Dear Appeal Committees,Reference Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-L

Dear Appeal Committees,
Reference: Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-Licensure
My name is
Mr. D. My student ID number is
000000. Not long ago, I went through an appeal process
due to the death of my beloved dad. It is regrettable and
disheartening that I am going through an appeal process again.
Here comes again another appeal in less than four months for
incompletion of the Medication Calculation exam within the
time frame because of the unawareness exam schedule. I have
no words to describe the disappointment and the pain I am
going through because of these issues. I have been mentally and
physically drained from all these challenges since I came to
name University. I have been trying my best to do the
right thing. Sometimes I wonder what I did do wrong. Did I
make the wrong decision to attend
name University? What is it? Honestly, it is tough to
comprehend. When I try to recuperate from one problem,
another problem hits me right back.
Most of the time, it is hard for me to understand the trail of
these challenges. I have been questioning why these challenges
are always coming to me and still have not found an answer. I
came to
school name with GPA close to 4.0.
Now, what is happening to my intellectual ability
?Am I not the same person? Because of these
challenges, my academic knowledge has been doubted by a
professor who does not know me or my educational background.
I have been betrayed, labeled negatively, and belittled due to
the Medication Calculation exam in question. I feel embarrassed
and ashamed of myself as how unforeseen circumstances have
put me in a negative spot and drawing me back from the career I
loved so much and putting me in a position I would never

expect in my entire life.
Notwithstanding, my poor academic performance did not occur
during normal circumstances. It was due to some challenges
beyond my control or inevitable. I believe in education. I can
never intentionally take my education for granted, and I am too
old for that. My entire family and I value education so much.
We believe that knowledge is power. Also, I have never doubted
my academic ability to succeed in nursing school, regardless of
all the challenges that hit me back and forth. I have confidence
that I must surely succeed in nursing school despite the life
challenges nature brings to me, which are inevitable. It was not
by accident that I decided to attend nursing school at this point
in my life. I believe nursing is a natural call for me, and I will
do it proficiently. I knew what it entails to be a nursing student
and was prepared for it.
Unfortunately, life challenges tend to overwhelm my academic
performance. Regardless of the difficulties, I must not quit
nursing school. I am quitting is not an option for me. I am
almost done with my studies. Nursing is my joy and passion.
My Heavenly Father gave me a special caring heart for a reason,
and I will use it to make a difference in my nursing career. I
have been on clinical rotations several times, and I have
received compliments from patients, nurses, and even
physicians repeatedly. I know myself and my capabilities.
Please do not use these challenges to end my nursing career. I
believe that
school name will be proud of me when I start
practicing as a registered nurse. I have been a great resource on
anything I lay my hands on throughout my lifetime. Please
allow me an opportunity to complete my nursing program. Do
not let these trial times take my nursing destiny away. Please
reconsider my appeal. I am not a bad student.
First, the reason for my poor academic performance on NR 341
Complex Adult Health in July 2022 was because of illness. On

July 12, I came to the class feeling sick, thinking it would
disappear. Unfortunately, throughout the class period, I had a
headache, a cough, a runny nose, and a sore throat, and
everyone noticed that I was not feeling well. By the time I
reached home, it got worst. On the following day, July 13,
2022, my Complex Adult Health medication calculation exam
was scheduled; unfortunately, I was still sick to the extent that I
could not attend my first clinical rotation for the session and my
medication calculation exam. Also, early morning of the same
day, I received a devastating call that my uncle had passed away
in California. My uncle was in the hospital for a while, even
before my dad’s burial in April. We thought he was improving
from his illness because he was discharged from the hospital.
The whole family was excited that he was getting better. A few
days later, he was readmitted to the hospital again. Shortly, he
was pronounced dead. I was demoralized by the sad news;
coupled with that, and I was sick and worried about missing my
clinical rotation and my medication exam.
The very same day, I went to the doctor because I was not
feeling good at all because of a terrible cough, headache, feve r,
and sore throat. My doctor gave me some prescriptions, which
helped me after a few days, but the cough lingered for days
before I noticed the effects of the medications. That morning is
Wednesday, July 13, 2022; I emailed Professor
name to let her know about my situation. She did not
reply to my email until Friday, July 15, 20222, at 1:19 pm. I did
not notice her email until Monday morning. I had to email
Professor
name as soon as I saw her email stating that I must take
the Med Calc test by Saturday of week 2 to remain in NR 341.
By then, it was too late to take the exam. That was what related
to my academic performance. Since I started taking Med Calc, I
have never had any problems. Most of the time, I score
perfectly on my Medication Calculations.
Not only that, that week was one of my twin

daughters’ weddings in
name city Thursday night; I had to travel to
city name for my daughter’s wedding, which was
scheduled on July 16, 2022, even though I was still feeling sick
and bereaved. After the wedding, I left Chicago on Sunday
afternoon, July 17, 2022. I did not get to
my city until 3 a.m. Monday morning, because of airline
delays. On Tuesday, July 18, 2022, I went to school, and after
class, Professor Cripe told me that I was not supposed to attend
class because I failed to take Med Calc within the specified time
frame. I explained my situation to her; she told me that
Chamberlain’s rule was that Medication Calculation must be
taken within the first two weeks of the beginning of a session. I
did not know about this policy because I have never had
problems with Med Calc before, and calculation has never been
a problem for me.
From that moment, I became confused and anxious and started
calling and asking for help because I did not know what else to
do. I went to
School President’s office; fortunately, I met she was
leaving her office. I told her that I had come to see her, and she
said to me that she was going to submit my documents to
Professor Cripe. Both of us walked to her. She said, “you have
been dropped from NR 341 since July 17, 2022, since I did not
complete my Med Calc within
the school name policy time frame. School President
stated that I was not supposed to attend class”.
Meanwhile, I have been doing my assignments and took a quiz
that Tuesday afternoon which I did very well on my quiz. I
wondered why she told me my class had been dropped while I
still had access to my class work. I pleaded to
School President name for an exception from
Chamberlain policy due to the circumstances surrounding my
case. She was adamant about the Chamberlain policy. She said

that she must follow the school policy. I kept on begging her for
an exception. I told Dr. Perryman that man makes the law, and
man can change the law due to unavoidable circumstances. She
was adamant about the
school name policy. From that point, my brain started to
spin. I did not know what to do. I have no support team to guide
me. That was when I realized I was again having a problem with
school name school. When I came home from school, I
started making phone calls, looking for the best answer and
directions to my problem. I was acting on my own. I did not
know the best approach to take. I cried like a baby because I did
not want to miss my chances of completing my nursing program
since I had a few months to complete program. After all the
phone calls I made,
Mr. C W, the director of the campus operation, Texas
alliance, was the only person that returned my call and listened
to my concerns. I felt a little bit relieved that at least someone
cared to return my call. I called student services several times
there was no answer. I called Chicago and Houston campuses
and left messages with no feedback. At this point, my
frustrations became intense because I was thinking about how I
would end up my nurse career just like that after all those years
of commitment and sacrifices.
Second, I took NR 328 Pediatric Nursing in March 2022.
Regretfully, it ended unsuccessfully due to the shocking death
of my beloved father. My father’s death was unexpected after a
brief illness. The weekend before his death, I called my dad,
and he was doing fine. I regularly call and check on him at least
once a week. The next day I received an early morning call from
home that my dad had just passed away. That was how my world
turned around. I loved my parents, especially my dad. I am his
first daughter. I was so attached to my dad. I was blessed to
have the most incredible father in the world with a Golden
heart. I prayed to God to extend his life until I finish Nursing
school; unfortunately, God did His will. What can I do? I did

not get the chance to celebrate and show appreciation to my dad
for the remarkable life he gave to his family. Dead took my dad
away from me.
I was planning for my dad’s burial arrangements with my family
in Nigeria, coupled with the time difference in Nigeria. Not
only was I going through the pain of losing my dad, but all my
travel documents expired, including my Texas driver’s license. I
had to travel to Atlanta, Georgia, to renew my Nigerian passport
while my NR 328 class was still in session. Also, I had to do
different COVID tests before traveling to my dad. The financial
aspect of it was another headache. I had to work more hours to
raise the fund for my dad’s burial. All those burdens were on
my shoulders. There was no easy way out for me.
Although, my overall grade for the NR 328 was 82. I needed
only 2 points to pass my core grade. What affected my grade
most was the last quiz and final exam because I was
overwhelmed, mentally and physically drained from getting my
travel documents and the preparation for the burial.
Third, for the NR 304 Health Assessment II from November
2020, it was during the peak of COVID that I was very sick for
about two weeks. I was unable to stand up or do anything on my
own. I emailed my professor to let her know my condition
because I had checkoffs and other due assignments, which were
impossible for me to do because of my illness; my professor
denied that she did not receive my email. I even remembered
receiving a call from Chamberlain telling me to come and do my
checkoffs. I told them that I was sick and could barely stand up
on my own. From there, all my past due assignments were
graded “0”. That’s how I ended up failing the course. After
some weeks, I felt better; I emailed my professor and asked her
if I could complete the missed assignments since I was sick. She
stated that she did not receive an email about me being sick. I
told her I sent her an email to let her know I was ill. Luckily, I
could retrieve the email I sent her that I was sick. At that point,
she stated that it was too late and that there was nothing she
could do at that moment.

