4 Victimology

Overview

The discipline of victimology is an area of specialization within the broader field of criminology. A proper study of victimology would include examining victims of crime and their circumstances, the relationship to and responsibilities owed to victims by the criminal justice system, and the peripheral connections that victims of crime have with the media, special interest and advocacy groups, political figures, and movements important to society (LeClair, 2007).

This chapter will view crime victims through several lenses: individuals, groups, and entities who may have suffered, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activities. As the reader will see, victims may be harmed physically, emotionally, or in economic ways. Frequently, a victim may endure harm from all three simultaneously, arising out of the same act. Further, people can be victimized either directly (through a primary act or event) or indirectly (secondarily affected due to a criminal act having occurred). Through this chapter’s investigation of victimization, the reader will be encouraged to utilize the Scientific Method of Analysis (Burgess, 2013), in order to optimize an objective approach to the study. The basic steps of the scientific method are:

• Making observations or asking questions about your observations;
• Forming a hypothesis, or a testable explanation, and making predictions based upon it;
• Testing the hypothesis and predictions in a reproducible experiment;
• Analyzing the data from the experiment and drawing conclusions; and
• Communicating the results to others, so as to encourage further dialogue, review and experimentation.

This chapter hopes to demonstrate how a victimologist seeks to know in what ways a person, group or entity has been harmed. Of equal interest and importance in the discipline of victimology is for the inquiry to determine if the victims are being supported, empowered, accommodated, assisted, rehabilitated, celebrated, memorialized, honored and, even in some cases, idolized (Karmen, 2007).

It is imperative to recognize that there are two important parts of the crime equation–the victim and the offender. To better develop a complete understanding of the causes and prevention of crime, the student will be required to look at the entire equation. We then can begin to apply what has been learned toward the academic pursuit of criminology, as well as more fully understand the applied practices of the criminal justice system. It is then we are better informed of their effectiveness in addressing the needs of victims, as well as aiding in the reform and rehabilitation measures afforded the criminal actor in our system.

 

4.1 Concepts of Victimology

Whether we are aware of it or not, all of us at one time or another have been a victim of a crime. Perhaps the most graphic reminder for anyone who experienced the horrible events surrounding the criminal activities that took place on September 11, 2001. Many human lives were lost. Some came as a direct result of the impact of aircrafts on buildings and landscapes in three states. Others were killed or injured in the rescue and recovery efforts that began immediately, and extended, in some cases, for years. Yet others were family and friends who were close to the direct victims, and clearly impacted by their loss. Finally, the changes in how the country reacted in response to these crimes, including policy and procedural changes enacted for travelers at airports, border inspections, and other homeland security-related changes, have undeniably affected and remain in place over twenty years later. Many people believe that the prevalent fear in the United States is being the victim of a sexual assault. While there is, by no means, any shortage of these assault crimes, the more common fear identified by victimologists is that people fear a violation of their personal safety through different categories of theft, including identity theft, home and vehicle burglary, etc. (Saad, 2023).

There are four basic questions to be answered in this field of victim study. They are:

• Who is a victim-how can a victim be identified or known;
• What is the nature and extent of their victimization;
• What caused the victimization to occur; and
• How may the victim be best assisted, by first responders, courts, and society

The common denominator among the individuals, groups and populations being discussed in this chapter is, they have all been victimized in some way. Of critical importance is to realize that a triad of impacts of crime on victims may be experienced–physically, emotionally, or economically, and sometimes in tandem. For example, if a person is sexually assaulted, the victim of a robbery, or murdered, that person and others will be affected in various ways that are consistent with the triad of impacts. If family members residing in an apartment experience a home invasion, the entire group experiences victim trauma at some levels. Finally, if an environmental spill takes place in a community, impersonal entities-business, schools, and government as examples-can experience immediate and ongoing victimization that may extend for many years. Of importance to note in these examples is, victimization can occur on two levels. First, a Direct or primary victimization will occur, where the initial (and usually the most immediate effect) of crime victimization happens. Indirect (or secondary) exposure to crime victimization expands the effects of suffering beyond those immediately affected, to include family and close friends of the victim. There can even be large groups considered indirect victims, such as those found when crimes are perpetrated against business, government, industries or the environment. Such large groups may be harmed for years, and in some cases, generations of descendants may continue to be victimized (as in the case of an environmental crime).

4.2 History of Victimization

Figure 4.1

Curiosity and concern about victims has been around to some extent since the beginning of criminological studies. Upon the adoption of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, crimes were redefined as being hostile acts directed against the authority of the state, which was further defined as the representative of the people. In this view, committing crimes was considered a threat to the social order posed by those who broke laws. Prosecutors representing the public interest and acting on behalf of the government and society, assumed the powers and responsibilities which previously had been exercised by victims (Karmen, 2007).

It was not until the late 1950s that a focus began to develop on a more professional level. This focus intensified following the uptick in street crimes in the 1960s (Feucht & Zedlewski, 2019). A President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Task Force on Assessment was created, with resultant findings printed in 1967 entitled The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, that marked a definitive beginning in the history of the discipline of victimology.

In Chapter 2, the reader was introduced to three primary sources of criminological data evaluated by practitioners in the discipline. The three sources are (1) the Uniform Crime Report; (2) the National Crime Victimization Survey; and (3) the various Offender-Based Self-Report Surveys. These sources afford the victimologist important information in order to better grasp the reality of crime levels and resultant victimization. The tools include: raw numbers of crimes, rates of occurrence, patterns where discernable, trends and profiles. However, the self-report surveys, providing information from offenders, are considered somewhat less reliable due to the potential for bias, concealment, exaggeration by offenders, etc. (Joliffe & Farrington, 2014).

Despite being afforded the luxury of these statistical reports and surveys, the picture of victimization is not yet entirely clear. This is due in part to the acknowledged existence of a “Dark Figure of Crime”–that crime which, for whatever reason, is not reported (VanderPyl, 2024, 2.3 section). Further, even if criminal behavior or events are documented and reported, not all crimes fall within the eight crimes that are indexed as part of the Uniform Crime Report. Biases potentially exist in the documentation and reporting of crime (Langton et al., 2012). These biases can include:

• Anecdotal stories or extrapolated facts regarding a violator and/or the victim;
• The limited personal experience of the officer, investigator or reporter;
• False impressions of the victim which may be formed when crime is investigated;
• Unintended or misleading media depictions of the crime scene or the victim;
• The vested interests of “stakeholders”–local government, schools, businesses, etc.;
• Myths about crime and its outcomes which are popular, widely held, but inaccurate.

