Name : Nontando
Surname : Qwabe
1|Page
victimization refers to the process or act of individuals or groups becoming victims of crimes,
offenses, or harmful actions. It involves the experience of harm, damage, or negative
consequences because of being subjected to various forms of criminal behaviour, violence,
abuse, or wrongdoing. There are many different theories that have been proposed to explain
victimization, and this essay will discuss two of these theories: lifestyle theory and routine
activities theory as they related to victimology. Lifestyle theory suggests that the choices
people make about their lifestyle can increase their risk of becoming a victim of crime, while
routine activities theory focuses on the role that everyday activities and opportunities play in
determining who becomes a victim. Specifically, it will discuss the strengths and weaknesses
of each theory, as well as how they apply to real-world examples of victimization.
Lifestyle exposure theory
One of the first systematic theories of criminal victimization was the lifestyle-exposure
approach developed by Hinde Lang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978) less than twenty years
ago. This theory was originally proposed to account for differences in the risks of violent
victimization across social groups, but it has been extended to include property crime, and it
forms the basis for more elaborate theories of targets election processes. According to lifestyle
theory, victimization can be influenced by the lifestyle choices that people make. It suggests
that certain people may become the victims of crimes because of their lifestyles and
choices. This includes the places they live, the people they associate with, and the activities
they engage in. For example, people who live in high-crime areas may be more likely to be
victimized than those who live in safer neighbourhoods. People who associate with criminals
or engage in risky behaviour, such as drug use or gambling, may also be at a higher risk of
victimization. The theory suggests that by changing lifestyle choices, people can reduce their
risk of becoming a victim.
The person working at the store may also be vulnerable to victimization due to a lack of
resources, such as In interpreting and analysing the theory of lifestyle exposure, we need to
consider the three stages of lifestyle exposure: exposure, vulnerability, and the presence of
motivated offenders. In the exposure stage, lifestyle choices can create proximity to or
interaction with motivated offenders. For example, a person who work at a convenience store
This job creates proximity to motivated offenders, as convenience stores are often targets for
2|Page
robberies. a security system or a way to call for help in an emergency. And someone with a
gambling or substance addiction could be as an “easy victim” by a con artist. In the
vulnerability stage, lifestyle choices can create a lack of resources or ability to
escape victimization.
Age
Age has an impact on how a person interacts with people outside of their immediate family.
For instance, when a kid is younger, they spend most of their time at home or in school, but by
late adolescence, "the child's activities are by and large no longer within the institutional control
of family or school" (Hinde Lang et al., 1978:247). The model suggests that victims of crime
are more likely to be teenagers. The adolescent stage is marked by the development of new
relationships with peers that may result in victimization. This might be explained by their social
habits, which include going out alone to events at night and possibly interacting with more
people. According to Fattah (1991:319), a lifestyle is "patterned ways in which individuals
channel their time and energy by engaging in a number of activities." Lifestyle, on the other
hand, is defined by Hinde Lang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978:241) as "routine daily
activities, both vocational (work, school, keeping house) and leisure activities."
Gender
The daily activities and lifestyle of an individual are significantly influenced by gender. Males
and girls have historically been subjected to various types of socialization in this regard. Both
Makepeace (1999:57) and Biletnikoff (1995:65) illustrate how society exposes men and
women to various expectations as they learn about gender identity and sex roles. Men are
expected to be aggressive, forceful, and tough, whereas women are expected to be passive and
submissive, because of this. Women now spend more time at home than men do because of
these socialization methods. Hinde Lang et al. (1978:248) note that "females are more closely
supervised than males and as adults they are more likely to assume housekeeping
responsibilities" in this context. As a result, men prefer to spend more time socializing with
both friends and complete strangers outside the home. Increased exposure to criminal
victimization could result from this.