I reached out to the
school name student services to request an incomplete
grade so that I would have an opportunity to complete the
missed assignments, quizzes, and exams. Unfortunately, I was
told “no.” That was how I wasted my time and money and
received a failing grade that resulted in poor academic
performance. All these tough challenges are happening to one
individual. What is the best approach for me to take? What can I
do to avoid these obstacles? What did I do wrong? I have been
trying my possible.
Please accept my appeal and do not judge my poor academic
performance based on the life challenges I have encountered
since my nursing career. I believe that these problems will not
remain permanent. I called these problems a trial time. Please
give me another chance. I will be more than happy to come back
to school.
I am looking forward to your favorable decision.
Your Sincerely,
Victimology
1 Introduction to Victimology
Learning Outcome: Examine the history and various
explanations for
victimization.
1.1 History of Victimology
• Describe the history and key concepts of the study of
victimology.

Victimology is linked to the field of criminology, which is the
scientific study of
crime. It began with the works of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794),
who critiqued the
way that crimes were punished, and Jeremy Bethman (1748–
1832), whose work
focused on how social and legal reforms could create a better
moral society. Both
were highly influential on the future of criminology.
Criminologists have focused
on the criminal understanding of why crime occurs and how to
prevent it, and for
good reason. If we want to stop crimes from occurring, we need
to focus on the
criminals—what motivates them and how to prevent them from
engaging in
criminal activity. In fact, the history of the legal system is
based on the idea of
bringing society back into balance.
Often overlooked or marginalized in the conversation are the
victims of crime.
Victimology is the study of the victims of crime with the goal to
create a general
theory to help prevent victimization. The field has expanded to
examine the
following:
• How victims are treated by both society and the criminal
justice system
• How victims seek help and recover from their victimization
• How victims seek compensation
In addition, within the field are conversations about whether
victimology should be

a movement around victims and victims’ rights in addition to
the scientific study of
victims (Ben-David, 2000).
Studying victims can evoke strong emotional reactions that can
affect how we deal
with victims and crime, so the end goal for the field is to study
victimization from a
scientific approach to ensure objectivity and an unbiased
understanding of
victimization. In addition, crime is often messy and complex,
complicating the
study of victimization. Figuring out who the victim and
offender is can be difficult,
depending on the crime.
The term “victim” comes from the Latin word victime, which
were humans and
animals that were to be sacrificed to please the gods (Karmen,
2012). For most of
the history of Western society, the burden of proving
victimization and seeking
justice rested on the victim alone. Justice often took the form of
retaliation or
retribution against the offender. Most societies have felt that the
punishment
should fit the crime. One example of this is the lex talionis: an
eye for an eye. This
is the idea that should punishment be warranted, it should be
equal to the amount of
harm done. Most retribution came from either the victim
themselves, stealing back
what was stolen or being compensated for the loss, or their

families being
compensated. Early criminal codes demonstrate this notion of
retribution, such as
the Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC).
The idea of the state or government as both the victim and the
one who should seek
justice began during the industrial revolution (1760–1820). It is
government,
representing the victim and society, that has both been harmed
by the crime and
ensures punishment. Victim compensation was not a common
part of the
punishment process. Fortunately, the focus, at least in terms of
research, has swung
back around to looking at the plight of victims. Many of the
changes in the legal
system have occurred because of research around victimization
and social
movements that focused on the rights of victims.
Early Research on Victimology
Most of the early research into victimization looked at victim
precipitation, the
role victims played in their own victimization. Researchers had
proposed that while
some victims were not at all responsible for their victimization,
other victims
played a significant role in their victimization. It also
acknowledged that two
parties are involved in the crime: the victim and the offender.
Both are acting and
reacting to a situation. Victim precipitation varies:

• Victim facilitation is the idea that a victim did something to
make him or
herself a more likely target for a criminal. This view is similar
to victim
precipitation.
• Example: Someone who left their new cell phone on a table in
a coffee
shop while going to the restroom made it easier for the criminal
to steal
the phone. This does not mean that the victim is to blame for
the theft,
but rather that the victim facilitated the theft by leaving the
phone
unattended.
• Victim provocation is when the victim did something
intentional that led to
his/her victimization.
• Example: The victim might have started a bar fight but ended
up getting
seriously hurt because the person he/she chose to fight was a
better
fighter than the victim. In the end, that person was the victim of
an
aggravated assault, but had that person never started the fight,
they would
have not become a victim.
The earliest research on victims was conducted by Beniamin
Mendelsohn, Hans
von Hentig, Stephen Schafer, and Marvin E. Wolfgang. Most of
this research
categorized victims by their level of involvement in their
victimization rather than
the harm or injury caused by their victimization. It’s important

to be familiar with
this early research because it reflects the social narratives we
have about victims
today, including how sympathetic we are toward victims and
what society thinks
victims deserve in terms of assistance and restitution.
Beniamin Mendelsohn
Beniamin Mendelsohn’s early work (1937) focused on rape
victims. As a lawyer
interviewing witnesses and offenders, he noticed that many
victims knew their
offenders. He began to group victim-offender relationships into
six categories
based on the victims’ level of guilt in the victimization. He
eventually expanded his
view of victims to include all types of victims (such as victims
of natural disasters),
not just the victims of crime. He considered this broad view a
new field and first
coined the term victimology as an overlapping but separate field
from criminology
in 1956. He is considered the “Father of Victimology” (Dussich,
2006).
Mendelsohn had six victimization categories:
• Completely innocent victim - no provocative behavior
• Victim with minor guilt - the victim unintentionally places
him or herself in a
compromising situation

• Victim as guilty as offender - the victim engages in a crime
and was hurt
• Victim more guilty than offender - the victim promotes or
initiates the act
• Most guilty victim - the victim starts off as offender and is
hurt in return
• Imaginary victim - someone who pretends to be a victim
(Mendelsohn, 1956)
Hans von Hentig
In 1941, Hans von Hentig began to ask about the victims of
crime: Were these
people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or do
certain
characteristics make a person more likely to be a victim? What
made a victim a
victim? These types of questions were central to the
development of the field of
victimology.
The answer for von Hentig was the victim-criminal dyad:Who
the victim is
initially is not always clear when you just look at the outcome
of the crime. He
contended that when you look closely at the criminal-victim
relationship, you can
see that the victim played a significant role in the end result of
the crime. Von
Hentig proposed characteristics that were associated with
victims, including either
being young or old, female, immigrate, minority, being lonely
and depressed, and
mental disabilities. His work, as well as that of Mendelsohn,

continues to influence
the field today.
Stephen Schafer
Schafer also created a victim typology in his book The Victim
and His Criminal: A
Study in Functional Responsibility (1968). His work examined
the level of
responsibility that a victim played in his/her victimization.
According to Schafer,
victims have a responsibility to not act in ways that might
provoke their
victimization (such as threatening people) as well as doing their
best to prevent
their own victimization. His 7-point scale ranged from no
responsibility at all to
complete responsibility.
Schafer’s categories:
1. Unrelated: The victims have no responsibility in their own
victimization.
2. Provocative: There is shared responsibility by the victims.
3. Precipitative: The victims have responsibility for their
victimization because
they place themselves in situations that might lead to
victimization.
4. Biologically weak: There is no responsibility, but the victims
are easy targets
because they are perceived as weak, such as the elderly.
5. Socially weak: No responsibility but victims are easy targets
because they are
not well integrated into society, such as immigrants.

6. Self-victimizing: Total responsibility. An example would be
prostitution.
7. Political: No responsibility. They were victimized because
they were opposing
those in power.
Marvin E. Wolfgang Patterns of Criminal Homicide
Wolfgang was the first to offer significant empirical evidence to
support the role
victims might play in their victimization. Wolfgang was
particularly interested in
asking what role homicide victims play in their own deaths.
Wolfgang (1958)
analyzed Philadelphia’s police homicide records from 1948
through 1952 and
found three factors common to victim-precipitated homicides:
1. The victim and offender had some prior interpersonal
relationship.
2. There was a series of escalating disagreements between the
parties.
3. The victim had consumed alcohol.
His results show that around 26 percent of victims had
precipitated their own
victimization, doing something that had directly led to their
own death, such as
threatening someone with a weapon or initiating physical
violence.

Important research was also conducted by other researchers:
• Wolfgang and Singer (1978) expanded the discussion of victim
types to look
at a variety of crimes and victim recidivism and acknowledged
that the
process of becoming a victim was a complex one that would
take time in order
to truly understand. Their work outlined potential areas of
future research.
• Timmer and Norman (1984) pointed out that the behavioral
patterns that can
lead to victimization differ across gender, race, and
involvement in criminal
activities. Their research showed the utility of distinguishing
victims’ acts that
can lead to victimization, and highlighted the complexity of
victim
precipitation.
Criticism of Victim Typologies
All of these victim typologies figure out some way to quantify
or categorize the
victims’ responsibility in their own victimization, with some
criticism.
1. Victim’s level of responsibility is important because it
influences both the
response of the criminal justice system and society. However,
the issue with
the concept of victim responsibility is that it results in victim
blaming,
drawing attention away from the role of the offender in the

crime.
2. Eigenberg and Garland (2008) point out that most victim
typologies rely on
victims and do not account for all those who were not
victimized in the
general population, which creates a circular logic. It makes it
impossible to
research whether there are differences between victims and the
general
population that truly lead to victimization.
3. Victim typologies assume there was more that victims could
have done to
ensure they were not victimized (Eigenberg & Garland, 2008) ,
which ignores
the risks people face in society and that it is impossible to fully
protect oneself
from victimization. It also puts an unwarranted level of
responsibility on
victims to change their lifestyles to prevent their victimization.
Furthermore, it
ignores that fact that many people are victims within their home
or workplace.
People are often not in a position to change where they live or
work to reduce
their risk. It creates a false impression that individuals can and
should be
doing more to prevent their own victimization.
4. Blaming victims for even some of their victimization creates
a social narrative
around victims being somehow different from non-victims, thus
warranting
different treatment by society. This can lead to secondary
victimization, or

the experience of being punished by society for being a victim,
which is one of
the more common reasons why people do not seek help when
they are
victimized: Their silence ensures that they are not socially
punished.
These early victim researchers, regardless of the flaws in their
work, led to the
academic study of victimization. The field has branched into
both academic studies
as well as activism and advocacy work, which inform each other
to craft the current
field. The next section in this module looks at how social
movements have played
a role in crafting narratives around victimization as well as
creating legal and social
changes to help victims.
Social Movements and Victims
In addition to an academic field, victimology movements ensure
that victims’ rights
are protected and that victims have clear advocacy to help them
recover from their
victimization. This section discusses several of the social
movements that have led
to social changes around victimization. While the Civil Rights
Movement is not
discussed here, it is critical to acknowledge the importance of
the movement in
creation of laws and social norms around victimization.