Examining examples of victimology occurring today, the reader will see an array of the traditional forms of crimes being perpetrated against others. An emerging area of victimization concerns crimes against the transgender population. In 2019, the American Medical Association noted an “epidemic of violence against the transgender community” (Madara, 2019, para. 1), who are “over 2.5 times more likely than cisgender people–those whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were designated at birth–to experience violence” (as cited in Mandler, 2022). While regional variations of impact are evident, an Everytown report also cites “dangerous gun bills” and legislation passed at the state level invoking a record number of anti-transgender bills. The result is “an environment ripe for deadly gun violence fueled by hate” (2020/2024, para. 11). Another sad outcome relates to suicide rates where 40% of trans youth reported attempting suicide in their lifetime (James et al., 2016). With six out of every ten suicides in the U.S. involving a firearm, the “epidemic of firearm suicide could have a disproportionate impact on transgender and adolescent members of the LGBTQ+ community” (Everytown, 2020/2024, para. 13). In a survey geared to study gender identity disparities in criminal victimization in 2017-2018, it was found that transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons, compared with 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 for persons in the cisgender category (Flores et al., 2021). Coincidentally, households having a transgender person had nearly twice more incidents of property-related victimization than their cisgender homeowner counterparts. In Washington state in particular, transgender people are victimized at an alarming rate compared to the general population (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2017).

4.2.1 REPETITIVE VICTIMIZATION

Some crimes perpetrated are “one-offs”, such as crimes of opportunity or happenstance. In other cases, a person or a place may be revisited, leading to repetitive victimization. Some examples include:

• Recurring victimization occurs when a person or a place such as a business, school, park, etc., is victimized more than once by any type of victimization.
• Repeat victimization occurs when a person or a place is victimized more than once by the same type of crime or victimization.
• Re-victimization is seen when a person is victimized more than once by any type of victimization. This victimization occurs across a wide span of time: months, years or even from childhood into adulthood. The re-victimizing may come about as a fleeting thought, a smell, certain music or sounds, or some other triggering event.
• Poly-victimization is a term generally used for childhood recurring victimization, when a person has experienced multiple forms of victimization such as a child enduring beatings from a parent, then being sexually abused by a neighbor.
• Near-repeat victimization occurs when a place is victimized in the near vicinity to a place that was previously victimized. This can occur during such events as “porch-pirate” thefts (where delivered packages are stolen off porches or driveways) that occur on the same street in a neighborhood.

Figure 4.2

One of the worst mass shootings in the United States occurred at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Hotel complex in Las Vegas in October 2017. A sniper on the hotel’s 32nd floor and in possession of a modified rifle fired over 1,000 rounds in ten minutes, directed at concert-goers at an outdoor venue. In all, 59 people were killed and at least 527 were injured, making it one of the most horrific mass shooting events in history (Hutchinson et al., 2018).

What makes this event and its aftermath somewhat unique is the litigation that followed. Individual and class action lawsuits were filed by victims and survivors against Mandalay Bay Resort and Hotel, regarding security and a failure to protect its clients (Hassan & Li, 2019). Less than one year later, the hotel’s owner, MGM Grand International, filed a countersuit naming over 1,000 victims in the shooting as defendants (Haskell, 2018). Asking for no money, the hotel owner was asking for change of venue for the litigation (to be heard in federal court as opposed to state court), and in an effort to be shielded from liability. What is lost in all of this is the recurring victimization which occurs–first from the physical and mental trauma incurred at the shooting event, then the impactful questioning immediately following, and finally, from subsequent courtroom testimony after being sued as a victim by the hotel.

4.3 Ideologies of Victimology

It is fundamentally important to realize that the discipline of victimology lacks a common, singular ideology that consistently applies to the direction and scope of studies undertaken. In fact, there are at least three separate, currently-accepted ideologies involved in the analysis of victimology on a comprehensive basis (Karmen, 2007). When utilizing the scientific method, it is generally accepted that the following three ideologies influence the discipline of victimology: (1) the conservative tendency, (2) the liberal tendency, and (3) the radical tendency. By having an understanding of the characteristics of each tendency, it becomes easier to appreciate the different directions the discipline could take, based upon which of the ideologies is determined to be most influential.

4.3.1 THE CONSERVATIVE TENDENCY

Figure 4.3

The Conservative tendency is concerned, primarily, with studying the victims of traditional street crimes (such as those found in the Uniform Crime Report). Therefore, white-collar crimes are generally excluded from study under the Conservative Tendency. The Conservative Tendency maintains that every individual is somewhat responsible for their own victimization, and as such, is ultimately responsible to take reasonable precautions to avoid being victimized. This approach continues to support the notion that individuals must take reasonable care and caution in their daily activities, and as such shall be held accountable for their behavior so that crime victimization will not occur. The people’s actions and the decisions they make ought not be careless, facilitative, or provocative to a would-be offender. By assuming this level of personal responsibility, they must attempt to prevent, avoid, resist and recover from any criminal acts experienced. However, it is recognized that individuals have a responsibility to defend themselves, their families and their home, within every reasonable level possible.

Because of the emphasis on street crimes and reliance on taking reasonable actions to prevent becoming a victim, the Conservative tendency has favor among many criminal justice system practitioners (Hegger, J., 2015). Clearly, no one can perfectly predict human behavior. Even seasoned law enforcement personnel, who receive initial and ongoing training, specific education, and exposure to people who have fallen prey to criminals, take extra precautions in their daily living. They do this simply to avoid falling victim to criminal acts. Examples of this can be seen when police back their personal cars into a “pull-in” parking spot so they may be facing the roadway, or when they sit in a coffee shop or restaurant facing the entry door to the building. The advantage to these approaches is that it may allow the officer to be more quickly able to respond to a threat. A disadvantage, however, may be that by focusing on preventing their own victimization, they may miss clues to criminal behavior happening in their periphery. This in no way implies that officers are less concerned for the safety of civilians nor compassionate in their response to victims.

