Victim facilitation

5 Victims’ Contributions to the Crime Problem

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Ongoing Controversy over Shared Responsibility

Repeat and Chronic Victims: Learning from Past Mistakes?

Victim Facilitation, Precipitation, and Provocation How Many Burglaries Are Victim-Facilitated? Victim Precipitation and Provocation The Frequency of Shared Responsibility in Violent Crimes Recognizing Complete Innocence and Full Responsibility

Victim Blaming versus Victim Defending

Victim Blaming Victim Defending

Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft: Is it the Careless Who Wind Up Carless?

Stealing Cars for Fun and Profit Patterns and Trends in Motor Vehicle Theft Which Motorists Should Be Most ConcernedWhen Parking? Blaming the Victim for Facilitating the Crime

Stolen Identities: Which Thefts Are Victim- Facilitated, and Which Precautions Are Reasonable?

The Nature of the Problem and How Many People Experience Its Aggravations

Losses and Suffering

Who Faces the Greatest Risks? Laws and Law Enforcement Blaming Victims for Ignoring Risk-Reduction Strategies Victim Defending: Facilitation Is Not the Heart of the Problem

Transcending Victim Blaming and Victim Defending

The Legal Importance of Determining Responsibility

Summary

Key Terms Defined in the Glossary

Questions for Discussion and Debate

Critical Thinking Questions

Suggested Research Topics

LEARNING OBJECTIVES To realize why the concept of shared responsibility is

so controversial.

To understand the distinctions between victim facili- tation, precipitation, and provocation.

To recognize victim-blaming and victim-defending arguments.

continued

119

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

The first few criminologists drawn to the study ofvictims were enthusiastic about the concept of shared responsibility as a possible explanation for why a particular person was harmed by a certain offender. By raising questions previous researchers had overlooked about victim proneness, individual vulnerability, and personal accountability for one’s misfortunes, they believed they were developing a more complete explanation about why laws are broken and people get hurt. But they also touched off a controversy within victimology that still rages today.

Throughout this chapter, arguments from both sides of the debate over shared responsibility will be presented in a balanced manner. First, the concepts of facilitation, precipitation, and pro- vocation will be introduced. Then, evidence from research into the issue of shared responsibility will be examined. After a general discussion of “victim blaming” and “victim defending,” the debate between these two schools of thought will be

explored in two specific areas: whether certain motorists whose cars were driven away thought- lessly facilitated the thefts, and whether some indi- viduals whose identities were “stolen” carelessly contributed to their own financial troubles.

Next, the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the victim-blaming and victim-defending perspec- tives will be underscored by the presentation of a third approach, “system blaming.” The chapter will con- clude with a discussion of the importance of the ques- tion of shared responsibility within the legal system.

THE ONGOING CONTROVERSY OVER SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Until victimology emerged, mainstream criminol- ogy had consistently ignored the role that injured parties might play in setting the stage for lawless behavior. Victimologists have pledged to correct this imbalance by objectively examining all kinds of situations to determine whether people who were harmed might have played a part in their own downfall.

Thus, victimologists have gone beyond offender-oriented explanations that attribute law- breaking solely to the exercise of free will by the wrongdoer. Victimologists suggest that certain criminal incidents be viewed as the outgrowths of a process of interaction between two parties. What has emerged is a dynamic model that takes into account initiatives and responses, actions and reac- tions, and each participant’s motives and intentions.

Several expressions coined by the pioneers of victimology capture their enthusiasm for examining interactions: the “duet frame of reference” (Von Hentig, 1941), the “penal couple” (Mendelsohn, 1956), and the “doer–sufferer relationship” (Ellen- berger, 1955). Reconstructing the situation preced- ing the incident can provide a more balanced and complete picture of what happened, who did what to whom and why, and thereby represents an improvement over earlier one-sided, static, perpetrator-centered accounts (Fattah, 1979).

LEARNING OBJECTIVES continued

To become acquainted with the suffering of people whose homes are burglarized.

To become familiar with the situation of people whose cars are stolen.

To be able to apply the concepts of victim facilitation, victim blaming, and victim defending to automobile theft.

To become familiar with the aggravation arising from identity theft.

To be able to apply the concepts of victim facilitation, victim blaming, and victim defending to identity theft.

To realize what is at stake in the debate between victim blamers and victim defenders.

To be able to see the institutional roots of crime, which overshadow the victim’s role.