The Women’s Movement
The women’s movement, also known as the feminist movement,
started with the
suffrage movement (centered on women as legal people with
voting and property
rights). The movement has had several phases, outlined next:
• First-wave feminism’s (1860s to 1920s) goal was to see that
women had
legal personhood to ensure that women’s voices were heard.
Early feminists in
the United States, such as like Susan B. Anthony, advocated
against the sexual
harassment of workers and the issues around domestic violence
(Derene,
Walker, & Stein, 2007). Through their work, first-wave
feminists, the
suffragettes, were able to secure women the right to vote (1920)
and allow
women to hold federal office, bringing women’s issues and
women’s voices
into the national conversation.
• Second-wave feminism (1960s to 1980s) focused on sexuality,
family, the
workplace, reproductive rights, and official legal inequalities. It
also focused
on victimization, domestic violence and marital rape, and
advocated for
changes in custody and divorce law. Their work helped victim
advocacy and
victim’s rights become a significant issue in the public
discourse. As Miller
(2016) points out, every sexual harassment law, rape crisis

center, women’s
health clinic, and all reproductive choices available to men and
women was
due to second-wave feminism. It also had a profound impact on
victim theory,
especially in terms of violence against women.
• Note: First and second-wave feminism is critiqued because
they focused
on issues that were important to mostly white, middle-class
women
(Blackwell, 2011). The inclusion of diverse groups in the
conversation is
critical to understanding the social complexity that leads to
victimization.
• Third-wave feminism (1990s to mid-2000s) explored the
social construction
of gender and sexuality, as opposed to being biological
characteristics, and are
therefore flexible and malleable (Adams St. Pierre, 2000). This
changed the
dialogue around what it means to be masculine/male and
feminine/female,
beginning the discussions around multiple gender identities that
we see today.
It promoted conversations around sexuality and other identities
and how those
identities intersect to create how we identify ourselves and how
society reacts
to these identities. A central focus to third-wave feminism was
violence
against women in all of its forms, for example derogatory
language or sexual
harassment.

The starting point of third-wave feminism was Anita Hill’s
testimony
against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, regarding how
he
allegedly sexually harassed her when he was her boss at the
U.S.
Department of Education and the Equal Employment
Opportunity
Commission. Her testimony stands as one of the first times that
sexual
harassment was brought up as an issue for a public appointment.
Image: Anita Hill. Authored by: Tim Pierce.
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File
%3A2014_Charles_Ogletree_and_Anita_Hill_(cropped_to_Hill)
.jpg.
License: CC-BY 2.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file%3a2014_charles_oglet
ree_and_anita_hill_(cropped_to_hill).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file%3a2014_charles_oglet
ree_and_anita_hill_(cropped_to_hill).jpg
Third-wave feminism also began discussing violence against
marginalized people such as
minority women, the LGBT community, single mothers, and the
differently abled.
Intersectionality is when you look at how multiple social
identities (race, class, gender
socioeconomic status, etc.) come together to impact a person’s
life, including their
victimization. This era also saw growth in the fields of Black,
Latino, Native, and Queer studies,
bring to light their issues around victimization, violence, access

to health care, and issues of
equality through multiple lenses.
• Fourth-wave feminism is just beginning (2008 to today). It
focuses on social justice and
civil rights, including sexual harassment, street harassment, the
role of social media and
technology in creating equality, and everyday sexism. The
impacts of this wave are
becoming clear in the changes we are seeing in discussing
violence toward women.
The #MeToo movement was a watershed moment in terms of
sexual harassment,
demonstrating the power that social media can have. Combined
with the exposure of
several well-known celebrities, such as Louis C.K., and
powerful men who lost their
jobs and reputations, even without legal actions, the social
media campaign led to the
realization of the vast extent of sexual harassment.
Image: #MeToo Hashtag. Authored by: Lum3n.com from Pexels.
http://lum3n.com
Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/art-awareness-campaign-
concrete-622135/.
License: CC-0
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
https://www.pexels.com/photo/art-awareness-campaign-
concrete-622135/
Children’s Movements

Some of the earliest advocates for
children and child welfare issues in the United States centered
around
the use of child labor. The work of Mother Jones (Mary Harris
Jones)
and the March of the Mill Children in 1903, along with the
broader
children’s movement, were effective in helping to reduce the
exploitation of children.
Image: Mother Jones. Authored by: Bertha Howell.
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File
%3AMother_jones_no_2.tif. License: CC-0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file%3amother_jones_no_2
.tif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file%3amother_jones_no_2
.tif
Prior to 1875, children did not have formal protections.
Children during this time
were, for the most part, treated the same as adults, kept in jails
with adults, and
could be punished like adults. Most organizations working with
children were
either concerned with orphans or delinquency, so those with
homes and who were
not breaking the law were marginalized by society. Starting in
the 1870s, a growing
group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) began to
advocate for the
protection of children. One of the earliest groups was the
Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children, started by Henry Bergh. This started a

trend of NGOs as
well as the creation of a juvenile court system to help troubled
and abused kids.
Starting in the 1870s, the first juvenile courts were set up and
focused on
rehabilitating juveniles into good citizens through hard work
and education, based
on the notion of parens patriae (a Latin term that means “parent
of the country”),
which gave the state the power to serve as the guardian (or
parent) of those with
legal disabilities, including juveniles (American Bar
Association, n.d.). The
Sheppard-Towner Act of 1912 strengthened the concept of
parens patriae and
included a call for strong child welfare policies and funding.
Prior to 1904, there were no labor laws, regular hours, minimum
wages, or
workplace safety requirements, leading many workers,
especially children, to be
exploited by their employers with little recourse. As a result of
the labor movement,
in 1904, the National Child Labor Committee was formed to
advocate for
legislation around child labor (Friedman, 2014). The idea that
children should have
any protections was new in the national narrative, as children
were the property of
their parents, not individuals with rights.
During the New Deal in the 1930s, child welfare was included
in the Social
Security Act, which created Aid to Dependent Children and the
Children’s Bureau,

which helped rural children during the Depression. This offered
some legal
protections to children, including child labor laws and child
protections from abuse
and neglect.
By 1967, nearly all states had child welfare laws, yet there were
no child protection
services to enforce them (Meyers, 2008). Child protection
became a national issue
as doctors in the 1960s began to have conversations around the
issues of child
abuse, marked by the publication of work on the battered child
syndrome by
Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller, and Silver (1962).
After 1970, news stories and journal articles spurred child abuse
into the national
dialogue, prompting a call for the creation of Child Protective
Services (CPS) to
ensure children were safe. It was through the coming together of
NGOs, doctors,
and several horrific cases in the media that led to the creation of
the contemporary
child welfare system we have today.
The Crime Victims’ Rights Movement
Starting in the 20th century, the victim’s role in justice had
eroded to the point
where many victims had no legal rights or say in the case
(National Crime Victim
Law Institute, 2011). Stemming from the changes in public

discourse because of
the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Movements, the rights of
victims became an
important part of the social change narrative. The goal of the
victim’s rights
movement was to give victims a more prominent role in their
cases and ensure the
recognition of their legal rights. A major catalyst was the 1973
U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (410 U.S. 614) where the
Court ruled that the
complainant did not have any legal standing in a child support
case. The specific
aspect of the case that began the movement was that a crime
victim cannot compel
a criminal prosecution because they lack a judicially cognizable
interest in the
prosecution and have “no formal legal status beyond that of a
witness or piece of
evidence” (National Crime Victim Law Institute, 2011). Thus,
victims were
nothing more than evidence for the state.
This movement has mostly occurred through legal actions to get
the courts and
legislators to write laws to ensure that
• victims’ rights are included in the legal process,
• victims have legal standing in cases,
• victims have the right to be informed about cases, and
• victims have the right to privacy.
The movement has been incredibly effective in getting 33 states
to include victims’

rights into their constitution and the rest to create victims’
rights laws (National
Crime Victim Law Institute, 2013). In 1982, Congress passed
the Victim and
Witness Protection Act, as well as additional acts, to ensure the
legal rights of
victims at the federal level.
The courts have also played a role in increasing the legal rights
of victims. For
instance, in Payne v. Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court stated
clearly that victims
were not anonymous victims but needed to be clearly
recognized as important
players in the legal process. The victims’ rights movement
continues to increase the
voices of victims within the criminal justice system, engaging
in victims’ advocacy
and working through national nonprofit victims’ rights
organizations to promote
victims’ legal rights and social changes around victimization.
Overall, social movements have been effective in bringing
attention to a variety of
types of victimizations, promoting the voices and protections of
victims, and
increasing the legal avenues for victims to recover. The
continuation of social
inequalities, structural inequalities in the criminal justice
system, and the slower
than desired social changes around victimization leaves room
for improvement. In
order to continue helping victims, there needs to be continued
improvement in the
understanding of victimization.