Figure 4.4

4.3.2 THE LIBERAL TENDENCY

Figure 4.5

Another current ideology considered is the Liberal Tendency. Victimologists in this ideological construct believe that the scope of analyses needs to extend beyond street crimes and must include white-collar crimes (Hegger, 2015). Another included focus of the Liberal Tendency is upon complex involvement between criminals and victims. In this view it is recognized that harmful corporate actions or illegal actions can be carried out by persons of respectability and power, victimizing others. Unlike the Conservative Tendency advocates, Liberal Tendency subscribers believe that the government should support the needs of crime victims, and in fact provide a safety net of resources. This level of support includes crime victims’ compensation and assistance funding, crime insurance subsidization, and supporting shelters for victims of rape, domestic violence and assault, persons in crisis, and extending free or reduced-fee legal services to members of vulnerable populations.

Proponents of the Liberal approach may tend to blame others for their victimization or circumstances. For example, in a case of credit card fraud or identity theft, advocates of the Liberal Tendency may believe that the issuing bank card company should have had more protections in place, or that police should have been more actively involved in order to prevent their victimization. Upon closer inspection, consumers are reminded never to write their unique PIN on the back of their card, nor carelessly display identifiable information on their social media postings, which would comport closer to the conservative tendency.

The preferred method of society to deal with these victims in order to “make them whole again” or reintegrate them into society will be through education meant to instruct them on how to avoid becoming a victim in the future. A concern of victimologists with this approach is that if too much emphasis is placed upon assisting victims after the fact, the prevention piece of the equation may be minimized or forgotten. Those who are practitioners within the criminal justice system feel that a “victimization bubble” may be created where people wrongly place the blame on others rather than taking any personal responsibility or accountability for their own actions (Cuncic, 2023).

Once they come to terms that what happened wasn’t their fault, the victim may be helped to find ways to avoid a similar traumatic experience. In this way, they are not told simply to “take accountability,” which could be seen as a form of revictimizing (Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, 2014). They receive psychological support and options for a better future outcome.

4.3.3 THE RADICAL TENDENCY

Figure 4.6

Infernal Ballet Amid Pines

The Radical Tendency represents a somewhat blended approach between the Conservative and Liberal Tendencies. Rather than to be constrained by street crimes and white-collar crimes, the Radical Tendency believes in a more comprehensive, overarching picture of criminal behavior (Hegger, 2015). Proponents of the Radical Tendency believe that the focus on victims ought to be expanded to cover all sources of physical, mental and economic harm. In this view, an individual needs to be aware of the potential that they may become a victim, and thus take reasonable steps to prevent harm from visiting them. However, because the Radical Tendency expands so deeply into business and industry, blame will be placed on the government or the major corporation for not having created stricter guidelines and laws to protect the consumer from becoming a victim.

While it is generally agreed that corporations, the government, and other entities should be held accountable for being compliant with local, state and federal regulations, the Radical Tendency tends to not consider that it may have been the victim’s fault because they decided on their own to forge ahead with a plan to get rich or improve their lot without considering the risks involved. Because the Radical Tendency seems to be far removed from everyday victimization, there are some clear advantages and disadvantages associated with its approach.

In addition to large entities, corporations, and the government, the Radical Tendency also can articulate to include neighborhood residents, minority communities, and can even extend to citizens of countries where atrocities and human rights violations are committed. (Karmen, 2007).

Ideally, a flexible blend between the Conservative and Liberal Tendencies would serve the victim best, and even allows for proactive measures on their part. Because there is always a certain reasonable level of personal preparedness expected, people are thus informed of their potential to be victimized. The aspect of having systems in place to assist in circumstances where reasonably-prepared persons become crime victims, such as offered in the Liberal Tendency, would fit nicely in these situations.

4.4 Crime Victims and Media Treatment

Figure 4.7

While this topic has as its primary focus the nature of interactions between crime victims and the various media outlets which report crime stories, it largely concerns the impacts of journalistic mistreatment of crime victims. Whether intentionally inflicted or otherwise, crime victims may suffer additional harm due to these interactions, which can include on-screen interviews, photojournalism, or verbal communications on the radio. In some cases, more severe and prolonged harm can arise from these interactions than was first experienced in the initial criminal victimization. The unfortunate truth of this is, the media may have neither anticipated nor intended these consequences when fulfilling their crime reporting mission (Garcia, 2018; Justice Solutions, n.d.). They also may be completely unaware that they have inflicted any abuse, or that the abuse is continuing to occur. In this examination of victimization as a result of the treatment of the media, the practices of “sensationalism” and “tabloidism” are recognized. These practices create an environment of harm to crime victims and their families, especially when they cover crimes committed locally, or when describing highly-publicized crimes.

Figure 4.8

Picture of the New York Herald Penny Press

In the early years of journalism, the primary means of information communication was by newspapers and magazines.

The newspaper was the perfect medium for the increasingly urbanized Americans of the 19th century, who could no longer get their local news merely through gossip and word of mouth. These Americans were living in unfamiliar territory, and newspapers and other media helped them negotiate the rapidly changing world. (University of Minnesota Libraries, 1.3 section, para. 10)

The delay between the crime being committed, and when it was reported, created three advantages: 1) more time for investigation to occur, 2) more time for victim services (primitive as they may have been) to have taken place, and 3) a better chance that the original reporting would be correct.

This picture has changed dramatically with the onset of televised reporting, motion picture films (primarily documentaries, as well as productions based on fact), and social media.

Today, a media coverage of a crime can be captured in presentable format in literally seconds, if not in real time. Some years ago, media coverage by helicopter was criticized and finally subjected to strict guidelines (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016), due to the propensity of pilots flying over crime scenes, using telephoto lenses to capture movements and tactics, which could inform criminals of the presence and location of police seeking to apprehend them. Today’s journalists take a different approach, by attempting to get as close to the “action” as possible. This often leads to the police needing to deploy officers or other departmental employees to redirect or “stage” the media representatives out of harm’s way. Finally, in attempts to capture the “human interest” angle of criminal events, witnesses and sometimes victims themselves are interviewed nearly immediately after a crime has occurred, and sometimes before the victim has had an opportunity to mentally process what has happened. Taking an approach to quickly interview victims before all the facts are in and the victim, and others, have time to process what has happened, often does a disservice to persons dealing with the impacts of crimes.

