o Series P.23. N'o. 126, Published every 2 years I>y the population covered by Medl, resources compare before and or the Current Population National Center fur Health care. Published by the Health "Iter reliremeot. From the, Wilkins, L. T. (1965) Sodal SecurltY,e.Prolnistratiol1,.. Stallstlcs Survey Series 14. 1'10. Reports. SIN 003.001.91543.0. SIN 0)7.070.00407.5. 30 60 pp. $2.75 GPO Stnck Care Financing Administration, Social Security Administration: Social deviance: Social policy, action. ' 26 pages; $3.50. 60 pilges; $4.50. 150 pages; $6.50. 42 pages: $2.25. and rese(jrch. Englewood, Cliffs, N.J.: I,, Number-017·022·00637·6. SIN 0I?060·00146·1, SIN 0170070.Q0369.9. Prent!ceHall, Inc; C I Order Form Mall. to: Dept 3SAD,.Superlntendent of Documents. l,I,S. G.oVernmehl Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402 Zimring, F.E. (1971) , . i Perspectives on deterrence. Cnme an.d Enclosed Is $ 0 checll. . l\IIasterCard and Credit Card Orders Only o money order, or chargo to my VISA accepted. Total charges $ ___ Fill In the boxes beloW. delinquency issues: A monograph senes. Chicago: National lnstitutes of Men,tal DeposIt Account No. g~~~i~ti, I I 1'1 I I I I I 1 I, 1 1 1 1 1 t, 01 1 I 1 I 1-0 Date . ..-...-.-....., Health. ' Order No, I I· II 1 ~ . i enter my order for: Income .of the Population 55 a!,d Over•. 1982 $4.50 P America In Transition: .An Agln9 SocIety $3.50 0 Income ! ollO & R u!'C8s of the Aged $2.25 0 Trend. In Nursing .and 'Related Care Homes and HOllp111l18. 1969-60 $2.75 0 Medicare: Use of Physicians' ! Services Under the Supptemeotary MedlClillnlurance Program, ,1975-1978 $6.50 i ,'t COMPANY OR PERSONAL NAM, . . 1··1 I I 1 I I III I I 1 II I I I I I I I I For Office Use Only I \ OUantity Charga. ~' Publications SUbscription '1 STReET ADDRESS Spaclat Shipplngch.rg.s..... ;. International Han~lIn9'" " ...... \TJ,.:.}~'"""', I 1 [ I I:) I I I "I I 1,[:",,;1-,-,-1J-I ..1.l-1I--'-.L...1..-1lo..1l_II,,-I-..LI-1I....JII-I-1 .1-11 Spacla' Charges ...... ; ...... ~ CITY . " ZtP CODE OPNR .... , ...... ; .. ,...... 102 Victimization surveys and public policy r:rSI' ======~=~====~ I I I II I Li I : : : :.: , - UPNS ~JJ.l'!l I II/I I :i: ~ Balance'Oue PL.EASE PRINT OR TYPE DI~cou~1 ~ Rolund Bureau of Justice Statistics reports (revised December 1984) Crime against persons in urban, suburban, and rural areas, NCJ-53551, 7/79 The prosecution of felony arrests 1979 NCJ- Call toll-free 800-732-3277 (local An IntrodUction to the National Crime Survey 86482, 5/84 " 251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be added NCJ'43732, 4(78 ' State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711, 7/82 to one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak Local victim surveys: A review of the Issues State court mOdel statistical dictionary to a reference specialist in statistics at the NCJ-39973, 8(77 J NCJ-62320, 9/80 ' FI EESSE .. A cross-city comparison of felony case Justice Statistics Clearinghouse National Criminal Justice Reference Service Corrections processing, NCJ-55171. 7(79 BJS bulletins and special reports: Federal criminal sentencing: Perspectives of Five monthly periodicals Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Si'ngle analysis and a deSign for research NCJ-33883 copies of reports are free; use NCJ number Sentencing practices In 13 States NCJ'95399 10(78 " 10/84 " to order. Postage and handling are charged Variations in Federal criminal sentences about economic data, Prison admissions and releases 1981 NCJ-33684, 10(78 ' for bulk orders of single reports. For single NCJ-95043, 9/84 ' copies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are Predic.tin~ sentenc~s in Federal courts: The TI LS FI published by the Federal Capital punishment 1983, NCJ-93925 7/84 feaSibility of a national sentenCing policy free; 11-40 titles $10; more than 40 $20' Tfme served in prison, NCJ-93924 6/84 NCJ-33686, 10(78 ' libraries call for special rates. ' , Prisoners in 1983, NCJ-85861, 12i82 agencies responsible f State and locai prosecution and civil attorney Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and Prisoners in State and Federal institutions on systems, NCJ-41334, 7(78 ~ other criminal justice data are available Dec. 31, 1982 (final), NCJ-93311, 12/84 for collecting and from the Criminal Justice Archive and Dec. 31, 1981 (final). NCJ-86485, 7/83 Expenditure and employment Information Network, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Capital punishment 1982 (final) NCJ-95133 I, 11/84 " Justice expenditure and employment in the interpreting the data. I Arbor, MI48106 (313-764-5199). Ee liSTS Capital punishment 1981 (final) NCJ-86484 U.S., 1971-79, NCJ-92596 11/84 National Crime Survey 5/83 " Justice expenditure and employment in the U.S., 1979 (final report), NCJ-87242. 