Sources
Adams St. Pierre, E. (2000). Poststructural feminism in
education: An overview.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5),
477–515.
Allen, N. (1980). Homicide: Perspectives on prevention. New
York: Human
Sciences Press.
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in
the age of
colorblindness. New York: The New Press.
Almasy, S., Hanna, J., Vercammen, P., & Park, M. (2018, Jan
18). ‘This is
depraved conduct,’ DA says of California couple accused of
torturing kids.
Retrieved from CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/us/turpin-family-
investigation/index.html
Ben-David, S. (2000). Victimology at the transition from the
20th to the 21st
century. 10th International Symposium on
Victimology.Montreal, Canada.

Blackwell, M. (2011). ¡Chicana Power!: Contested histories of
feminism in the
chicano movement. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Brunell, L. (2008). Feminism re-imagined: The third wave”.
Encyclopædia
Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopædia
Britannica, Inc.
Daigle, L. (2015). Victimology. In M. Maguire, & D. Okada
(Eds.), Critical issues
in crime and justice: Thoughts, policy, and practice (2nd ed.,
pp. 67–90).
Washington, DC: Sage.
Derene, S., Walker, S., & Stein, J. (2007). The history of the
crime victims
movement in the United States. 2007 National Victim
Assistance Academy, Track
1. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.598.3276&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Dussich, J. (2006). Victimology–past, present and future. 131st
International
Senior Seminar, (pp. 116–129).
Friedman, G. (2014).March of the mill children. Retrieved from
The Encyclopedia
of Greater Philadelphia:
http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/march-of-the-
mill-children/
Karmen, A. (2012). Crime victims: An introduction to
victimology. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Mégret, F. (2010). Justifying compensation by the international
criminal court’s
victims trust fund: Lessons from domestic compensation
schemes. Brooks Journal
of International Law, 36(1).
Mendelsohn, B. (1937). Methods to be used by counsel for the
defense in the
researches made into the personality of the criminal. Revue de
Droit Penal et de
Criminologie.
Mendelsohn, B. (1956). Une nouvelle branch de la science
biopsycho-social: La
victimology. Review international de criminologie et de police
technique, 105–108.
Mendelsohn, B. (1976). Victimology and contemporary
society’s trends.
Victimology, An International Journal, 1, 8–28.
Meyers, J. (2008). A short history of child protection in
America. Family Legal
Quarterly, 42, 449–463.
Miller, L. (2016). A Second Look at the Second Wave: It’s
fashionable to critique
the myopia of 1970s feminists. But it’s also wrong. Slate, June
21, 2016. Retrieved
from http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/06/
second_wave_feminism_gets_a_bum_rap.html
http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/march-of-the-mill-
children/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/06/second

_wave_feminism_gets_a_bum_rap.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/06/second
_wave_feminism_gets_a_bum_rap.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.598.3
276&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.598.3
276&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/march-of-the-mill-
children/
National Crime Victim Law Institute. (2011). Fundamentals of
victims’ rights: A
brief history of crime victims’ rights in the United States.
Victim Law Bulletin.
Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. Madison, CT:
International
Universities Press.
Sobol, J. (1997). Behavioral characteristics and level of
involvement for victims of
homicide. Homicide Studies, 1(14), 359–376.
Shneidman, E. (1996). The suicidal mind. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Timmer, D., & Norman, W. (1984). The ideology of victim
precipitation. Criminal
Justice Review, 9(2), 63–68.
von Hentig, H. (1941). Remarks on the interaction of
perpetrator and victim.
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 31,
303–309.

von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal & his victim: Studies in the
sociobiology of
crime. Cambridge, NJ: Yale University Press.
Wolfgang, M. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide.
Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 48(1), 1–12.
Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Oxford,
England: University
Pennsylvania Press.
Wolfgang, M., & Singer, S. (1978). Victim categories of crime.
Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 69(3), 379–394.
1.2 Theories of Victimization
• Differentiate the major theoretical frameworks used in the
field of victimology
and their impact.
Now that you have some understanding of the categories of
victims and social
movements that have affected how we think about victimization,
we turn to a
discussion of several of the broad theoretical frameworks of
victimization.
Mawby and Walklate - Critical Victimology, 1994
Mawby and Walklate (1994) looked at victimology as a social
phenomenon,
drawing parallels between victimology and fields like

sociology; their work led to
the creation of integrated theoretical frameworks, specifically
critical victimology,
as a way of explaining victimization. Mawby and Walklate
broke victimology into
three strains, positive, radical, and critical victimology,
showing how the strengths
and weaknesses of each could be used to create something
better.
Positive victimology identifies the dominant individual and
socio-cultural factors
that would contribute to victimization (Ben-David, 2000). Its
focus tends to be on
interpersonal crimes, especially those where there might be
victim precipitation.
Miers points out that positivist victimology is the
identification of factors which contribute to a non-random
pattern of victimization,
a focus on interpersonal crimes of violence, and a concern to
identify victims who
may have contributed to their own victimization. (1989, p. 3)
This framework uses data to ask why some people are more
likely to be victims and
tends to look more at street crime than other types of crime
(Mawby & Walklate,
1994). Many of the early victimology researchers used a
positivist approach,
including those discussed earlier in this chapter.
Positivists’ definition of victim is solely based on the
individual, group, or
institution who were directly harmed as the result of a crime,
ignoring broader

definitions and issues that stem from social hierarchies and
realities that relate to
crime. This is a major criticism because, as pointed out by
Friday (1992, 1993), one
cannot remove victimization from its broader social context. It
also undermines the
efforts of social movements to point out the structural
inequalities in the social
systems that increase the potential for victimization and the
treatment of victims.
Yet, many researchers in the field of victimology continue to do
positivists work,
which when linked with narrative around these social factors
give the field a decent
understanding of victimization.
Radical Victimology
Radical victimology stems from the work of Mendelsohn and
from radical
criminology and sociology (Ben-David, 2000). Radical theory
came from conflict
theory, including the work of Karl Marx. The notion is that
groups in society are in
conflict, especially around economic resources, and that crime
and victimization
can be solved through a major change in the social order,
including ending
economic inequality (Quinney, 1972). Radical theories focus on
how structural
inequalities can lead to crime because of the lack of access to
resources. Emerging
from this foundation, radical victimology focuses on issues

around human rights
violations, social hierarchies and the associated abuse of power,
and the use of the
law and criminal justice system as tools to ensure social
stratification (Mawby &
Walklate, 1994). From a radical theory perspective, it is only
through the radical
changes in public discourse and cultural practices that crime
and victimization can
be fixed.
Criticisms of radical theory include the need to more closely
link economic
stratification and criminality. Others have pointed out that
while radical theory
might be good for looking at crime, it might not be good for
victimization, which
should be able to be applied not just in developed nations like
the United States, but
to diverse societies, where it struggles to explain victimization.
As society
undergoes changes, so too does our understanding of
victimization within these
social contexts (Fattah, 2010). In addition, it has been criticized
for being too
closely aligned with a strong political agenda. Finally,
according to Mawby and
Walklate (1994), the subjective nature of radical victimology’s
definition of the
oppressor as victimizer calls into question whether this theory
can really be helpful
for understanding the realities of victimization.
Critical Victimology

Critical victimology looks at the wider social context of
victimology, including
policy and services for victims (Mawby & Walklate, 1994).
Situated in both
symbolic interaction theory and social psychology, critical
victimology asks about
the formation of the notion of victimization and the label of
victim (Miers, 1990).
Miers points out that one of the core questions to critical
victimology is who has
the right to be labeled as a victim (cited in Mawby & Walklate,
1994).
Critical victimology draws from both positive and radical
victimization. It draws
from radical victimology and feminist theory in asking us to
understand the
processes (including social structures) we do and do not see that
lead to
victimization (Mawby & Walklate, 1994). It provides for the
naming, labeling, and
discussion of experiences that were once hidden, allowing the
generalities of
victimization and the lived experiences of victims to be put into
context with each
other. Critical victimology allows for the questioning of social
institutions and what
role they play in the creation of crime and victimization as well
as bringing
together positivist empirical research, trying to find a balance
between positive and
radical victimology (Mawby & Walklate, 1994). It allows for
looking at both the
cultural as well as the individual experience of victimization,
recognizing that both

are important and need to be accounted for in a comprehensive
understand of
victimization (Fattah, 1992). These three theories are still used
today, depending on
what types of crimes are being examined and how perspective
the examination is
coming from.
Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activities Theory
One family of theories, called environmental criminology,
studies how crime and
victimization occur within the build environments, which is the
way that
individuals and organizations shape their activities spatially.
This is an important
part of the study of crime and criminology, dating back to the
work of Park and
Burgess’ (1925) concentric zone model. Environmental
criminology has been a key
theoretical family in creating prevention strategies and policing
practices. Among
the environmental theories, routine activity theory is one of the
more commonly
applied to crime and victimization. It is considered a macro-
level theory because it
looks at how alterations in community life create new
opportunities for crime.
Routine activities theory (RAT) postulates that a crime happens
when three
factors come together:

• A suitable target
• A motivated offender
• A lack of guardianship
The absence of any of these factors affects the criminal actions
(Cohen & Felson,
1979). When Cohen and Felson first started working on their
theory, they were
focusing on changes in rates of predatory crimes (murder, rape,
burglary) over
time. They looked at how the opportunities for crimes were
related to patterns of
routine social interaction such as going to work or school or
being in public places
like bars and parks. It was not about how someone might
participate in their own
victimization through individual actions, but rather how our
daily routines can
increase the potential for victimization. Thus, criminal
opportunities are not evenly
spread out through society, and there are limits on crime.
The first factor in the theory is a suitable target. A suitable
target is a person,
place, or object that has some characteristics that makes it
attractive to a motivated
offender. The daily routines of a person can make that person
more likely to
become a suitable target (just because someone is a target does
not mean they will
become a victim). A suitable target has four features:
• Value - the value of the target to the offender, not necessarily
a monetary

value, although that is often a factor. A new smartphone is
going to be
considered more valuable than an old flip phone.
• Inertia - how moveable the target is. The more mobile a target
is, the easier it
is for an offender. Small electronic devices, like laptops and
tablets, are
excellent targets because they are easily portable, as opposed to
a heavy large
screen TV that takes multiple people to move.
• Visibility - whether or not the target can be known to the
offender. A car
becomes a more suitable target for a theft if a laptop or cell
phone is left on the
back seat in plain sight. If the offender is not aware of a
suitable target
because those items are in the trunk, the likelihood of a crime is
reduced.
• Access - patterns and placement of potential targets that are
often features of
everyday life but also make the target more accessible for the
offender. A
burglar doesn’t need to search very hard if a purse, wallet, or
phone are kept
next to the front door or on the front seat of a car, thus those
items are more
accessible.
The second factor in their theory is amotivated offender, who is
anyone prepared
to commit a crime. The theory itself takes on the view of the
potential offender in
terms of what would be a suitable target as well as

guardianship. The motivation of
the offender varies. Some offenders, like those committing
theft, fraud, or
embezzlement, are often motivated by financial needs while
others might be
motivated by social pressures from peers, while others might be
motivated by the
desire for power and control. Their motivation will impact what
they consider a
suitable target and what types of guardianship will be need to
prevent them from
committing a crime. In some cases, like cybercrimes, the more
barriers and
guardianship there is, the more attractive a target might be. It
can be considered a
major score to successfully hack a government agency, even if
the risks and the
potential to be caught are high.
The third factor in the theory is lack of guardianship. This has
been the more
well-explored and modified aspect of RAT because it is
something that has been
used to harden targets as much as possible. Target hardening is
when you do
something that reduces the likelihood of victimization, such as
adding locks or
alarms.
The people who prevent crime, called controllers, have been
subdivided according
to whom or what they are supervising—offender, target, or
place (see the following
figure).

• Guardians help protect suitable targets from motivated
offenders. Examples
are car owners who lock their car, or school staff who prevent
bullying.
• Place managers harden targets, such as locks, security
systems, dogs, safes,
etc., which make accessing the target more difficult.
• Handlers exert informal social controls over potential
offenders, preventing
them from committing crimes (Felson, 1986). This can include
parents,
probation and school resource officers, coaches, religious
leaders, and peers
who all have an interest in keeping the offender out of trouble.
Handlers must
be effective and willing to intervene in order to serve as an
actual guardian as
conceptualized by Tillyer and Eck (2011).
Three main factors come together to create the opportunities for
crime.
Research has continued to refine and define the elements of the
theory to
the current version seen above.
Image: Crime Triangle based on Clarke and Eck, 2003.
Source: Barnes & Noble Education. License: CC-BY NC SA.
As the research into RAT has continued, it has been shown that
RAT is much better
at explaining property crime than personal crimes (Bennett,
1991). It is more

difficult to apply RAT to crimes of passion, domestic violence,
and other types of
personal crimes because these do not necessarily depend on the
daily routines of
the victims. Work is being done to explore how RAT can
explain some aspects of
cybercrime (Jasinki & Navarro, 2012; Yar, 2005), with
visibility being an
important aspect of victimization, and accessibility and personal
capable
guardianship show varying results (Leukfeldt & Yar, 2016).
Criticisms of RAT include the lack of inclusion of individual
and community
characteristics into their understanding of the routines of
people. RAT does not
account for gender, race, age, or many other factors that
research has shown both to
being a criminal and a victim. For example, Cullen, Henson,
Reyns, and Wilcox
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
(2010) found that gender plays a significant role in how
routinized someone’s daily
life was, with girls showing more structure to their day than
boys. In addition, it is
seen as more of a descriptor of crime rather than explaining why
crime occurs. As
Worthy points out, theories like RAT that rely on situational
factors ignore the root
causes of crime, especially structural factors (Wortley, 2010).
Most prevention
strategies have focused on target hardening and guardianship
rather than the factors

that motivate offenders. It has also been pointed out that using
these theories as the
foundation for crime prevention just moves crime to a different
location (Wortley,
2010). Finally, because implementation of these strategies often
focuses on areas
where crime and victims are prevalent, it can disproportionately
impact
marginalized communities (Wortley, 2010). Even with these
concerns, RAT
continues to be a major theoretical orientation for understanding
crime and
victimization in the literature.
Lifestyle Theory
Lifestyle and exposure theory is a model of victimology that
posits that the likelihood an individual will
suffer a personal victimization depends heavily upon the
concept of lifestyle. Specifically, certain lifestyle
choices will increase the likelihood of becoming a victim. This
means the victimization is not necessarily a
random occurrence but is related to individual traits for both
perpetrators and victims. First proposed by
Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978), they argued that
lifestyles are patterned, and people engage in
routine activities. By engaging in certain lifestyle choices,
individuals increase their potential chances of
victimization by putting themselves at risk of coming into
contact with an offender, called the principle of
homogamy. This theory focused on the choices and
characteristics of the potential victims, specifically their
exposure to places and situations that might increase their
victimization. This is different than victim

precipitation in that the victims are not necessarily playing an
active role in their own victimization, but rather
through their lifestyle, they are increasing exposure.
Choices that can increase victimization, according to lifestyle
theory, can include the use of drugs
and alcohol, especially if there are issues of addiction,
significant activities outside the home at night,
and other potentially risk choices.
Image: Dancing at a nightclub. Author: pixabay.com.
Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/lights-party-dancing-
music-2143/. License: CC-0
https://www.pexels.com/photo/lights-party-dancing-music-2143/
http://pixabay.com
Lifestyle theory is constructed upon several premises:
• Crime occurs differently in different places. Some places are
more high risk, and some times of day
have a higher possibility of a crime occurring.
• Offenders have characteristics that are different from most
people.
• Certain lifestyles, like being exposed to more crimogenitic
area and people, increase the likelihood of
victimization. The more often you go to high risk places, the
more likely to you are to be a victim.
Lifestyle and Routine Activities as Explanations of
Victimization
Lifestyle and routine activities continue to be significant
theories of victimization, even with their flaws.

In addition to each theory having strong support individually,
Miethe, Stafford, and Long (1987) found
that lifestyle factors and one’s routines interact to increase the
potential for victimization. It has become
common to use factors from both of these theories together
when looking at crime and victimization.
Some have begun to almost merge the two theories together.
Yet, as Pratt and Turanovic (2016) point out,
the melding of these two theories can be problematic in the
understanding of victimization. Specifically,
their ideas about how “risk” should be conceived are very
different. The notion of probabilistic risk of
victimization, according to Pratt and Turanvoic, is more
scientifically minded and important to consider
when looking to prevent crime.
Structural Causes of Victimization
One of the other more common theories around victimization
has to do with neighborhood characteristics
and their relation to crime and victimization. This is called the
criminology of place or hot spots and was
first discussed in the work of Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger
(1989). The criminology of place looks at the
characteristics of places where crime is more likely to occur and
what makes these areas different from
other places where crime is not occurring. Although it has been
some time since this idea was introduced
into the field, it is a promising area of research, growing in
prominence in the study of crime and
victimization. This idea draws from numerous theoretical
underpinnings but also accounts for structural
factors like social disorganization, which is the inability of a
community to organize itself.

Crime occurs in certain places, as seen in this image of
homicide hotspots in Chicago, tending
to cluster in certain community. (Curman, Andresen, &
Brantingham, 2014; Eck, Gersh,
Taylor, & Ross, 200; Weisburd, 2015). This stability holds
across nations and across crime type
as well.
Image: Chicago homicide map, 2013. Author: Chicago Police
Department https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Chicago_Homicide_Ma
p.png. License: CC-0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:2013_chicago_homicid
e_map.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:2013_chicago_homicid
e_map.png
Living in these hot spots puts a person at higher risk of
victimization, regardless of
their daily routines and lifestyle choices (Browning & Erickson,
2009).
Characteristics associated with these higher crime areas include
residential mobility
(when people tend to move in and out of an area), female-
headed households, high
density housing (apartment complexes in particular), a higher
youth population in
the area (Thompson & Gartner, 2014), and lack of a strong
informal community to
control their residents. Criminology of place represents one of

the growing
theoretical areas for understanding victimization as technology
allows for more
accurate mapping of larger amounts of data. It can be expected
that this, as well as
other environmental theories of crime, will continue in their
prominence in
understanding victimization.
Conclusion
This module provided an overview into the historical and major
theoretical views
for the field of victimology, along with major social movements
that have
significantly influenced how we view and research crime. In
future modules, these
concepts will be revisited, revised, and called into question as
we focus on new
areas of crime and victimization.
Sources
American Bar Association. (n.d.). The history of juvenile
justice. Retrieved from
American Bar Association:
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
migrated/publiced/features/DYJpart1.authcheckdam.pdf
Beccaria, C. (1764). On crimes and punishments, and other
writings. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-David, S. (2000). Victimology at the transition from the
20th to the 21st
century. 10th International Symposium on