4.5 The Media and the Victim: Examining Accuracy and Ethics

A true fact central to any discussion of the relationship between the news media and victims of crime is, the news media are businesses which are profit-oriented. Whether it comes from regular subscribers to newspapers or online editions, one-off impulse buyers at a newsstand, or hotel/motel chains who provide complimentary newspapers to overnight guests, the newspaper industry relies upon the development and nurturing of a broad population of readers. The circulation size and scope determines the volume and level of fees which commercial advertisers are willing to commit to when negotiating with the media outlet. When considering television, a Nielsen rating system is used. The television networks rely on programming productions which will interest and attract viewers. The popularity is measured by a rating system which measures the media’s delivery of populations to commercials. The ratings, then, determine the size and number of commercial contracts, as well as the level of fees that are charged to the advertisers.

A significant amount of the television network day is devoted to the reporting of news. In most markets, news may account for one-fourth of the production day, and if the channel is one exclusively devoted to news reporting, it can be as high as continuous, 24-hour news production. Considering the news, a key component is the coverage of crime. Unfortunately, the degree to which a news story involving crime is sensational, or even shocking or unusual, often determines whether the story will attract a wider audience (O’Hear, 2020).

When decisions are made concerning what will be covered in the news on any given day, editors will be presented with many news choices. As a result of this selectivity process, news editors tend to pick out those situations in which the crime, the perpetrator, or the victim are “unusual, unexpected, strange, or perverse” in some way (Karmen, 2007, pp. 31-33). If an incident of victimization is sensational in nature, it will likely be selected as a feature to be covered. Conversely, when the incident is commonplace or typical, it likely will not be selected for coverage. The victimologist, then, should carefully review the role of the media and journalistic needs in terms of the treatment of crime victims, in order to prevent further victimization and mental trauma as a result of the processes surrounding media reporting.

Whenever interviewing victims, witnesses, and when reporting, journalists and editors must be clearly focused on whether or not the names, family members, addresses, places of employment, and other identifying information is to be revealed (Seymour & Bucqueroux, 2009). To do so can place victims into a position of vulnerability. Further, reporting with accuracy, especially when facing time constraints, is critical. If a reporter relies solely on rumor or conjecture, they run the risk of being wrong, harming both the reporter and the media outlet’s credibility. Working under time constraints also creates an atmosphere of superficial coverage, which often leads to inaccuracies and biases. If a reporter “cuts corners,” it is possible that complex issues become oversimplified or even trivialized. Profiling and stereotyping of individuals and groups can result from this reporting conduct, and may lead to serious harm in the form of embarrassment to the victim and any witnesses to the crime.

Of particular concern in journalistic responsibility to victims of crime is reporting ethics. Since the media interests have a profit motive in order to sustain reader subscriptions and viewership, reporters may embrace the tactics of sensationalism, or focus on the unusual, in order to increase the numbers of their viewer/reader patrons. In doing so, the reporter may lose sight of the sensitivity surrounding crime victims, families, and witnesses to criminal acts. Examples of the outcomes of insensitivity can include invasion of privacy, unlawful trespass, including insensitive photo images in their reports, and other acts which may exploit, injure, or retraumatize victims (Morrell, 2021; Yahr, 2019). Even further, do members of the media, intentionally or inadvertently, frame some of the community’s views of crime and victims from time to time? This can occur through downplaying the “newsworthiness” by reporters of major crimes in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods (White et al., 2021).

We have discussed rather general examples of how crime victims, families, witnesses, close friends, and even communities can be adversely treated, even injured, through acts of insensitivity, poor timing, and conjecture when reporting and publishing stories on crime.

E. C. Viano, a victimologist who attempted to point out the fine line between providing timely and accurate information – risking violation of privacy rights and acting with insensitivity when reporting – created what is known as the Viano Model for Journalistic Mistreatment of Crime Victims (1992). Elements of the Viano Model include:

• Publicizing victimizations prior to notification of the victims’ families
• Printing the victims’ names and addresses, particularly when the offenders are still at large.
• Graphically describing female victims and survivors.
• Interviewing victims and/or survivors at inappropriate times.
• Chasing victims and survivors into hospital rooms, police stations, etc.
• Choosing unflattering or inaccurate terms to describe victims, often sensationalizing the event.
• Glamorizing offenders.
• Inappropriately delving into the victims’ pasts.
• Behaving aggressively toward victims, survivors, and their advocates.
• Ignoring the victims’ and survivors’ wishes regarding how and when they wish to deal with the media.
• Filming, photographing, and prominently broadcasting and pointing scenes with bodies and body bags.
• Reporting unconfirmed innuendoes.
• Searching for and stressing the “negative” about victims.
• Interviewing and photographing child victims or child relatives of victims.
• Interfering with police investigations.
• Publishing reports on the progress of investigations and negotiations that may reveal critical information and endanger the identity of the victims of kidnapping and terrorism over the objections of authorities or of the families of the victims.
• Intimidating or misleading victims by claiming to have rights that the media actually do not have (e.g., to be able to be on private property, to interview them, etc.)
• Improperly using police “cover” and support to gain access to victims and to confidential information about them (e.g., diaries, letters, etc.).

4.6 Theories of Victimology

Figure 4.9

In discussions involving victimization, it is important to determine if there are any possible relationships or causations that incorporated the acts and/or behaviors of the victim which may have led, intentionally or otherwise, to subsequent crime perpetration. This discussion does not intend to accuse or blame the victim. Instead, our analysis of possible roles may help us understand the lead-up to, and any possible encouragement or facilitation of, the crime(s) committed.

A theoretical construct may help us understand better the involvement, if any, of a victim prior to the criminal act. The construct is actually more of a continuum, indicating varying degrees of potential shared responsibility (Karmen, 2007). The range considers, on one extreme point on the continuum, a completely innocent victim (who has 0% shared responsibility) to the continuum’s opposite side, where victim fabrication (100% shared responsibility) resides. Of course, as with any continuum, there are intermediate levels of varying degrees of shared responsibility. In ascending order (least to most) of seriousness, we consider victim inaction, victim proneness, victim facilitation, victim precipitation, victim provocation, and finally, victim fabrication.

If one were to display the continuum for visual effect, with a short explanation for each, it might look something like this:

GREATEST LEVEL OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BY A VICTIM

Victim Fabrication: Originally believed to be a victim, facts ascertain they are fully 100% responsible for the crime(s) committed. In this case the victim has total complicity and full responsibility for the crime. For example, in an insurance fraud scheme, a false or embellished report of a collision might be made by a car owner, and verified by a co-conspirator who operates a repair facility. This would allow for the collection of money as reimbursement for unnecessary repairs, or repairs to damage that never happened.