12/83 Social Security Criminal victimization in the U.S.: 1979 survey of inmates of Statecorrectionalfacilities 1982 (final report), NCJ-92820, 11/84 and 1979 census of State correctional facilities: Privacy and security Bulletin 1973-82 trends. NCJ-90541 9/83 'I"HI'~Ml(,'!.i<)"""'h BJS special reports.' Computer crime: ."~I~I\\ t'\"'if~-#l'bI'.''''''~ 1981 (final report), NCJ-90268 ...... Career patterns in crime, NCJ-88672, 6/83 Electronic fund transfer and crime 1980 (final report), NCJ-84015 4/83 NCJ-92650, 2/84 ' 1979 (final repor!), NCJ-76710: 12/81 BJS bulletins: Computer security techniques, BJS special reports: Pr!soners and drugs, NCJ-87575, 3/83 Pr!soners and alcohol, NCJ-86223, 1/83 NCJ-84049. 9/82 The economic cost of crime to victims NCJ- Electronic fund transfer systems and crime 93450, 4/84 ' Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-80697 2/82 Veterans in prison, NCJ-79232, 11/81 NCJ-83736. 9/82 ' Family Violence, NCJ-93449, 4/84 Legislative resource manual, NCJ-78890, 9/81 BJS bulletins: Census of jails and survey of jail inmates: Expert ~itness manual, NCJ-77927 9/81 The 1983 jail census (BJS bulletin) NCJ-95536 Criminal victimization 1983, NCJ-93869,6/84 lV84 " Crimina. justice resource manual NCJ'61550 ., Households touched by crime 1983 NCJ- 12(79 " MONTHLY LABOR SURVEY OF CURRENT 93658, 5/84 " Jail inmates 1982 (BJS bulletin), NCJ-87161, 2/83 AGRICULTURAL MONTHLY ENERGY SOCIAl SECURITY Census of jails, 1978: Data for individUal jails ~rivacy and security of criminal history Information: REVIEW BUSINESS OUTLOOK REVIEW Violent crime by strangers, NCJ-80829, 4/82 vols. !-iV, Northeast, North Central, South (;; BULLETIN Crime and elderly, NCJ-79614 1/82 W~st Current data and Estimates of national, NCJ-72279-72282,12/81 '" A guide to research and statisticai use CUrrent analysis and Current and historical Analytical articles and Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81 NCJ-69790,5/81 ' analysis on employ­ regional, and inter­ forecast data on the Profiie of jail. inmates, 1978, NCJ-65412, 2/81 energy statistics for current statistics on Victimization and fear of crime: World A guide t~ dissemination, NC:J-40000, 1/79 ment, unemployment, national economic Cens~s .of Jails and survey of jail inmates, 1978 U.S. food and fiber production, consump­ Old-Age, Survivors and perspectives, NCJ-93872, 1/85 preliminary report, NCJ-55172, 5/79 ' Compendium of State legislation: prices, wages, accounts; articles on the economy, covering tion, imports, exports, Disability Insurance, The National Crime Survey: Working papers NCJ-48981.7/78 productivity, industrial business ahd economic commodity supply and storage, and costs of Supplemental Security vol. I: CUrrent and historical perspectives ' Parole and probation 1981 supplement, NCJ·79652. 3/82 NCJ-75374,8/82 relations, economic situation; and a demand, farm income, the major energy Income, and Aid to c . BJS bulletins.' Criminal i!lstice information policy: Vol_ II; studies, NCJ-90307, 12/84 growth, foreign labor statistical section world agriculture and resources, including Families with Depend­ I M~thological Probation and parole 1983 NCJ-94776 Victim/witness legislation: An overview developments, and job covering all aspects of Crime against the elderiy in 26 cities 9/84 " NG..I-94263, 12/84 ' trade, food prices and petroleum, natural gas, ent Children programs. NCJ-76706,1/82 ' safety. Published by the Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218, 8/83 Information policy and crime control strategies the economy. Published marketing, farm inputs, coal, and electric Published by the Social The Hispanic Victim, NCJ-69261, 11/81 Bureau of Labor Characteristics of persons entering parole (SEARCH/i3JS conference) NCJ-93926 by the Bureau of transportation, storage, power. Published by Security Administration, Issues in the measurement of crime 10/84 " Statistics, U.S. Economic Analysis, NCJ'74682,10/81 _ ' during 1978 and 1979, NCJ-8724S 5/83 and the general the Energy Information U.S. Department of Characteristics of the parole populaiion 1978 Research access to criminal justice data Department of Labor. U.S. Department of economy. Published by Administration. . I Criminal Victimization of California residents 4/81 ' , NCJ-84154,2/83 ' Health and Human NCJ-66479, 1974-77, NCJ'70944 6/81 ' $26 per year. Commerce. the Economic Research $36 per year. Services. 