Victimology.Montreal, Canada.
Bennett, R. R. (1991). Routine activities: A cross-national
assessment of a
criminological perspective. Social Forces, 70(1), 147–163.
Browning, S., & Erickson, P. (2009). Neighborhood
disadvantage, alcohol use, and
violent victimization. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
7(4), 331–349.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). History of child labor in the
United States.
Retrieved from BLS.gov:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-
child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-1.htm
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate
trends: A routine
activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–
608.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-
labor-in-the-united-states-part-1.htm
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-
labor-in-the-united-states-part-1.htm
http://bls.gov
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publice
d/features/dyjpart1.authcheckdam.pdf
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publice
d/features/dyjpart1.authcheckdam.pdf
Cullen, F., Henson, B., Reyns, B., & Wilcox, P. (2010). Gender,
adolescent
lifestyles, and violent victimization: Implications for routine

activity theory.
Victims and Offenders, 5, 303–328.
Curman, A., Andresen, M., & Brantingham, P. (2014). Crime
and place: A
longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in
Vancouver, BC. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology.
Eck, J., Gersh, J., Taylor, C., & Ross, T. (2000). Finding crime
hot spots through
repeat address mapping. In V. Goldsmith, P. McGuire, J.
Mollenkopf, & T. Ross,
Analyzing Crime Patterns: Frontiers of Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eigenberg, H., & Garland, T. (2008). Victim blaming. In L.
Moriarty,
Controversies in victimology (2nd ed., pp. 21–36). Newark, NJ:
Anderson
Publishing.
Fattah, E. (1992). The need for a critical victimology. In E.
Fattah, Towards a
critical victimology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fattah, E. (2010). Victimology: Past, present and future.
Criminologie, 33(1), 17–
46.
Felson, M. (1986). Routine activities, social controls, rational
decisions, and
criminal outcomes. In D. Cornish, & R. Clark, The reasoning
criminal (pp. 119–

128). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Franklin, C., Franklin, T., Nobles, M., & Kercher, G. (2012).
Assessing the effect
of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal,
and sexual assault
victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1296–
1315.
Friday, P. (1992). The faces of victimology, report of the
general rapporteurs. In S.
Ben-Davis, & G. Kichhoff, International faces of victimology.
(pp. 1–15).
Monchengladbach, Germany: WSV Publishing.
Friday, P. (1993). Victimology as an encompassing concept. In
S. Makkar Singh, &
P. Friday, Global perspectives in victimology. Jalandhar, India:
ABS Publications.
Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims
of personal crime:
An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization.
Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Institute, N. C. (2011). History of victims’ rights. Retrieved
from http://
law.lclark.edu/centers/national_crime_victim_law_institute/abo
ut_ncvli/
history_of_victims_rights/
Jasinki, J., & Navarro, J. (2012). Going cyber: Using routine
activities theory to
predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum,
32(1), 81–94.

Kempe, C., Silverman, F., Steele, B., Droegemueller, W., &
Silver, H. (1962). The
battered-child syndrome. JAMA, 181, 17–24.
Leukfeldt, E., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying routine activity
theory to cybercrime: A
theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3),
263–280.
Mawby, R., & Walklate, S. (1994). Critical victimology.
London: Sage Publication.
Miers, D. (1989). Positivist victimology: A critique.
International Review of
Victimology, 1(1), 3–22.
Miers, D. (1990). Positivist victimology: A critique part 2:
Critical victimology.
International Review of Victimology, 1(3), 219–230.
Miethe, T., Stafford, M., & Long, J. (1987). Social
differentiation in criminal
victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories.
American Sociological
Review, 52(2), 184–194.
http://law.lclark.edu/centers/national_crime_victim_law_institut
e/about_ncvli/history_of_victims_rights/
Park, R., & Burgess, E. (1925). The growth of the city: An

introduction to a
research project. In E. Burgess, R. McKenzie, & L. Wirth, The
City (pp. 47–62).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pratt, T., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. (2012). Routine online
activity and Internet
fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity
theory. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(3), 267–296.
Pratt, T., & Turanovic, J. (2016). Lifestyle and routine activity
theories revisited:
The importance of “risk” to the study of victimization. Victims
& Offenders, 11(3),
335–354.
Quinney, R. (1972). Who is the victim? Criminology, 10(3),
314–323.
Sherman, L., Gartin, P., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot spots of
predatory crime:
Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology,
27(1), 27–56.
Thompson, S., & Gartner, R. (2014). The spatial distribution
and social context of
homicide in Toronto’s neighborhoods. Journal of Research in
Crime and
Delinquency, 51(1), 88–118.
Tillyer, M., & Eck, J. (2011). Getting a handle on crime: A
further extension of
routine activities theory. Security Journal, 24(2), 179–193.
Waldner, L., & Berg, J. (2008). Explaining antigay violence

using target
congruence: An application of revised routine activities theory.
Violence and
Victims, 23(3), 267–287.
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the
criminology of place.
Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.
Wick, S., Nagoshi, C., Basham, R., & Jordan, C. (2017).
Patterns of cyber
harassment and perpetration among college students in the
United States: A test of
routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber
Criminology, 11(1), 24–38.
Wortley, R. (2010). Critiques of situational crime prevention. In
B. Fisher & S.
Lab, Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of ‘cybercrime:’ An assessment in
light of routine
activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–
427.
2 The Extent of Victimization
Learning Outcome: Examine the prevalence of crime
victimization in the United
States.
2.1 Scope of Victimology

• Describe the scope and breadth of victimization in the United
States.
Watching the news, one would think there was a murderer in
every bush waiting to
jump out and kill you. This is because crime, especially violent
crime, makes a
great news story. The problem is that the media creates a false
understanding of
how often crime occurs, where it occurs, and how likely you are
to be a victim of
crime. This module will explain how we define the most
common types of crime
and victimization, determine crime rates, the realities of crime,
and the different
ways crime is measured in the United States. While looking at
crime and
victimization across countries is very important, it is difficult
because of cultural
differences in definitions and measurement of crime, so for the
purpose of this
module, we will just look at crime and victimization in the
United States.
Understanding Crime Statistics
A crime is defined as an action that violates the criminal law
and is punishable by
criminal sanctions. Not everything that violates social norms,
even things most
people would consider reprehensible, is a crime. If there is not a
law prohibiting a
behavior, then it is not a crime. Most laws, and especially
criminal law, are created
around the consensus model. This is where the majority of
people think something

is wrong because it conflicts with their values and beliefs. It
also means that as
society changes, so does the law.
In the United States, we tend to differentiate crimes as either
property or violent
crimes, especially in regard to statistics around crime. Violent
crime is crime
against a person whereas property crime is crime against
property. The following
definitions are based on the U.S. legal code.
Violent crimes and the victims usually relate to the following:
• Murder - the unlawful killing of a human being. The act of
murder needs to
include premeditation, or planning (mens rea ~ guilty mind),
and it must
occur without excuse or justification. It’s this state of mind that
differentiates
homicide (murder) from manslaughter. These thoughts and the
actions (actus
reus) needs to be happening at the same time, which is called
concurrence,
and the actions and thoughts together must lead to the death,
called causation.
All of these factors are considered when deciding whether
something is a
crime, including murder.
• Rape - unlawful carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) of
another person
without their consent or toward a person who cannot legally
give consent

(children and intellectually disabled individuals are examples of
this).
• Aggravated Assault - inflicting serious bodily harm on a
person. Factors that go into deciding whether it
was simple or aggravated assault include the use of a weapon,
how serious the injuries are, whether the
offender had intended to seriously harm the person, and the
status of the person. For instance, assaulting a
police officer or police dog, teacher, or fire person carries a
more significant punishment than the same
crime against an ordinary citizen.
This graph shows the trends in violent crime in the United
States from 1960 to 2014.
Image: Trends by Crime in the US. Authored by: Delphi234.
Source:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_in_the
_United_States.png.
License: CC-0
• Robbery - the taking of property by means of force or fear.
It’s basically theft through assault or attempted
assault. Some examples of robbery include armed robbery,
which is when a weapons is used, and mugging
or highway robbery that takes place in a public space like a
street or parking lot.
These are broad definitions for these four types of violent
crime. Each of these is more nuanced in terms of
degrees of severity, which is taken into account when talking
about punishment of a crime. We will discuss these
in much more detail in future chapters. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) groups these four types of