Victim Provocation: The victim contributes in a highly substantial way to becoming a victim. An example of victim provocation can be seen in an altercation in a bar. Example: John insults Tom relentlessly. When Tom tries to ignore his tormentor, John picks a fight with Tom. Tom is fed up with the teasing and responds by killing John.

Victim Precipitation: Victims can be instigators of a crime and thereby be considered as partially responsible for the crime when it happens if their actions significantly contributed to it. An example of such an instigation might be challenging verbal (calling someone a derogatory name) or displaying a hostile gesture, or cutting another driver off in traffic, precipitating an act of road rage.

Victim Facilitation: In this case, victims may unknowingly make it easier for a crime to occur, through careless behavior, negligence, or foolishness. For example, parking your vehicle in an area accessible to the public, then leaving your doors unlocked, a window partially down, and keys in the ignition would be an example of how the victim made a crime easier to commit by someone.

Victim Proneness: A person who operates in dangerous environments, lives in high-crime areas, or socializes with known criminals increases the potential for becoming a victim.

Completely Innocent: Someone who in no way contributes consciously nor participates in an event which victimized them, would be considered completely innocent. For example, Imagine someone visiting a bank to transact business who gets caught up in an armed robbery. If ordered to lie prone on the floor, not pull an alarm or call the police, and willingly capitulates to the demands of the robber, should not be faulted for their inaction under duress.

LOWEST LEVEL OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BY A VICTIM

It should be understood that a victim might fall into any one, or a combination of two or more, of the above listed levels of shared responsibility, depending upon circumstances related to the event (Karmen, 2007).

4.7 Typologies of Crime Victims

What are the personal characteristics of persons who have been victimized, and how might these relate to the situations, predicaments, or circumstances that people sometimes find themselves in?

In the 1950s, criminologist Benjamin Mendelsohn attempted to explain victimization through the creation of a victim typology. It should be pointed out that his efforts were controversial, in that Mendelsohn placed considerable emphasis on attitudes of victims which ultimately lead to their victimization (Mendelsohn, 1976).

4.7.1 TYPOLOGY OF CRIME VICTIMS

Table 4.1

Mendelsohn’s Typology of Crime Victims

Innocent Victim	​​Someone who did not contribute to the victimization and is in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the victim we most often envision when thinking about enhancing victim rights.
The victim with minor guilt	Does not actively participate in their victimization but contributes to some minor degree, such as frequenting high-crime areas. This would be a person that continues to go to a bar that is known for nightly assault.
The guilty victim, guilty offender	The victim and offender may have engaged in criminal activity together. This would be two people attempting to steal a car, rob a store, sell drugs, etc.
The guilty offender, guiltier victim	The victim may have been the primary attacker, but the offender won the fight.
Guilty victim	The victim instigated a conflict but is killed in self-defense. An example would be an abused woman killing her partner while he is abusing her.
Imaginary victim	Some people pretend to be victims and are not. This would be someone falsifying reports.

4.7.2 VON HENTIG’S VICTIM TYPOLOGY

While other criminologists embraced the efforts of Mendelsohn to explain certain aspects of victim typologies, most tended to refine Mendelsohn’s list and add other elements that comported with their views. One example was submitted by Hans Von Hentig in 1948. Von Hentig retained some of the situational factors considered by Mendelsohn, then contributed the role of biological, sociological and psychological factors which may have been present. He believed that “the young, elderly, and women are more susceptible to victimization because of things such as physical vulnerabilities” (Sanchez, 2019, 1.14 section, para. 4). The down side to Von Hentig’s typology attempt is that it excluded some crimes from consideration such as white-collar and corporate crime. In doing so, Von Hentig unintentionally failed to recognize the victims of these crimes in the typology.

Table 4.2

Von Hentig’s Victim Typology

The work of Von Hentig (1948) formed the foundation for later theories of victim precipitation.

4.7.3 “VICTIMLESS” CRIMES

Figure 4.10

So-called “Victimless crimes” are described as an individual act involving only one person, or the exchange of goods or services between two or more consenting adults who are willing participants. Due to being consensual in nature, it is debatable as to whether a victimization occurs. Some examples of victimless crimes include drug abuse, being intoxicated in public, gambling, prostitution, vagrancy, and certain voluntary sexual behaviors.

The reasons why victimless crimes are controversial are most often due to the perspective of the debaters. Sociologists and philosophers may have valid perspectives ranging all the way from non-prosecution of participants, to legislating against the acts or conduct. The argument for prohibition against victimless crimes include, but are not limited to, the perception of esteem devaluation of the involved participants, and the costs incurred to law enforcement seeking to investigate and instigate prosecutions for the legislation in the name of the rights of the people.

It is understood that there are multiple reasons why a sex worker may sell sexual services to others, in order to survive economically in today’s society. One of the main reasons why sex workers have turned to do sex work is because it may be the best option afforded to them. If a person is in abject poverty and has few realistic alternatives for work, selling sexual services may be the best way to make ends meet. Others may be forced into prostitution as a result of sex trafficking. Still others choose the sex trade because it affords them better pay and work hour flexibility. Finally, some may pursue sex work in order to explore and express their sexuality (Open Society Foundations, 2009).

Figure 4.11

4.7.5 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT

The U.S. Department of Justice defines domestic violence as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain control over another intimate partner” (Office on Violence Against Women, 2023, para. 1). What is sometimes misunderstood is that domestic violence is not only physically inflicted; it can be manifested in psychological, controlling ways as well. Anyone, regardless of age, gender, race or sexual orientation, may be a victim of domestic violence or abuse. An unequal power dynamic is typically present, where one partner in a relationship attempts to assert control over the others in a number of ways. Choosing with whom they socialize, providing a meager “allowance” of money to the person even though there is more available funds on hand, and taking away other choices routinely are classic examples of controlling behavior. Additionally, the controlling party may use children or other family members, and even pets, as emotional leverage in order to get the victim to do the bidding of the abuser.

