Crime Victim Experiment

The article “Revenge: will you feel better,” author Karyn Hall (2013) claims that while the temptation of revenge may be convincing, acting upon these urges is not always worth the consequences after. Hall contemplates the idea of revenge being “self destructive” and being harmful to both those giving and receiving revenge. Furthermore the article states People who have been hurt seem to believe that if the other party suffers, then they will feel better and that their emotional pain will lessen. This idea is later touch on towards the end of the article when author explains the idea of the “understanding hypothesis”, which is when the offender knows the connection between the original insult and the retaliation. In contrast, the author also

Throughout chapter 2, the main focus was types of crime and how they are reported/kept track of. In order to keep track of crime rates, Uniform Crime Reports (UCRS) and National Crime Victimization Surveys are used. Both of them have their positives and negatives. Uniform Crime Reports for instance, are beneficial because it keeps track of major crimes that have happened. It tracks the offenses such as Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Larson, and Auto Theft. Since murder is hard to get away with, it has a very accurate number when showing the statistics for that crime. On the other hand, half the crimes that happen go unreported like rape, theft, and assault. That is where the National Crime Victimization Surveys come in handy. The

The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS) are both measurements that track crime in United States. The UCR is run by the FBI and collects data on all crime known to the police. Sometimes this is detrimental because police stations can decide what crime that want report and how they want to report them. Each police station can report statistics for the same crime, yet have them be very different because one can report all crimes that had an arrest, while another can report any crime that happened. On the other hand, the NCVS is run by the University of Michigan and gathers statistics of all crimes. The negative side of this is the NCVS does not report victimless crimes. Both are reputable, yet have drastically

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

There is an idea that we have become a nation of victims. Some psychologist and most people have a don’t blame the victim mentality. While other psychologist look at the victims as being held accountable in some cases. Looking at the data and validity of these arguments, I believe that neither one should be used but instead we should shy away from the blame approach and develop a better understanding of the role victims play in violent situations

This assignment will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the positive approach to victimology. It will do this by looking at other victimology approaches such as; Radical, feminist, and critical victimology. Analysing the different theories within each approach, to highlight the negatives and positives within the positivist approach to victimology.

it can be shown that the victims could take revenge from the criminals themselves. Some

Concerning the source of victims – during 2010, U.S. citizens of age 12 or older experienced a predicted 18.7 brutal and possession crimes. These criminal victimizations in 2010 included an estimated 3.8 million violent victimizations, 1.4 million serious violent victimizations, 14.8 million property victimizations, and 138.000 personal thefts. As it is shown in the figure 1, the total violent victimization and serious violent victimization has decreased drastically between years 2001 and 2010. The rate of total violent offense victimizations decreased by 13% in 2010, which was approximately three times the average yearly decrease monitored from 2001 through 2009.

Then two decades later, in 1993, the capital punishment statutes had been reinstated and performing executions, once again striking the thing criminals fear most, death (Tucker). During the 1990s as more states began to reinstate capital punishment statutes, murder rates began to plummet. They went from 9.6 people per 100,000 in 1993 dropping to 7.7 in 1996 and as low as 6.4 in 1999, which was the lowest rate since 1966. In other words, as the author observed during his study of the forty year period, homicide rates have risen when the rate of execution went down and as the execution rates had risen, the rate of homicides had decreased (Tucker). Not only does the death penalty engender an aversion amongst criminals and people who are considering performing heinous actions, it additionally promotes a positive influence towards themselves and others around. The mandate of capital punishment establishes the attitude of abhorrence toward criminals, and causes people to think about what they are doing because of the possible consequences. With people believing that living the criminal life is not the best of decisions, they are deterred away from making the decision of performing the crime (Caldwell 598).

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

Since the beginning of the regime on criminal law, countries across the world have been focused on the rights of the accused and not those of victim. This is because of the consideration that the accused is alone and the government as well as the societal machinery is running against him.

Theories of victimization essentially does something morally unpopular, by discussing how the victim caused their own victimization. Identified below are four theories of victimizations and examples of both strength and weakness of each. The goal for this paper is to briefly define at the four theories in order to grasp a better understanding of how individuals can lessen the opportunity to become a victim of a crime.

The lifestyle theory focuses on crime victims rather than perpetrators. This theory suggests that the crime victims become a victim due to their own decisions or lifestyle choices that they make. An example of this theory would be going out night alone or living n area that is bad. Not all people have the same type of lifestyle but some lifestyles create problems that cause people to become victims.

From the beginning of time there have always been crimes against persons. People went by the saying “An eye for an eye”. You stole from your neighbor, they stole from you. You hurt someone, they hurt you. It wasn’t until the 1940’s people started taking a closer look into these crimes against person, which they later called victimology. This paper will look into victimology and their theories as we go back into the past and how victimology is now.