CJUS 4650 1st EditionExam #2 Study Guide Lectures: 12 - 17Lecture 12 (March 3)Victim’s Contribution to the Crime Problem- Theorieso Duet Frame of Reference- Von Hentig, 1941o Penal Code-Mendelsohn, 1956o Doer-Sufferer Relationship-Ellenberger, 1955o Shared Responsibility-certain victims as well as criminals did something wrongShared 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”- Burglary: “…understand the extent to which a victim vicariously contributes to or precipitates a break-in” Shared Responsibility- Repeat victimso Individuals who have been burdened by some type of crime at least twice- Chronic victimso Individuals who are victimized 3 or more times- Victim Careers- Hot dotso Individuals who are routinely targeted- Boost explanationo An individual studying and gaining info about their prey- Flag explanationso Looks at the target specifically-is the target vulnerable?o Apartments that have sliding doors- Facilitationo Victims unknowingly, carelessly, negligently, and inadvertently make it easier for an offender to commit a thefto Ex: Leaving a purse visible on a car seat- Precipitationo Victim significantly contributes to the evento Ex: Victim was having an affair with the killer’s wife- Provocationo Worse than precipitationo Victim more directly responsible for the crimeo Ex: Victim started a fight in a bar and ended up dead- Sub-intentional deatho Individuals who play a role in their death because of their high-risk lifestylesFrequency of Shared Responsibility- Typologyo Classification system that answers the question of what do these groups have in common and what makes them different- Study conducted by National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violenceo Homicide-person who died was rhe first to resort to force: 22%o Aggravated Assault-seriously injured first to use force or offensive action: 14%o Armed Robberies- Victim did not reasonably handle money, jewelry or valuables: 11%o Forcible rapes: Woman first agreed to sexual encounter: 4%Frequency of Shared Responsibility for Violent Crimes- Victim’s Levels of Responsibilityo Completely innocent victims cannot be blames for the crime. They reasonably reduced risks, no negligence or passive indifference Victims of property crimes often harden their targets with security alarmsand devices- Victim is totally responsible when there is no offender—victim may pose as offender andcommit fraud.- Offenders use techniques of neutralizationo Justify their offendingVictim Blaming vs. Victim Defending- Victim Blaming o Characterizationo Victims might share responsibility with offender if facilitation, precipitation, or provocation of the event occurred.- Victim Defendingo Characterizationo It is not fair to hold the wounded party accountable for his or her own losses or injuries.- Victim Blamingo “Just World” Outlook—People get what they deserve.o Bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people.o Personal Accountability—Basic doctrine of U.S. legal system that encourages victim blaming.o Crime-conscious individuals should review their lifestyles and routines to increase personal safety.o Victim blaming is the view of majority of offenders- Victim Defending—Rejects the premise that victims are partly at fault.o Victim defender’s criticisms of victim blamers:o Victim blaming overstates victim’s involvement/shared responsibility.o Overstates events of victim facilitation, precipitation or provocation.o Exhorting people to be more cautious and vigilant is not an adequate solution.- Two tendencies with victim defending regarding who or what is to be faulted:o Offender blaming:  Do not shift any blame away from offender onto the victim.o System blaming:  Behaviors of both parties influenced by the social environment ; neither the victim nor the offender is to blame.Victim Facilitation and Auto Theft- “Is it the careless who end up carless?”- Most likely victim—under age 25, apt. dweller, urban inner-city, African Americans and Hispanic Americans, low-income- Victim blaming focuses on motorists with bad habits (i.e. carelessness about locks and keys).- Victim defending focuses on majority of motorists who did nothing wrong.- Teenagers are no longer #1 in stealing cars—organized car rings/chop shops- Retaggingo Individuals alter registration and title, pass it off as used vehicle and try to sell it- Chop shopo Sell parts of vehicle for profitTypology of Shared Responsibility- Auto Theft- Conscientiously resisting victims-75%o No blame, security devices in car, go out of way to prevent theft- Conventionally cautious victims-75%o Doing what they need to do but don’t go above and beyond- Carelessly facilitating victims-15%o Leaving doors unlocked, window open- Precipitative initiators-10%o Want their car to be stolen, to get insurance money- Provocative conspirator-10%o Hire thieves to steal vehicle and collect insurance money- Fabricating solicitors-10%o No vehicle, collect money by saying car was takenLecture 13 (March 10) How the System Handles Victims- Which CJ professionals are involved with victim issues?o Policeo Prosecutoro Judgeso Corrections- The system often creates more conflict than resolution for victimsWhat do Victims Want, Punishment or Restitution?- Three goalso Punish offenderso Compel lawbreakers to undergo rehabilitative treatmento Repay victims for loss- Punishmento Retribution-morally sound practice lex talionis (eye for an eye)o Make examples of criminals-provided deterrence theory really workso Incapacitateo Satisfies victim thirst for revengeo Prevents future vigilantismo Opponents of this utilaritarian approach have documented that punishment: Results in high rate sof imprisonment Is expensive Is often impractical Can be ineffective- Rehabilitationo Some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent, productive, law abiding citizens Do not want them to victimize otherso Victims most likely to endorse rehabilitation if the offender was not a complete strangero Victims may become dismayed when “heavy handed” policies drive the offender to become more violent and attain new heights of antisocial conduct- Restitutiono Some victims want restitution rather