In Washington state, the definition of a domestic relationship is expanded to include “family members” and “intimate partners” (Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.010, 2021). Family members under the law (§ 13) means:

• Adult persons related by blood or marriage;
• Adult persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past;
• Persons who have a biological or legal parent-child relationship, to include stepparents and stepchildren, and grandparents and grandchildren

“Intimate partners” are defined under the law (§ 20) to mean:

• Spouses or domestic partners
• Former spouses or former domestic partners
• Persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time;
• Adult persons presently or previously residing together who have or have had a dating relationship;
• Persons 16 years of age or older who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past and who have or have had a dating relationship;
• Persons 16 years of age or older with whom a person 16 years of age or older has or has had a dating relationship

As can be seen by the broad list above, domestic violence and abuse cuts across a far wider spectrum of society than normally considered.

Some common types of domestic violence include (Office on Violence Against Women, 2023):

• Physical abuse: using force, or the threat of violence, to injure or intimidate;
• Sexual abuse: forcing or coercing a victim to engage in unwanted sexual acts;
• Emotional abuse: undermining the victim’s self-esteem, confidence or identity;
• Psychological abuse: manipulating, threatening or isolating a victim.
• Financial abuse: restricting or sabotaging the victim’s access to money or resources;
• Digital/Online abuse: monitoring, harassing, or controlling a victim’s online activity;
• “Honor” -based abuse: using cultural or religious norms to justify violence or coercion against a victim.

Today’s abuser has the added advantage of using technology against their victims. Examples include tracking devices in order to follow the victim’s movements, bombarding the victim with text messaging, and even through manipulation and harassment using digital home systems like thermostats, alarm systems and lighting.

Why do victims stay with their abusers? Many times victims are afraid of loss of shelter or income if they should leave their abuser, or if the violating party were to be arrested and convicted of their crimes. Others fear injury if they retaliate against the perpetrator. If children are involved, concern about shame and family destabilization can be a deciding factor against reporting. Yet others occupy respected positions within their community, and as such are reluctant to speak out (Wiener et al., 2022).

Contrary to popular belief, there is no actual singular “crime” of domestic violence. Instead, there are no fewer than 23 separate crimes in Washington state which will, if committed against someone listed above, be charged with what is known as a domestic violence enhancement (Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.050, 2021). Examples:

• An individual is in a dating relationship with another. In an angry moment in a bar, one slaps the other in public. The police are called to investigate. The primary aggressor will be determined by the police, and be charged with Assault in the 4th Degree-Domestic Violence.
• Three weeks later, the party who was slapped finally has a chance to “get even” with the primary aggressing party. Going out to the parking lot after dark, the party who was slapped uses a sharp object to slash the partner’s tires on their car. Unknown at the time, the action is captured on a doorbell camera, which is submitted to the police later. The tire slasher is identified, arrested and booked for the crime of Malicious Mischief in the 2nd Degree-Domestic Violence.

THE POLICE ROLE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESPONSE

When a crime of domestic violence is reported, the role of the police is to make an impartial investigation of the facts, to enforce the laws allegedly violated, to determine if a domestic relationship exists, and to protect the complaining party. Inherent into a domestic violence investigation is to determine who is the primary aggressor–the person who initiated the criminal act which prompted the complaint–and exercise police powers of arrest if probable cause to arrest exists. Finally, the police must provide the victim with resources, to include the victim’s rights to seek orders for protection. The victim should be provided with information regarding shelters, medical treatment options, and similar information and assistance.

What if the officer has difficulty determining who the primary aggressor is? Imagine in the first example, if the two parties break out in a fistfight. When officers arrive, both parties are still engaged in fighting. Both have signs of injury, and no witnesses are present in this example. The officers still need to investigate impartially, hear both sides of the argument, determine if a domestic relationship exists, examine if one party’s injuries were caused by defensive actions, etc. If the officers believe that probable cause exists but the belief of the officers is that both parties were mutual combatants and one may have been as much as a primary aggressor as the other, both may be arrested. In this case, both subjects are considered victims and entitled to victim resources under the law. Additionally, if the police make a good faith effort to determine the primary aggressor, and after arresting that party it is learned that they were not the aggressing party and should not have been arrested, in Washington state the officer(s) would receive immunity from false arrest (Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.070, 1979).

4.7.6 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS

Figure 4.12

The Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990) describes the services that the federal government is required to provide to victims of federal crime. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (2004) enumerates and explains the rights afforded to these victims under federal authority, along with mechanisms of enforcement.

The U.S. criminal justice system initially introduced services for the victims of federal criminal offenses in the 1980s. These first steps were codified into law by Congress in the 1990s in the creation of the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990). This Act requires all Federal law enforcement agency officers and employees to make their best efforts to ensure the following rights for victims of crime:

(1) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy; (2) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused offenders; (3) The right to be notified of court proceedings; (4) The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense [under certain conditions]; (5) The right to confer with attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to restitution; and (7) The right to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender. (§ 502)

The Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990) also directs Federal law enforcement agency officers to provide certain services to victims of a crime (§ 503), such as: informing them where to receive medical care and counseling; arranging protection from an offender; and keeping the victim informed of developments during the investigation and prosecution of the crime and after the trial such as the arrest of a suspected offender or an escape of a convicted offender.

Victims also have the right to inform the courts with regard to how the crime has impacted them. They can do this either in writing, by filling out a Victim Impact Statement, and, in some cases, can ask the court for an opportunity to address the court and convicted individual at sentencing.

It is important to remember that the above rights may vary from state to state, and to whether the venue where the crime was committed was on Federal, tribal government, or military installation.

Certain state laws – in Washington state, most significantly the Rights of victims, survivors, and witnesses (Wash. Rev. Code § 7.69.030, 1981) — further identify circumstances under which victims, survivors and witnesses are entitled to resources, compensation, and other assistance. Rights here include being provided with a written statement of rights of the crime victim, to be informed of final case disposition in which a victim/survivor/witness is involved, and receive protection from harm or threats of harm arising out of cooperation with law enforcement. Other conditions, resources and assistance are identified in this law as well, including return of stolen or personal property after evidentiary requirements are met, to have expeditious medical care afforded when a crime is committed, and to make victim impact statements and submit a request for restitution to the court when victimized.

Victimization is a complex concept. It may occur in one stunning instance or arise again and again if causal circumstances persist. Re-victimizing traumatized witnesses to and victims of crimes such as sexual assault or violent crimes also can create devastating, lifelong consequences for victims and witnesses going well beyond embarrassment and social stigma.