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:violent_crime_in_the_
united_states.png
crime together as their Part 1 offenses. Because these are the
most serious crimes, these terms are used to talk
about how much crime occurs in the United States.
Property crimes are much more common than violent crimes.
This category includes burglary, larceny, auto theft,
and arson, which are included in the Part 1 offenses for the FBI
as well. Often offenders are looking for economic
gains when they commit property crimes, although crimes like
destruction of property may have other
motivations.
• Larceny/Theft is the most common crime in the United States.
It is the unlawful taking of someone’s
property without their permission. The difference between
larceny and robbery is that larceny does not
include the use of or threat of force and robbery does. Even if
you find something, the act of not attempting
to return it is considered theft.
• Burglary, also known as breaking and entering, is when
someone forces their way into a structure, including
barns, warehouses, homes, and offices, and includes both
successful and unsuccessful entries and theft.
• Because auto theft has become so common, many countries,
including the United States, have started
putting it into its own category, although it is a type of theft.
Like larceny, it is the theft of a self-propelled
vehicle that runs on land surfaces and not on rails. Motor

vehicle theft does not include farm equipment,
bulldozers, airplanes, construction equipment, or water craft.
• Arson is intentionally setting something on fire to cause
damage. There is often a financial motivation
behind the arson, such as to collect the insurance money, but
not always. The severity of the arson depends
on whether people were in the building (first degree), the
building was empty (second degree), or they just
burned an abandoned building or empty space (third degree).
High tech crimes, or cybercrimes, such as identity theft, fraud,
embezzlement, etc. have also been placed into
their own category because the frequency and severity of this
family of crimes continues to grow. Cybercrimes
that have been around for quite some time include the
following:
• Cyberstalking and harassing - continually trying to contact
and/or track someone who doesn’t want you to
contact them using technology like email, cellphone, or social
media
• Obscene materials - the posting, sharing, or distribution of
obscene materials including posting
unauthorized images of someone against their will and child
pornography
• Hacking/Cracking - the use of code and programming for
malicious purposes (hacking) or to gain
unauthorized access to someone’s computer or network
(cracking)
• Identity theft - stealing someone’s personal information
These are some of the most common types of crimes that are

committed in the United States. All of them have at
least one and many have multiple victims.
Crime Rates
As mentioned earlier, the media tends to show the most eye-
catching crimes in order to gain
viewership, but often the crimes portrayed in the media do not
reflect the realities of victimization.
We can talk about crime statistics in two different ways.
The first uses the raw number of crimes and victims to describe
crime. If we look at crime in just
raw numbers, we can get a very different picture than if we use
crime rates. Because a small town
might only have 25 violent crimes while a large city might have
thousands, one might think that
the small town is a lot safer than a large one. But this is not
necessarily true. The raw number of
crimes is not a good way for someone to compare two places,
especially if they are not the same
size. The odds of being victimized in the small town might be a
lot larger.
The second way to look at crime uses a formula to determine
crime rate. This is the term used
when experts talk about crime because it provides a more
statistically accurate view. The crime
rate formula allows us to compare apples to apples in terms of
crime to gain an accurate statistical
picture of U.S. crime rates. For example, using this equation,
we can see that the violent crime rate
for Chicago is 58.9, while the violent crime rate for Tulsa,
Oklahoma, a mid-sized city in the

Midwest, is much higher at 82.9. Compared to the United States
overall, which is 31.1, both of
these places are high (FBI, 2016).
The crime rate is calculated as:
(# of crime incidents / total population in that area) x 100,000
In addition, it is important to look at long-range crime trends
rather than year-to-year comparisons.
In 2017, the gun violence victimization rate for the city of Las
Vegas will look like a significant
spike, but unless you give more context, it might be hard to
realize this is due to a single incident.
Since the 1990s, the overall trend in violent crime has declined.
The violent crime
peaked in 1992 at 758.2 and hit a low in 2014 at 361.6. Today,
we see about 400 fewer
crimes committed than we did 25 years ago.
Image: Violent Crime Rate in the U.S.
Source: Barnes & Noble Education. License: CC-BY NC SA
Murder rate is based on the number of felony homicides that
occurred in a place in any given year. Although
the overall number of people who have been killed has
increased, going from 9,110 victims in 1960 to 17,250
in 2016, the rate of murder is about the same as it was in 1960
(1960 = 5.1 to 2016 = 5.3). Murder peaked in
1980 with a murder rate of 10.8, staying between 8 and 10
throughout the 1990s, and began falling in 1996

(FBI, 2016).
Although most people would expect places like New York and
California to have the highest murder
rate, it was in fact Louisiana that had the highest murder rate in
the United States in 2010.
Image: Murders in the U.S. by State, 2010. Authored by:
Delphi234.
Source:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_Murder_
Rate_in_2010.svg. License:
CC-0
Other violent crimes, like robbery, have followed similar trends,
with a peak rate of 272.7 (672,480) in 1992.
By 2016, there were 332,007 robberies, with a rate of 102.8.
Larceny, which has always been the most common
crime that we use to look at crime rates in the United States,
peaked in 1991 with 8.1 million (a rate of 3,228)
larceny thefts, and in 2016 there were 5.6 million (a rate of
1,745), which is similar to the 1960s (1966 was a
rate of 1,746).
Emerging Crime Trends
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:map_of_us_murder_rat
e_in_2010.svg
Cybercrime is one of the emerging trends globally. Annually,
billions of dollars are lost because of
cybercrimes, whether from hacking into companies, disabling
hospitals or banks, or the individual effects of
identity theft and fraud. These crimes can be from foreign
agents or companies seeking to gain an advantage to

people trying to gain bragging rights by hacking. It’s also
difficult to know the true scope of the problem
because many people either do not realize they have been the
victim of a cybercrime or they do not come
forward to tell law enforcement about their victimization. A
2014 report by Reuters found that cybercrime cost
the global economy approximately $445 billion annually,
impacting around 40 million people in the United
States each year, which is around 15 percent of the U.S.
population. This is more people than are harmed by
other types of property crime combined (FBI, n.d.a).
According to the FBI, the types of cybercrime that are becoming
more common
include the following:
• Fraud and Financial crimes - using computers, mobile devices,
or services
to defraud people, companies, or government agencies of
money, revenue, or
Internet access, including phishing, viruses, computer attacks,
or manipulating
people to get personal information
• Cyberterrorism - when a government or organization is
intimidated or
coerced by a group or individual to help meet their political
objectives
• Cyberextortion - when a website, email system, or computer
systems are
denied service or other types of attacks from malicious hackers
who often
demand money in order to restore the data taken or to “protect”

the system
from future attacks. Well-known victims of cyberextortion have
been Sony
Pictures, Disney, and Nokia.
• Cyberharassment - using technology to harass, control,
manipulate, or
threaten individuals or groups. This can include cyberstalking,
online
predators, cyberbullying, and Internet trolling.
The term white collar crime was coined by Edwin Sutherland in
1939 in his
speech to the American Sociological Association annual
meeting, the transcript of
which was published in 1940, who described it “approximately
as a crime
committed by a person of respectability and high social status in
the course of his
occupation” (p. 5). His work discussed how this is found in
every industry,
especially through fraud, bribery, embezzlement, and
falsification, or as Al Capone
called it “legitimate rackets” (Sutherland, 1940, p. 3).
According to the FBI,
“[t]hese crimes are characterized by deceit, concealment, or
violation of trust and
are not dependent on the application or threat of physical force
or violence. The
motivation behind these crimes is financial.”
Many of the same types of crimes discussed in Sutherland’s
seminal work are still
around today, but there are newer types of white collar crimes,
such as
environmental crimes, healthcare crimes, and intellectual

property theft, that have
emerged as new industries and laws have emerged. Based on the
last Commerce
Department estimates, in 2015, the United States lost around
$895 trillion to fraud
(WSRP, 2016). Yet many frauds are not reported or even
detected, indicating this
underestimates the amount of damage that fraud has caused.
This section discussed the definitions of crimes and the
frequency and effects that
crimes have on victims and society. We discussed the
importance of using a crime
rate formula when looking at crime statistics. Contrary to
popular media narratives,
the crime rate in the United States overall is low, similar to
rates in the 1960s and
1970s for both violent and property crimes. Over the years, new
types of crimes
have emerged as new industries and technologies have become
available. We get
our information, including crime rates and number of crimes in
the United States,
from official sources such as the Uniform Crime Reports.
Sources
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Uniform Crime Reports
1960 to 2016.
Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.a). Cyber Crime.
Retrieved from https://
www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber#Overview

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.b).White Collar Crime.
Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime
Reuters. (2014). Cyber crime costs global economy $445 billion
a year: Report.
Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
cybersecurity-mcafee-csis/
cyber-crime-costs-global-economy-445-billion-a-year-report-
idUSKBN0EK0SV20140609
WSRP. (2016). New study confirms the prevalence and cost of
white collar crime.
Retrieved from https://www.wsrp.com/new-study-confirms-
prevalence-cost-white-
collar-crime/
Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American
Sociological Review,
5(1), 1–12.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-mcafee-
csis/cyber-crime-costs-global-economy-445-billion-a-year-
report-iduskbn0ek0sv20140609
https://www.wsrp.com/new-study-confirms-prevalence-cost-
white-collar-crime/
https://www.wsrp.com/new-study-confirms-prevalence-cost-
white-collar-crime/
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber#overview

https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber#overview
2.2 Measuring Violence
• Analyze victimization measurement techniques, including
their strengths and
weaknesses.
The prior section presented a number of statistics about the
prevalence of crime in
the United States, with almost all of those statistics and
definitions coming from
official sources of information about crime, specifically the
FBI. The FBI collects
and analyzes crime in the United States annually, allowing
citizens and policy
makers to know where problems are, what laws might need to be
changed, and
what policies might need to be created in order to help prevent
crime. Yet, this is
not the only source of information. This section will discuss the
different sources of
information that can be used to discuss crime and victimization
in the United States
as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each information
source.
Official Reporting of Crime
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
The vast majority of crime statistics used in the United States
comes from the UCR.