1 Parole in the U.S., 1979, NCJ-69562, ,;J/81 Privacy and JUvenile justice records $30 per year. Service, U.S. Depart­ Restitution to victims of personal and household NCJ-84152,l/83 ' $29 per year. J crimes, NCJ-72770, 5/81 . menlol Agriculture. Courts Survey of State laws (BJS bulletin) Criminal victimization of New York State BJS bulletin: NCJ-80836, 6/82 ' $31 per year. residents, 1974-77, NCJ-66481, 9/80 Case filings in State courts 1983 NCJ.95111 Privacy and the private employer The cost of negligence: Losses from preventable 10/84 " NCJ-79651, 11/81 ' household burglaries, NCJ-53527, 12(79 Mail To: Dept 36AD, SUperintendent of Documents, U.s. Government Printing' Office. Washington, D.C. 20402 Rape Victimization in 26 American cities BJS special rap arts: General Order Form NCJ-55878, 8(79 ' Criminal defense systems: A national Credit Card Orders Only BJS bulletins: Enclosed is $ 0 cheCk, Criminal victimization in urban schools survey, NCJ-94830, 8/84 Bank robbery: Federal offenses and MasterCard and NCJ-56396, 8(79 ' money order, or charge to my Total charges $ ____ Fill in the boxes below. Habeas corpus, NCJ'92949, 3/84 offenders, NCJ-94630,8/84 o VISA accepted. Case filings in State courts 1983 Deposit Account No. Federal drug law violators, NCJ-92692 NCJ-95111, 10/84 ' 2/84 g~~gi~b. 1L....L1-1'1---L...J..I....!I-l-I-.l.I....JIL..L1 -.1.1--1.-1 ..LI -11--1.-1 ..J..1-11--11 State court caseload statistics, 1977 and The severity of crime, NCJ-92326 1/84 II I II 111-0 1981, NCJ-8758T, 2/83 Order No. ____'--_ Expiration Date I I I I I The American response to crime: 'An overview B3~ MonthlYear ..... of criminal justice systems, NCJ-91936, 12/83 Ii' 0 Tracking offenders, NCJ-91572 11/83 Victim and witness assistance:' New State Please enter my subscription(s) as follows: 0 Monthly Labor Review (MLR) $26 laws and the sy!!tem's response NCJ-87934 o Survey of Current Business (SCB) $30 0 Aglricultural Outlook (AD) $31 For Office Use Only 5/83 " o Monthly Energy Review (MER) $36 0 SociallSecurityBulletin (SSB) $29 To!le put on any BJS mailing list, write to NCJRS Federal justice statistics, NCJ·80814, 3/82 Quantity Charges User Serlilces Dept. 2, BoX 6000, Rockville . , BJS telephone contacts, NCJ-95505 10/84 COMPANY OR PERSONAL NAME .____ ~_._.H~.~ .. ,., ~W~~ . , How to gain access toBJS data (br~chure) BC-000022, 9/84 ' , , I I I I , , , __ Publica lions All BJS reports - SO .to 40 bulletins and reports _ Subscription I. i'l year Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 1983 ADDITIONAL ADDRESSIATIENTION LINE f, NCJ·91534,10/84 ' , Special Shipping Charges ______, BJS Bulletins and Special Reports - the most .' I , , I I , , I , I -, current justice data. . Information policy and crime control I International Handling ..... , .. _____ strategies, NCJ-93926, 10/84 STREET ADDRESS Special Charges ...... _____ Courts reports - State Court caseload surveys, Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law and , , , model annual reports, and State cOUrt organization I , I OPNR ... " ...... __ _ surveys justlce'statlstlcsi'1984, NC~-93310, 8/84 CITY ==:::=:::=:::::=:::::;:::=:=;::==:;:;~:=:::::::::::: Report to the nation on crime and Justice: STATE ZIP CODE Correcllons reports - results of sam pie surveys The data, NCJ-87068, 10/83 , I UPNS and censuses of jails, prisons, parole, and I , , Balance Due probation Dictionary of criminal JUBtice data termlnolo9Y: (OR) COUNTRY OJ 2nded., NCJ'76939, 2/82 Discount Nallonal Crime Survey reports -the. Nation's Technical standards for machine-readable data I I , I I Refund only regular national survey of crime Victims supplied to BJS, NCJ.75318, 6/81 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Justice agencies In the U.S., 1980 NCJ-65560 (annual) -153 sources, 433tablas, 103 figures 1/8.1 . . , , Index, bibliography , A style manual for machine-readable data NCJ-62766, 9/80 ' u,,",Y -. \ ..... m"'"'N f'J '\,J,J,'~

.',

'-

I,

II

~:I,

I ',' ,I I) 1 I i j I 1 I J J ( I , I 1 I tI ,I \ \' Ci I ,\ ! ~ '-0 i. ! I ' l' I

i f ',0 ' ( i

;,.~ I ! o '~ 1\ \~

..;,~

~ o \0 ,. i\: '~i.),

I L )

,\ " 0 , \)

(' '\ n I) '1