To appreciate how the issue of shared responsibility impacts the operations of the criminal justice system.

120 CHAPT ER 5

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

A well-known line of inquiry (albeit a contro- versial one) within criminology centers on the differences, if any, between lawbreakers and law- abiding people. Criminologists ask, “What is ‘wrong’ with them? Are there physical, mental, or cultural differences that distinguish offenders from the rest of us?” Why are some groups of people (for example, young men from impoverished families) at a greater risk of getting caught up in street crimes than are other groups (say, wealthy elderly women)? In a similar vein, victimologists ask, “What distinguishes victims from nonvictims? Do individuals who get targeted think or act differently from those who don’t?” Furthermore, why are some groups of people (again, poor, young men) much more likely to be victimized (killed, shot, stabbed, beaten, or robbed) than other groups (once more, wealthy elderly women)?

Just posing these questions immediately raises the possibility of shared responsibility. Victimologists have borrowed the terminology of the legal system, traditionally used to describe criminal behavior, to describe the motives and actions of victims as well. The words responsibility, culpability, guilt, and blame crop up routinely in studies based on a dynamic, sit- uational model of interactions between two people. In the broadest sense, the concept of shared respon- sibility implies that certain victims along with their offenders did something wrong. Just adopting this framework contends that some—but certainly not all—of the individuals whowere hurt or experienced losses did not do all they could have done to reduce their odds or limit their exposure to dangerous indi- viduals or threatening circumstances.

In retrospect, certain victims can be criticized for failing to heed warning signs or take precautions:

■ A motorist shows no concern about where he parks his car, even though he knows that it ranks high on the list of most frequently stolen vehicles.

■ A college student tosses out bank statements and credit card bills without worrying whether personal information in them will end up in the wrong hands.

■ A woman gets drunk at a party even though she is among complete strangers.

■ A young man receives death threats from an adversary yet refuses to turn to the authorities for help.

Similarly, certain injured parties might be faulted for overlooking signs of an impending attack:

■ A car owner is awakened by the wail of an alarm but doesn’t check to see if his vehicle is being broken into.

■ A resident hears sounds of a prowler in the back- yard but disregards the threat of home invasion.

■ A drunk in a bar is staring at a patron who recklessly stares right back.

Victimized offenders surely bear some respon- sibility for the assaults directed against them: mobsters, drug dealers, and street gang members readily come to mind. Because their conduct antag- onized their rivals, they are largely to blame for their troubles. But what about the vast majority of innocent victims who lived law-abiding lives before they were targeted? Perhaps some behaved foolishly and later regretted their recklessness. For others, their only shortcoming was that they acted care- lessly and paid a price for their negligence. They failed to abide by well-meaning advice and decided to take their chances. In sum, instead of minimizing the risks they faced, certain individuals maximized them by making bad choices. Following this line of thought, many victims can be faulted to some degree. The circumstances under which they were harmed were partly of their own making. The unfortunate events that befell them could have been avoided—at least in hindsight.

The quest for evidence of shared responsibility captivated the first criminologists who became interested in victim behavior. Leading figures encouraged colleagues to focus upon the possibility of shared responsibility in their research and theo- rizing. Some of their statements excerpted from studies that appeared decades ago are assembled in Box 5.1.

V I C T IMS ’ CONTR I BUT I ON S TO THE CR IME PROBLEM 121

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Repeat and Chronic Victims: Learning from Past Mistakes?

One day in October, a woman hears someone banging on her front door. She opens it and sees her neighbor, a 21-year-old man, lying on his back. He pleads, “Call 911, I’m dying.” The ambulance rushes the man to a nearby hospital, but he is dead on arrival. Detectives discover that he had been shot at on two different occasions a few days apart back in July, and briefly hospitalized from the sec- ond attack. However, the alleged assassin in those

two prior armed assaults was in jail awaiting trial at the time of the third shooting. (Koehler, 2011)

Researchers looking for clear-cut cases of shared responsibility often focus on individuals who have suffered a series of thefts or attacks. Offenders seem to set their sights on certain indivi- duals and households more than once during a given period of time. “Repeat victims” are bur- dened twice. Suffering three or more times qualifies one for the title of “chronic victim.” Having been a victim in the past turns out to be the single best predictor of becoming harmed again in that very

B O X 5.1 Expressions of Support during Victimology’s Early Years for Inquiries into the Victim’s Role