4.7.5.1 Crime Victims, Survivors and Witnesses

The Washington State Legislature has stated in Wash. Rev. Code § 7.69.030 (1981) that a reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that victims, survivors of victims, and witnesses of crimes have certain services and rights made available to them. This effort is not exclusive to adult criminal courts–it extends to any proceeding in juvenile court also. These rights include, but are not limited to, receipt of a written statement of the rights of the crime, information regarding the final disposition of the case, and to be protected from harm and threats of harm as a result of cooperation with law enforcement and/or the prosecutor. Other rights exist in this statute regarding notification of schedule changes in court proceedings, how to apply for and receive witness fees, and to be able to wait in an area secured from having to be seated in close proximity to a defendant and/or the defendant’s family and friends.

Some victims and witnesses of crimes fear losing their employment or benefits due to the court process. Appropriate employer intercession services are provided in statute to ensure the cooperation of employers to cooperate with those employees who have been impacted by crime. Also, in some cases, crime victim advocates may also be assigned, and victims will be able to submit and present a victim’s impact statement to the court, during the sentencing phase.

4.7.5.2. Youthful and Dependent Crime Victims, Survivors and Witnesses

Washington state statutes included in Wash. Rev. Code § 7.69A (1985) and Wash. Rev. Code § 7.69B (2005) address the fact that young persons who are less than 18 years of age, and persons who, due to physical or mental disability or extreme advanced age, are dependent upon another person to provide the basic necessities of life, are also subject to being victimized or injured by criminal acts. In addition to the rights and services afforded to other crime victims, youthful and dependent victims, survivors and witnesses are entitled to have all legal proceedings explained to them in language that is easily understood by the youth or dependent person. Other rights may include access to legal services, specifically lawyers early in the process, and advocates to provide assistance.

4.7.5.3 Alien Victims of Crime

Due to the increase of criminal acts of human trafficking, and the fact that victims may have been kidnapped or otherwise asported (moved, such as in acts of custodial interference), youth and vulnerable persons are especially subjected to physical and mental injury. In some cases the victims are “alien victims of crime,” as defined in Wash. Rev. Code § 7.98 (2018). However, Washington state also has documentation that is known as the “Safety and Access for Immigration Victims Act” (Washington State Department of Commerce, n.d.). In Washington state, the Legislature has determined that “ensuring that all victims of crimes are able to access the protections available to them under law is in the best interest of these victims, law enforcement, and the entire community” (Wash. Rev. Code § 7.98 § 005, 2018). These laws were enacted in 2018 in an effort to address the victimization unique to trafficking in persons, domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes.

One challenge when dealing with undocumented immigrants who are victims of crimes is that they are often reluctant to cooperate with or contact law enforcement (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2024). Law enforcement agencies, working within federal immigration laws, are able to investigate and certify a person’s status as related to the trafficking event, in an effort to expedite communication of the rights of protection from harm the person enjoys, as well as services to which they may be entitled.

4.8 Non-Criminal Victims

Figure 4.13

Demonstration in Favor of Same Sex Marriage

What about those persons who, through no true fault of their own, are victimized through stigmatization or societal exclusion from the lives they choose to live? People make choices, true, but when the foundational framing documents of the United States were written – the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution specifically – particular attention was paid to “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (U.S. Const. pmbl.). Today we see examples of how people don’t always enjoy the ability to pursue their happiness to the fullest extent accorded by the founding fathers.

One example of societal restriction of such freedom is found in the form of a non-traditional marriage. A “traditional” marriage is generally defined as the joining in matrimony (a civil ceremony following classical norms of a culture), of two people of the opposite gender. While this definition may be subjective with variations possible depending upon the cultural and social context, rights and certain obligations between the partners are established and recognized. It is often recognized as a contract, and may further be acknowledged by a state, organization, religious body, tribal group, local community or peers. But, what happens if the consenting pair seeking recognized marriage are of the same gender?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted by the 104th Congress in 1996 and signed into law in an attempt to clearly define and defend the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Prior to 1996 there had been state-level same-gender marriages which had been conducted, and these unions were, at least locally, considered legal and acceptable (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.). Upon DOMA’s ratification, there were several negative implications to the Act that became apparent. Many benefits and certain legal recognitions that were afforded to one-man/one-woman unions were specifically denied to individuals joined in same-gender marriages.

One of the major provisions of this law was that a non-biological parent could not have a legal relationship with a child of the biological parent in a same-sex couple. Moreover, same-sex couples could not take medical leave to care for their partners or non-biological children. They also could not adopt children and during divorce proceedings, they could not petition the court for custody, visitation rights, or child support. (Legal Information Institute, 2022, para. 5)

It would be easy to see how, through federal legislation meant to apply to all persons equally, that people in same-gender marriages were marginalized, disenfranchised, and in the case of lost benefits of marriage, victimized on several levels.

After court cases in 2013 (United States v. Windsor) and 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges), both the DOMA definition of marriage and the various states’ abilities to not recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, were struck down. While these court outcomes were pivotal to restoring same-gender marriage status, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022 has created the possibility for the Court to reexamine its ruling in Obergefell (2015) in the future.

The original Violence Against Women Act, Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), called attention to the societal issues of domestic violence, sexual abuse, dating violence, assault, and stalking with sexual motivation. The original Act was reauthorized in 2000, 2006, and in 2013, with both Congress and certain interest groups seeking to address various improvements and services to victims. The 2013 reauthorization pushed back against the notion that women are in need of paternalistic assistance that could be offered by the state, and other criticisms. The supporters of reauthorization pointed out that the foundational laws are not gender-exclusive, and as such, are able to address the needs of male victims as well as women. It was also pointed out that women are, in fact, differentially affected by violence, as are the communities in which they reside.