Family income
As income reflects a person's place in the economic structure, patterns of relationship can
likewise be connected to income, claim Hinde Lang et al. (1978:249). The ability to choose
3|Page
one's behaviour is significantly limited by family money. This is because the ability to change
one's life as one pleases, including the freedom to select one's residence, mode of and type of
leisure activities, is correlated with one's money. Due to factors like dependence on public
transportation and residence in high-crime areas, the low-income group transportation, may
therefore be more vulnerable to victimization.
The routine activity theory
The routine activity approach was developed by Cohen and Marcus in 1979. Kennedy and
Silverman (1988:1) state that this approach was inspired by the work of Hawley (1950) on
human ecology and Shaw and McKay’s work on juvenile delinquency in urban areas (1942).
The routine activity approach uses regularities in behavioural routine to predict criminal
victimisation. The routine activity approach is a relatively recent approach that is related to the
rational choice perspective. This means that this model is based on freedom of choice and
action which yield a more complete picture or model of crime (Williams & McShane,
1994:250). The routine activity theory uses a series of circumstances that correspond to average
people's daily activities to explain the rate of victimization. The presence of motivated
perpetrators, the availability of acceptable targets, and the lack of qualified guardians are the
three factors.
This hypothesis contends that the existence of one or more of these elements increases the
likelihood of victimization. For instance, leaving one's house while on vacation makes for a
good target. A person is more at risk of being victimized if they leave their home while on
vacation in an urban region, particularly if there are many teenage boys, criminals, or other
"motivated offenders" in that area. The rational choice methodology is the foundation of routine
activity theory and situational crime prevention strategies. Routine activity theory is subject to
critique, just like any other theory. The presumption that criminals make reasonable decisions
is one of the main critiques. They might have different justifications than the one who is putting
the security measures in place. They might not even be aware of the situational methods of
crime prevention in use. They might be intoxicated or using drugs, or they might just not care
about the security measures for any reason.
Human ecology and rational choice theory are the cornerstones of routine activity theory. The
hypothesis has been widely used over time to research a variety of crimes, including burglaries,
robberies, cybercrimes, residential break-ins, and the victimization that results from them. It's
also important to note that the routine activity theory and the lifestyle theory of criminology by
4|Page
Hinde Lang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978) are frequently seen as being "essentially
similar"[3][4] in the study of criminal victimization.[5] Routine activity theory has been
employed frequently more recently to describe numerous neighbourhood crimes in multilevel
frameworks with social disorganization theory. According to the theory of routine activity,
crime is more likely to happen when three crucial components of crime—a motivated offender,
a desirable victim, and the absence of capable guardianship—converge in place and time.[1][6]
Routine activity theory's analytical approach stresses large-scale changes in victim and
offender behaviour patterns from a macro perspective. It concentrates on criminal activity and
criminal choice/behaviour. The premise of the routine activity idea is that anyone with the
opportunity can conduct crime. According to the argument, victims are given the option of
choosing not to become victims by avoiding circumstances where a crime could be perpetrated
against them. So, let's examine each of these three components in turn. The first is a criminal
with motivation. Routine Activities Theory is not particularly interested in this, even though it
is one of the three key components. Cohen and Felson merely presuppose the existence of a
motivated criminal. They don't care what the offender's motivations are. This is where the
theory departs from most criminological theories, which concentrate on the motivations behind
criminal behaviour. Routine Activities Theory is particularly prominent in victimology since it
is more focused in the victimization aspect.
Motivated offender
According to Felson (1987:911–912), studying offenders' routines can teach us a lot about
crime. According to him, criminals strive to commit their crimes with the least amount of effort
possible, which entails taking the quickest way possible. Like how they pursue the most visible
prey, offenders rely on their senses. The method also assumes that regular movement and
general mobility can either enhance or decrease potential victimization and that, depending on
specific social and environmental circumstances, crime may be discouraged, redirected, or
even promoted (Cohen & Felson, 1979:590). These theorists do not provide an explanation for
what drives people to commit crimes since they take the existence of a motivated criminal for
granted. Other criminological theories, such as Merton's anomie theory, Sutherland's
differential association theory, and Cohen's sub-cultural theory of delinquency, have already
given for these answers, claim Cohen and Felson (1979:590).