■ A real mutuality frequently can be observed in the connection between the perpetrator and the victim, the killer and the killed, the duper and the duped. The vic- tim in many instances leads the evildoer into tempta- tion. The predator is, by varying means, prevailed upon to advance against the prey. (Von Hentig, 1941, p. 303)

■ In a sense, the victim shapes and molds the criminal. Although the final outcome may appear to be one-sided, the victim and criminal profoundly work upon each other, right up until the last moment in the drama. Ultimately, the victim can assume the role of determi- nant in the event. (Von Hentig, 1948, p. 384)

■ Criminologists should give as much attention to “victi- mogenesis” as to “criminogenesis.” Every person should know exactly to what dangers he is exposed because of his occupation, social class, and psychological consti- tution. (Ellenberger, 1955, p. 258)

■ The distinction between criminal and victim, which used to be considered as clear-cut as black and white, can become vague and blurred in individual cases. The lon- ger and the more deeply the actions of the persons involved are scrutinized, the more difficult it occasion- ally will be to decide who is to blame for the tragic outcome. (Mannheim, 1965, p. 672)

■ In some cases, the victim initiates the interaction, and sends out signals that the receiver (doer) decodes, triggering or generating criminal behavior in the doer. (Reckless, 1967, p. 142)

■ Probation and parole officers must understand victim– offender relationships. The personality of the victim, as a cause of the offense, is oftentimes more pertinent than that of the offender. (Schultz, 1968, p. 135)

■ Responsibility for one’s conduct is a changing concept, and its interpretation is a true mirror of the social, cultural, and political conditions of a given era … Notions of criminal responsibility most often indicate the nature of societal interrelationships and the ideology of the ruling group in the power structure. Many crimes don’t just happen to be committed—the victim’s negligence, precipitative actions, or provoca- tions can contribute to the genesis of crime … The victim’s functional responsibility is to do nothing that will provoke others to injure him, and to actively seek to prevent criminals from harming him. (Schafer, 1968, pp. 4, 144, 152)

■ Scholars have begun to see the victim not just as a passive object, as the innocent point of impact of crime on society, but as sometimes playing an active role and possibly contributing to some degree to his own victimization. During the last 30 years, there has been considerable debate, speculation, and research into the victim’s role, the criminal–victim relationship, the con- cept of responsibility, and behaviors that could be con- sidered provocative. Thus, the study of crime has taken on a more realistic and more complete outlook. (Viano, 1976, p. 1)

■ There is much to be learned about victimization pat- terns and the factors that influence them. Associated with the question of relative risk is the more specific question (of considerable importance) of victim partici- pation, since crime is an interactional process. (Parson- age, 1979, p. 10)

■ Victimology also postulates that the roles of victim and victimizer are neither fixed nor assigned, but are

122 CHAPT ER 5

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

same way—or by some other perpetrator or from some other type of offense. Furthermore, the greater the number of prior victimizations, the higher the likelihood will be of trouble in the near future. Revictimization often takes place soon after the ini- tial incident, and then the risks begin to decline as time passes. All these incidents are most likely to break out in very localized high-crime areas, dubbed “hot spots.” Just as a great many crimes can be traced back to just a few perpetrators, a relatively small number of individuals—termed “hot dots”— often suffer the brunt of these attacks. If the

police can recognize these recurring patterns by applying their knowledge of the suspected offen- ders, the likely scenes of the crimes, and the probable targets, then they can become effective guardians to head off further trouble (Pease and Laycock, 1996).

Just as criminals have careers in which they offend in various ways over the years, those on the receiving end might also be said to endure “victim careers” over the course of their lifetimes. The career consists of the frequency, duration, and seriousness of the hurtful experiences suffered by

mutable and interchangeable, with continuous move- ment between the two roles.... This position, under- standably, will not be welcomed by those who, for a variety of practical or utilitarian reasons, continue to promote the popular stereotypes of victims and victi- mizers, according to which the two populations are as different as black and white, night and day, wolves and lambs. (Fattah, 1991, p. xiv)

Calls for Research into the Victim’s Role in Specific Crimes

■ Murder: In many crimes, especially criminal homicide, which usually involves intense personal interaction, the victim is often a major contributor to the lawless act.... Except in cases in which the victim is an innocent bystander and is killed in lieu of an intended victim, or in cases in which a pure accident is involved, the victim may be one of the major precipitating causes of his own demise. (Wolfgang, 1958, pp. 245, 264)