 

References

Burgess, A. W. (2013). Victimology: Theories and applications (3rd ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Chen, M. S., Kresnow, M.-J., Smith, S. G., Khatiwada, S., & D’Inverno, A. (2021). Prevalence of intimate partner violence, stalking, and sexual violence among active duty women and men and wives of active duty men—Comparisons with the U.S. general population, 2016/2017: Technical report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, & Department of Defense. https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/FAP/NISVS-Technical-Report-Prevalence-of-Intimate-Partner-Violence-Stalking-and-Sexual-Violence-Among-Active-Duty-Women-and-Men-and-Wives-of-Active-Duty-Men.pdf

Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy. (2014, April). Revictimization and related services: Literature review. Berkeley Law, University of California. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/WI_Revictimization_Lit_Review_04_03_14.pdf

Cuncic, A. (2023, November 15). Victim mentality: Definition, causes, and ways to cope. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-victim-mentality-5120615

Everytown Research & Policy. (2024, May 14). Remembering and honoring Pulse [Fact sheet]. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://everytownresearch.org/report/remembering-and-honoring-pulse/ (Original work published 2020)

FBI Jobs. (n.d.). Victim services careers. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://fbijobs.gov/victim-services

Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Advisory circular: Electronic new gathering operations (AC No. 91-88). U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-88.pdf

Feucht, T. E., & Zedlewski, E. (2019). The 40th anniversary of the Crime Report. National Institute of Justice Journal, 257. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/40th-anniversary-crime-report

Flores, A. R., Meyer, I. H., Langton, L., & Herman, J. L. (2021). Gender identity disparities in criminal victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017-2018. American Journal of Public Health, 111(4), 726–729. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306099

Garcia, O. (Ed.). (2018). Privacy and dignity: A guide to interacting with the media. Multidisciplinary Responses to Families and Communities in Complex Homicide Cases, National Center for Victims of Crime. https://victimsofcrime.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Privacy-and-Dignity-final.pdf

Haskell, J. (2018, July 18). MGM Resorts files lawsuits against Las Vegas shooting victims in effort to avoid liability. ABC7 Eyewitness News. https://abc7.com/mgm-resorts-lawsuit-vegas-shooting-liability-sues-victims/3777516/

Hassan, A., & Li, D. K. (2019, October 3). Las Vegas shooting victims: MGM Resorts to pay settlement up to $800M. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/las-vegas-shooting-victims-reach-800m-settlement-mgm-resorts-n1061976

Hegger, J. (2015, December 8). 3 ideological tendencies related to victimology. Corrections1. https://www.corrections1.com/corrections-1/articles/3-ideological-tendencies-related-to-victimology-tfP7rGAzSeau6Hmj/

Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.) The journey to marriage equality in the United States. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://www.hrc.org/our-work/stories/the-journey-to-marriage-equality-in-the-united-states

Hutchinson, B., Chang, J., Brown, J., Margolin, J., Muldowney, K., & McNiff, E. (2018, December 23). The anatomy of the Las Vegas mass shooting, the deadliest in modern US history. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/anatomy-las-vegas-mass-shooting-deadliest-modern-us/story?id=59797324

James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Self-reported offending: Reliability and validity. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 4716-4723). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_648

Justice Solutions. (n.d.). How crime coverage can affect victims. A News Media Guide for Victim Services Providers. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from http://www.victimprovidersmediaguide.com/coverage.html

Karmen, A. (2007). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (6th ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.

Langton, L., Berzofsky, M., Krebs, C., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2012, August). National Crime Victimization Survey: Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006-2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

LeClair, D. P. (2007). What is victimology? [Lecture notes]. WebCT@BU. http://vista.bu.edu/webct/

Legal Information Institute. (2022, September). Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defense_of_marriage_act_(doma)

Madara, J. L. (2019, November 13). [Letter from James L. Madara, American Medical Association, to Jeffery H. Anderson, Michael D. DeLeon & Debra Houry]. https://searchlf.ama-assn.org/undefined/documentDownload?uri=%2Funstructured%2Fbinary%2Fletter%2FLETTERS%2F2019-11-13-Letter-to-Anderson-DeLeon-Houry-re-Transgender-Violence.pdf

Mandler, C. (2022, October 13). Murders of trans people nearly doubled over past 4 years, and Black trans women are most at risk, report finds. CBS News. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/

Mendelsohn, B. (1976). Victimology and contemporary society’s trends. Victimology, 1(1), 8-28.

Morrell, J. (2021, November 18). How journalists can better report on criminal justice. Criminal Justice Alliance. https://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/blog/how-journalists-can-better-report-on-criminal-justice/

National Center for Transgender Equality. (2017). 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey: Washington state report. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-WA-State-Report.pdf

Office on Violence Against Women. (2023, December 6). Domestic violence. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved March 9, 2024, from https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence

O’Hear, M. (2020). Violent crime and media coverage in one city: A statistical snapshot. Marquette Law Review, 103(3), 1007-1033. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol103/iss3/14/

Open Society Foundations. (2019, April). Understanding sex work in an open society. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-sex-work-open-society

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/ncjrs/42.pdf

Saad, L. (2023, November 16). Personal safety fears at three-decade high in U.S. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/544415/personal-safety-fears-three-decade-high.aspx

Sanchez, S. (2019). Victims and victim typologies. In C. Richardson (Ed.), SOU-CCJ230 introduction to the American criminal justice system (section 1.14). Open Oregon Educational Resources. https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/ CC BY SA.

Seymour, A., & Bucqueroux, B. (2019). Guide for journalists who report on crime and crime victims. Justice Solutions. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/guide-journalists-who-report-crime-and-crime-victims-0

University of Minnesota Libraries. (n.d.). Media and culture. Lumen Learning. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-massmedia/ CC BY SA.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2024, May 17). Immigration options for victims of crime. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-options-victims-crime

VanderPyl, T. (2024). Introduction to criminology. Open Oregon Educational Resources. https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/criminologyintro/

Viano, E. C. (1992). The news media and crime victims: The right to know versus the right to privacy. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Critical issues in victimology: International perspectives (pp. 24–34). Springer.

Von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of crime. Yale University Press.

Washington State Department of Commerce. (n.d.). Safety and Access for Immigrant Victims Program. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/crime-victims-advocacy/safety-and-access-for-immigrant-victims/

White, K., Stuart, F., & Morrissey, S. L. (2021). Whose lives matter? Race, space, and the devaluation of homicide victims in minority communities. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 7(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220948184

Wiener, C., Gregory, A., Rogers, M., & Walklate, S. (2022, February 15). Why victims of domestic abuse don’t leave–Four experts explain. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/why-victims-of-domestic-abuse-dont-leave-four-experts-explain-176212 CC BY ND.

Yahr, N. (2019, August 22). Doing no harm: the call for crime reporting that does justice to the beat. Center for Journalism Ethics, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin. https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2019/08/22/doing-no-harm-the-call-for-crime-reporting-that-does-justice-to-the-beat/