Crime Victims: An Introduction to
Victimology
Sixth Edition
By Andrew Karmen
Chapter Five:
The Victims’ Contribution To The
Crime Problem
1
Victim’s Contribution To The
Crime Problem
 Theories
– Duet Frame of Reference—Von Hentig, 1941
– Penal Couple—Mendelsohn, 1956
– Doer-Sufferer Relationship—Ellenberger, 1955
Shared Responsibility—Victims as well as
criminals did something wrong
Evidence of Shared Responsibility Inquiries: See
Box 5.1, Page 98
2
Shared Responsibility Issues
 Murder: ”…victim is often major contributor…”
(Wolfgang, 1958)
 Rape: “…’virtuous’ rape victim is not always the
innocent and passive party.” (Amir, 1971)
 Theft: “Victims cause crime in the sense that they
set up the opportunity for the crime to be
committed.” (Jeffrey, 1971)
 Burglary: “…understand the extent to which a
victim vicariously contributes to or precipitates a
break-in.” (Waller and Okihiro, 1978)
3
Shared Responsibility
 Facilitation—victims unknowingly, carelessly,
negligently and inadvertently make it easier for
offender to commit a theft
 Precipitation—victim significantly contributes to the
event
 Provocation—worse than precipitation—more
responsible than perpetrator for the fight that
ensued. Goaded, challenged or incited a
generally law-abiding citizen into taking defensive
action
4
Frequency of Shared Responsibility
Study by National Commission on
the Causes and Prevention of
Violence
 Homicide—person who died was the first to resort
to force—22%
 Aggravated Assault—seriously injured first to use
force or offensive action—14%
 Armed Robberies—victim did not reasonably
handle money, jewelry or valuables—11%
 Forcible Rapes—woman first agreed to sexual
relations or invited through gestures—4%
5
Frequency of Shared Responsibility
for Violent Crimes
Completely innocent victims cannot be blamed for
the crime. They reasonably reduced risks, no
negligence or passive indifference.
They often harden their targets with security devices
and alarms
Victim is totally responsible when there is no
offender—victim may pose as offender—fraud
6
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
 Victim Blaming Characterization
– Victims might share responsibility with offender
if facilitation, precipitation, or provocation of the
event occurred
 Victim Defending Characterization
– Challenge it is not accurate or fair to hold the
wounded party accountable to some degree for
losses or injuries that happened
7
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
 Victim Blaming
– Personal Accountability—Basic doctrine of U.S.
legal system
– Just World Outlook—People get what they
deserve
Victim blaming is the view of majority of offenders
8
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
 Victim Defending—Rejects the premise that
victims are partly at fault or must change their
ways
1. Victim blaming criticized for overstating victim’s
involvement
2. Overstates events of facilitation, precipitation or
provocation
3. Exhorting people to be more cautious and vigilant is
not an adequate solution
9
Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending
 See Box 5.2, page 108: “Criticisms of the
Notion of Shared Responsibility”
 Two tendencies with victim defending
regarding who or what is to be faulted:
– 1. Offender blaming—do not shift any blame
away from offender onto the victim
– 2. Link victim defending with system blaming
attitudes and behaviors of both parties
influenced by socialization
10
Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft
 “Is it the careless who end up carless?” Trends—
Figure 5.2, page 110; Tables 5.1, page 112, and
5.2, page 113
 Most likely victim—under 25, apt. dweller, urban inner city,
African Americans and Hispanic Americans, low income
 Most likely stolen vehicle—2000 Honda Civic
Auto theft is only crime which has a “victim blaming
lobby”
Auto makers, law enforcement, insurance
companies
11
Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft
 Victim blaming focuses on motorists with
bad habits
 Victim defending focuses on majority of
motorists who did nothing wrong
– Teenagers are no longer #1 in stealing cars—
organized car rings
12
Typology of Shared Responsibility
 Auto Theft:
– Conscientiously Resisting Victims
} 55%
– Conventionally Cautious Victims
– Carelessly Facilitating Victims}
20%
– Precipitative Initiators
– Provocative Conspirators } 25%
– Fabricating Simulators
13
Victim Facilitation and ID Theft
 ID Theft—Unauthorized (illegal)
appropriation of personal information
– Names, addresses, dob, doc#, mother’s maiden
name
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—Identity theft
clearing house
Table 5.3, page 117 identifies Identity Theft
Type distribution nationwide in 2004
14
Laws and Law Enforcement
 Nearly all states criminalized the unlawful
possession of personal I.D. in the 90s
 1998 Congress passed the Identity Theft
and Assumption Deterrence Act
– Provided for financial recovery for victim not just
financial institution
 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
of 2003
– Provided for one free credit report per year
15
Laws and Law Enforcement
 Problems undermining law enforcement
effectiveness in enforcing ID Theft
– Many officers lack training and agencies lack
resources to provide adequate response
– Multi-jurisdictional complications undercut an
agency’s commitment to follow through
– Law enforcement agencies stymied as many
instances not reported to police
16
Victim Facilitation and ID Theft
 Risk Reduction Strategies
– Lock up computer, desktop, laptop
– Shred pre-approved credit card invitations
– Discreetly discard receipts and ATM info
– Devise clever passwords
– When asked for Soc #, be sure to ask why and
how to be used
17
Legal Importance of Determining
Responsibility
 Responsibility rests on judgments that are subject
to challenges and criticisms
 Whether the victim facilitated, precipitated or
provoked an offender is considered by police,
prosecutors, juries, judges, compensation boards,
insurance examiners, and politicians
 It is an issue at many stages of the CJ process,
restitution consideration and insurance
settlements
18
Key Terms
Shared responsibility
Duet frame of reference
Penal couple
Doer-sufferer
relationship
Boost explanation
Flag explanation
Facilitation, Precipitation
provocation
Subculture of violence
Sub intentional death
Justifiable homicide
Typology
Victim blaming, victim
defending
Just world outlook
Offender blaming,
System blaming
Retagging, Chop shops
Conscientiously resisting
victims
Conventionally cautious
victims
Carelessly facilitating
victims
Precipitative initiators,
Provocative Conspiracy
Fabricating simulators
Identity Theft
Microscopic,
macroscopic
System
19