■ Rape: The offender should not be viewed as the sole “cause” and reason for the offense, and the “virtuous” rape victim is not always the innocent and passive party. The role played by the victim and its contribution to the perpetration of the offense becomes one of the main interests of the emerging discipline of victimol- ogy. Furthermore, if penal justice is to be fair it must be attentive to these problems of degrees of victim responsibility for her own victimization. (Amir, 1971, pp. 275–76)

■ Theft: Careless people set up temptation–opportunity situations when they carry their money or leave their valuables in a manner which virtually invites theft by pickpocketing, burglary, or robbery. Carelessness in

handling cash is so persistently a part of everyday living that it must be deemed almost a national habit.... Because victim behavior today is conducive to crimi- nality, it will be necessary to develop mass educational programs aimed at changing that behavior. (Fooner, 1971, pp. 313, 315)

Victims cause crime in the sense that they set up the opportunity for the crime to be committed. By changing the behavior of the victim and potential victim, the crime rate can be reduced. Holders of fire insurance policies must meet fire safety standards, so why not require holders of theft insurance to meet security standards? (Jeffrey, 1971, pp. 208–209)

■ Burglary: In the same way that criminologists compare offenders with nonoffenders to understand why a per- son commits a crime, we examined how the burglary victim and nonvictim differ in an attempt to understand the extent to which a victim vicariously contributes to or precipitates a break-in. (Waller and Okihiro, 1978, p. 5)

■ Auto theft: Unlike most personal property, which is preserved behind fences and walls, cars are constantly moved from one exposed location to another; and since autos contain their own means of locomotion, potential victims are particularly responsible for varying the degree of theft risk by where they park and by the occasions they provide for starting the engine. The role of the victim is especially conse- quential for this crime; many cases of auto theft appear to be essentially a matter of opportunity. They are victim-facilitated. (McCaghy, Giordano, and Henson, 1977, p. 369)

V I C T IMS ’ CONTR I BUT I ON S TO THE CR IME PROBLEM 123

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

a person from childhood until death. The total number of incidents, the date of their onset, their timing (bunching up or spreading out), and the nature of the injuries and losses sustained as they grow older might be gained by interviewing people and asking them to try to recall all their misfortunes retrospectively. Another approach would involve periodically reinterviewing them or an entire birth cohort every few years as part of an ongoing longi- tudinal study. The goal would be to empower these individuals to reduce their risks of future turmoil, to improve social support programs and police inter- ventions intended to help them, and to further the development of victim-centered theories that explain the disproportionate burdens certain per- sons endure (Farrell et al., 2001).

One implication of this focus on revictimiza- tion and victim careers is that particular individuals might be making the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe they periodically permit their judg- ment to become clouded by drinking too much in taverns, or by failing to safeguard their personal property, or by allowing themselves to become isolated from bystanders who could intervene in their behalf, or by hanging out with persons known to be armed and dangerous. The most well-documented examples include bank branches suffering holdups frequently, residences being bur- glarized a number of times, battered wives getting struck repeatedly, and bullied children picked on by a series of tormentors. Yet their unfortunate track records may not be entirely their fault, according to crime analysts working on behalf of police depart- ments who look for patterns that may indicate where offenders will strike next and precisely whom they might target. These analysts have come up with two primary reasons to account for repeat victimizations: a boost explanation that focuses on offender talents, and a flag explanation that emphasizes target vulnerability (see Weisel, 2005).

Boost explanations of repeat victimizations point out that career criminals gain important infor- mation about the people and places they repeatedly attack based on firsthand knowledge from the suc- cessful perpetration of their initial illegal act. They

use this inside information to plan their next attack against the same target. Examples of boost explana- tions would be that burglars learn when a particular home is unoccupied, or how to circumvent a certain warehouse’s alarm system. Car thieves figure out how to open the door of a specific make and model of car without a key. Robbers discover where a storekeeper hides his cash right before clos- ing time. In contrast, flag explanations of repeat vic- timizations are victim-centered. They point out that unusually vulnerable or attractive targets might suf- fer the depredations of a number of different offen- ders as opposed to the same criminal over and over. For example, apartments with sliding glass doors are easily broken into, convenience stores that are open around the clock are always accessible to shoplifters, and taxi drivers and pizza deliverers are particularly easy to rob (Weisel, 2005).

