Victim facilitation theory

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.