In 1929, the FBI started collecting information from local law
enforcement
agencies about the number of crimes that occurred in each
jurisdiction. In the
1920s, as the scientific study of policing began as a field, the
Association of Police
Chiefs and the Social Science research council wanted to have a
clear set of
national crime statistics around major crimes (Part I Offenses —
murder, rape,
aggravated assault, robbery, larceny, and motor vehicle theft) to
allow for
comparison across jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is an area over
which a particular
body has legal authority. Examples are cities, counties, states,
and nations.
Congress passed a law (28 U.S.C. § 534) in 1930 to charge the
FBI with this task,
creating the Uniform Crime Report. From 1935 through the
1980s, the FBI was the
primary place to get crime statistics and still runs the UCR
today.
The UCR depends on local police agencies in order to compile
crime statistics.
Approximately 18,000 city, university and college, county,
state, tribal, and federal
law enforcement agencies contribute their data to the UCR
annually (Bureau of
Justice Statistics [BJS], 2017). Thus, the UCR is a measure of
crimes that are
detected and reported by the police. In the 1980s, the UCR went
through a revision
to make the data more accurate and easier for agencies to
report. The result of the
revisions was the National Incident-Based Reporting System

(NIBRS), which is
now collecting information on administrative, offense, victim,
property, offender,
and arrestees using a standardize reporting form. This new
system makes the UCR
a more complete report.
Although the UCR is a decent measure of the crime we know
about, many crime
events are never reported to the police, meaning that the UCR is
underreporting
crime. The exception is murder because the vast majority of
murders are known to
the police. Other types of crimes, especially rape and sexual
assault, have very low
levels of reporting to the police. This was discovered through
victimization
surveys, like the National Crime Victims Survey discussed next.
In addition,
because not all agencies include all crime, the FBI creates a
estimation of the
amount of crime in a particular area. Although there are issues
with the UCR, it is
still a good source of information to understand crime in an
area. In addition to the
FBI, several other agencies collect various types of data. See
the following table for
information on these other agencies.
Agency Mission What It Does
National
Institute of
Justice

(NIJ)
To study advances in
technology for criminal
justice, such as
forensics, judicial
processing, and social
science research
Collects missing person data, studies
effectiveness of nonlethal technologies and
officer safety equipment, and sponsors grant
programs to collaborate with academic and
nonprofit organizations to study violence
against women, corrections, and program
effectiveness and crime prevention policies
Bureau of
Justice
Assistance
(BJA)
To reduce crime,
recidivism, and
unnecessary
confinement, and
promote a safe and fair
criminal justice system
Works with local agencies and organizations
to create innovative evidence-based
programs and policies that improve the
justice system; collects data on program
effectiveness
The Office

of Juvenile
Justice and
Delinquency
Prevention
(OJJDP)
To provide national
leadership, coordination,
and resources to prevent
and respond to juvenile
delinquency and
victimization.
Works with agencies and organizations to
create effective juvenile justice programs
that help youths and their families; formed
the national youth gang center
Office for
Victims of
Crime
(OVC)
To focus on assistance
to crime victims, change
attitudes about
victimization, and work
to help victims rebuild
their lives after they
have experienced a
victimization
Oversees the Crime Victims Fund and
works with states on compensation plans;
collects data on victimization programs in
the United States

Victim Surveys
The federal government created the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) in 1979 to
better understand victimization that was not reported, as well as
broader criminal
justice issues. The BJS collects and publishes statistics about
crime in the United
States. Unlike the UCR, which just focused on crime statistics,
the BJS collects
information on corrections and prisoners, recidivism, court
cases, victims, and law
enforcement. They collect an annual census of prisoners
throughout the United
States to help us understand corrections and data from victims
that are and are not
reported to the police (and thus left out of the UCR). The BJS
looks at how police
respond to calls and offers grants to professionals seeking to
improve our
understanding of crime and justice. This helps us compensate
for any issues in
official data.
Victim surveys take two forms: (1) sampling from the general
population to ask
about victimization and (2) targeting particular crime victims.
The largest
victimization survey in the United States is the National Crime
Victimization
Survey (NCVS). It is administered by the BJS and began in
1973 as the National
Crime Survey (NCS), to survey the general population about

victimization. The
BJS surveys approximately 135,000 U.S. households, composed
of nearly 225,000
people, asking about their experiences with victimization. The
survey asks
primarily about Part 1 offenses (except murders), but
occasionally adds
supplemental questions around bullying and attitudes about the
police. It asks about
crimes that were and were not reported, as well as offender
information. It also asks
about characteristics of the crime (e.g., time and place,
weapons, injuries, and
economic consequences) and victim experiences with the
criminal justice system
(BJS, 2016).
One early result for the NCVS was to notice how much crime
was reported in the
survey but was missing from police data. This is called the dark
figure of crime,
also known as hidden crime (Walsh & Hemmens, 2014). The
NCVS, other surveys,
and research from nongovernmental agencies and individuals
have significantly
increased our understanding of how much crime there is and
why it is not reported.
The dark figure of crime is the gap between reported crime and
that total
amount of crime, which goes unreported or undiscovered.
Image: Dark Figure of Crime.
Source: Barnes & Noble Education. License: CC-BY NC SA

In addition to the individual surveys, the BJS also conducted
city surveys, starting
with eight impacted cities but ending with 26 cities. The city
surveys were
discontinued a few years later, upon recommendation to just
focus on the NCVS.
That does not mean that cities have disappeared as a focus of
other research. The
national archive of criminal justice data houses several research
data sets collected
during the last 40 years that look at various cities’ victimization
experiences. City
victimization data allow local agencies to focus policy decisions
and services
directly toward local victims and on local problems that might
not be obvious in
either their official data or state and regional trends. City
victimization data can
also help identify victim service gaps and locations where
prevention programs
might be created.
Opinion and Other Polling
In addition to the sources mentioned previously, other types of
surveys and opinion
polling help inform what we know about victimization.
• The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey is an
ongoing survey
examining sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner
physical violence
among English- and Spanish-speaking women and men over age

18. This is
sponsored by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Rape and Sexual Victimization Among College-Aged Females
looks at rape
and sexual assault of women on college campuses. This,
combined with
campus climate surveys, has spurred changes in how colleges
deal with
victimization on campus.
• Pew Research regularly conducts survey and polling on a
variety of topics
related to crime and victimization issues.
In addition to these large national surveys, academics all over
the country are
engaged in research on victimization. Their results add to our
understanding of
victimization, especially crime that is not reported, and the
impacts of victimization
across the world.
Between official data and other types of research, our efforts to
understand
victimization have grown as have our programs and policies
around combating
crime. In contrast to the popular narrative, all indications point
to a continuing
decline in overall violence and victimization in the United
States.
Sources
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2017). About the Uniform Crime
Reporting program.

Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/abouttheucr.cfm
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). Data collection: National
Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS). Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?
ty=dcdetail&iid=245
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
https://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/abouttheucr.cfm
Office of Victims of Crime. (n.d.) About OVC. Retrieved from
https://ovc.gov/
about/initiatives.html
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (n.d.).
About the OJJDJ.
Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/
Walsh, A., & Hemmens, C. (2010). Introduction to criminology:
A text/reader.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/
https://ovc.gov/about/initiatives.html
https://ovc.gov/about/initiatives.html
3 Victims and the Criminal Justice System
Learning Outcome: Analyze the interactions between the
criminal justice system and victims.
3.1 Injustice in the Police, Judicial, and Correctional Systems

• Examine the ways that the criminal justice system interacts
with victims of crime, including
system biases.
The goal of this module is to familiarize readers with the
criminal justice system (CJS).
Specifically, attention will be given to how victims and
communities have been treated by the CJS.
In addition, you will learn how interactions with victims and
communities has impacted the ability
of the CJS to function. The first part of the module provides a
brief overview of the CJS and how
it functions, to help you understand how victims fit within the
system. The CJS has three main
areas: law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. The
involvement with, and treatment of,
victims by each area of the CJS will be discussed. As described
before, criminal justice and crime
is complex. Similarly, treatment of victims is also complex and
often depends not only on the
event, but also the social and cultural, and sometimes political,
situations that are occurring within
the CJS as well as within society at large.
An Overview of the Criminal Justice System
Law Enforcement
One of the hard jobs that law enforcement face is working with
and comforting victims
of crime.
Image: Victim being Consoled. Authored by: FBI.
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/image-
repository/original.jpeg/view. License: CC-0

https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/original.jpeg/view
Victims first come into the CJS through law enforcement, so it
is important to
understand how law enforcement is structured and the changes
that have taken
place as the field has evolved. The goal of this section is to
understand how law
enforcement works and how communities and victims are part
of the system. Law
enforcement is made aware of a crime in three ways:
• The victim informs law enforcement of a potential crime. An
example is
someone calling the police because they have been robbed.
• An observer or nonvictim notifies law enforcement of a crime.
An example
would be someone who sees a robbery or theft in process and
calls the police.
• Law enforcement discovers a crime on their own. An example
would be the
police observing someone robbing a store.
The United States inherited much of its laws and law
enforcement process from
Britain. Originally, a justice of the peace or constable was the
local individual who
oversaw investigations, organized night watches, and held
criminals for trial.
Victims would seek these local officers or the night watches to
report a crime. This

informal system had serious issues, including corruption, abuses
of power, and the
inability to effectively prevent crime or solve crimes. These
problems eventually
lead to a call for a more organized and structured law
enforcement system.
Responding to this call, Sir Robert Peel created the London
Metropolitan police
force; the officers eventually became known as bobbies. The
four operating
philosophies for the police still hold today (Manning, 1977):
1. Reduce tensions between officers and the public.
2. Use nonviolent means to solve issues, with violence only
being an absolute
last resort under rare circumstance. It’s why police in London
did not carry
guns.
3. Relieve the military from certain duties like controlling urban
violence (thus
also helping to reduce the use of violence).
4. The effectiveness of policing should be judged by the
absence of crime rather
than visible police actions.
These philosophies of policing eventually made their way to the
United States, with
the goal of creating a professional and effective police force.
According to Gains
and Miller (2009), policing in the United States can be divided
into three eras in
terms of the development of a formal policing structure and
culture.

Dear Appeal Committees,Reference Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-L

Dear Appeal Committees,Reference Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-L

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Dear Appeal Committees,Reference Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-L

Similar to Dear Appeal Committees,Reference Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-L (19)

More from VannaJoy20

More from VannaJoy20 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dear Appeal Committees,Reference Appeal for Reinstatement Pre-L