Victim Facilitation, Precipitation, and Provocation

The notions of victim facilitation, precipitation, and provocation are derived from the broader theme of shared responsibility. Each concept describes the specific, identifiable, blameworthy actions taken by certain individuals immediately before they were harmed. Provocation is the most serious charge that can be leveled at an injured party, while facilitation is the least serious. Unfortunately, these three terms have been used somewhat loosely and inconsistently by criminologists and victimolo- gists to the point that important distinctions have been blurred or buried.

Victim Facilitation The term facilitation ought to be reserved for situations in which victims care- lessly and inadvertently make it easier for a thief to steal. Those who negligently and unwittingly assist their offenders share a minor amount of blame. They increase the risks of losing their own property by their thoughtless actions. If it is assumed that many thieves were already on the prowl, looking for opportunities to grab and run, then facilitation is not a major reason why a crime took place. Facili- tation is more like a catalyst in a chemical reaction

124 CHAPT ER 5

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

that, given the right ingredients and conditions, speeds up the interaction. Facilitating victims attract criminally inclined people to their poorly guarded possessions and thereby influence the spatial distri- bution of crime, but not the number of incidents.

Auto theft and burglary are the two property crimes most often cited in studies of the problem of facilitation. A motorist who exits his vehicle but leaves the engine running can be considered blame- worthy if a juvenile joyrider seizes the opportunity and impulsively hops behind the wheel and drives off. Similarly, a ransacked home is the price a person might pay for neglecting to observe standard security measures. A residential burglary can be considered to be facilitated if the intruder did not need to break into the premises because a homeowner or apart- ment dweller had left a front door, back door, garage door, or window wide open or unlocked. By defini- tion, these burglaries are not break-ins; they are acts of trespass by intruders seeking to commit thefts.

How Many Burglaries Are Victim-Facilitated?

Burglaries are the most common of all serious crime tracked by the FBI. Larcenies (thefts of all kinds) are more numerous but many result merely in minor losses (petty larcenies). Burglaries are particularly upsetting and a source of emotional harm because the intruder violates the victim’s private and per- sonal space, and fears about the threat of a surprise return visit can linger for a long time.

In 2010, residents of 2.9 million households told NCVS interviewers that someone had tried or had succeeded in entering their home to steal things. Nearly 2.1 million burglaries were reported to police departments across the nation that same year (roughly 25 percent of those were of commercial establish- ments and government agencies, not residences; how- ever, many completed as well as attempted residential burglaries were not brought to the attention of the police). Burglars carted off an estimated $4.6 billion in stolen goods, yielding an average loss of over $2,000 per incident, according to the UCR for 2010.

Single-family homes are more attractive to burglars than apartments, condominiums, and

other multifamily residences because private houses have more access points and are more difficult to secure, and often contain greater rewards. How- ever, private homeowners can take their own initiatives to protect their possessions, and usually have both the incentive and the resources to do so. Intrusions are much more likely to occur during the day and on weekdays when the premises are unoccupied than on weekends and at night. Besides preferring to strike when no one is at home, it appears that burglars select targets that are familiar to them and convenient (often close to their own homes), accessible, easy to watch, and vulnerable (lacking security devices). Specifically, the most likely targets are located near potential offenders (in high crime urban neighborhoods or in the vicinity of transit hubs, shopping centers, sports are- nas, and places where young men and drug abusers congregate); either near busy thoroughfares or on the quiet outskirts of neighborhoods. Houses vacant for extended periods, homes without barking dogs, and those on corners or bordering on alleys or in secluded locations shrouded by shrubbery, walls, or fences arouse interest. Ironically, mansions with expensive cars parked outside actually dampen interest because they are more likely to remain occupied or to be protected by sophisticated secu- rity systems. Houses that were struck once are more likely to be struck again because the features that determine their attractiveness are difficult to change, because the burglar returns to remove addi- tional goods left behind during the first invasion, or because the burglar has told others about the vul- nerability of this target. Simple tools like screwdri- vers and crowbars typically are used to pry open locks, windows, and doors (Weisel, 2002).

Details about victim-facilitated burglaries appear in theNational Crime Victimization Survey.TheNCVS keeps track of three categories of household (not com- mercial) burglaries: forcible entries (break-ins), attempted forcible entries, and unlawful entries with- out force. (Attempted, unsuccessful no-force inva- sions are not counted because survey respondents usually would be unaware of these close calls.)