Sustainability of the target
5|Page
The most likely questions in this situation, according to Manon (1997:15), are: Who are the
most likely victims? And why are these targets (victims) the best candidates? Value, physical
visibility, accessibility, and inertia are the four factors that go into determining if a target is
suitable for a crime. Visibility refers to the perceptibility and/or risk of being spotted by
potential offenders, whereas value alludes to the item's pecuniary and symbolic worth.
Accessibility means the capability and simplicity with which a thief can reach the target
undetected. Finally, inertia describes the ease with which the goal can be attained, such as
variables that make it difficult to overcome a target and the victim's capacity to put up a strong
fight. According to Cohen and Felson (1979:560), there must be something worth stealing or
the appearance of wealth for any crime to take place. According to these experts, typical
behaviours might affect how suitable a target is since they enhance the likelihood that people
will congregate locations at times.
Absence of capable guardian
According to Williams and McShane (1994:222), for any crime to be committed, the
environment must be such that the motivated perpetrator is not distracted by anyone or
anything. Capable guardians are described by Cohen and Felson (1979:560) as everyday people
going about their regular lives as well as mechanical equipment like locks, alarms, and security
cameras. To put it another way, it entails regular people enforcing informal social control
through observation and punishment. The likelihood of being a victim is thought to grow with
the spatial and temporal convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence
of skilled protectors. Further, Cohen and Felson (1979:561) contend that the absence of any
one of these components is sufficient to prevent a crime from happening. For instance, the third
component would be absent if a motivated criminal came across a uniformed police officer
carrying a large sum of cash; as a result, the possibility of crime would be diminished, if not
eliminated.
Alternatively, if all three elements are present and no one is around to witness the crime, such
as a caregiver who finds cash hidden in an elderly person's nightstand, the likelihood of the
crime happening rises (Wooldridge, Cullen & Latesha, 1992:326). According to this strategy,
knowing how everyday actions encourage this convergence is necessary for the success of the
battle against crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979:593). According to this strategy, victimization
patterns are explained by people's regular daily movements. Since criminals and targets rarely
congregate in the absence of guardians, managing the ebb and flow of human movement is the
6|Page
most effective method of crime prevention (Felson, 1987:913). Routine activities have shifted
out from the boundaries of the house since the Second World War and the liberation of women.
In locations farther from the home, like the mines, more people were offered jobs. This change
raised the likelihood that motivated offenders would meet adequate targets in location and time.
Most people commuted to and from work, leaving the residences unattended (Felson,
1987:913, Payne, 2000:171; Vito & Holmes, 1994:144), which led to a rise in crime rates.
7|Page
Burgess, A.W., Regehr, C. and Roberts, A.R., 2011. Victimology:
Theories and applications. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Vancouver
Zaykowski, H. and Campagna, L., 2014. Teaching theories of victimology. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 25(4), pp.452-467.
Dempsey, J., Fireman, G., Wang, E. (2006). "Transitioning Out of Peer Victimization in School
Children: Gender and Behavioral Characteristics." Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment 28: 271 – 280
Truman, J. Ph. D. (2019). Criminal Victimization 2019. U.S. Department of Justice: National
Crime Victimization Survey
8|Page
9|Page
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
Burgess, A.W., Regehr, C. and Roberts, A.R., 2011. Victimology:
Theories and applications. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Vancouver
Zaykowski, H. and Campagna, L., 2014. Teaching theories of victimology. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 25(4), pp.452-467.
Dempsey, J., Fireman, G., Wang, E. (2006). "Transitioning Out of Peer Victimization in School
Children: Gender and Behavioral Characteristics." Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment 28: 271 – 280
Truman, J. Ph. D. (2019). Criminal Victimization 2019. U.S. Department of Justice: National
Crime Victimization Survey
21 | P a g e