Section 2 – Extent, Theories, and Factors of Victimization
I. Measuring Victimization
a. Uniform Crimes Reports (UCR)
i. Reports amount of crime known to the police each year
ii. Maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
iii. Eight Part I offenses – represent our “crime rate”
1. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
2. Forcible rape
3. Robbery
4. Aggravated assault
5. Burglary
6. Larceny-theft
7. Motor vehicle theft
8. Arson
iv. Advantages and disadvantages
1. Pros:
a. Represents over 90% of the population
b. Can track by multiple geographic indicators
c. Crime trends can be determined
d. Crime characteristics are reported
2. Cons:
a. Crimes not reported to police are not represented
b. Part I index crimes do not cover a great deal of crime that occurs
c. Hierarchy rule – only most serious offenses is reported within an incident
i. Ex. A victim was raped and murdered – only the murder will be reported in the UCR
v. Crime as measured by the UCR
1. Larceny-theft most common offense overall
2. Aggravated assaults most common type of violent crime
3. Typical criminal is younger than 30, white, and male
b. National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
i. Expanded information on characteristics of criminal incidents
1. Offender
2. Victim
3. Injury
4. Location
5. Property loss
6. Weapons
ii. Includes 22 offense categories that cover 46 specific crimes (Group A offenses)
iii. Also includes arrest data for 11 additional crimes (Group B offenses)
iv. All law enforcement agencies do NOT provide data
c. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
i. 1973- Originally called the National Crime Survey it is a survey of households including information on crime incidents and victims
ii. 1993 – renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey and underwent extensive methodological changes
iii. U.S. Census Bureau administers the survey to 43,000 households, typically resulting in approximately 76,000 persons interviewed
1. Household remains in the study for three years and completes seven interviews – interviews are conducted at 6 month intervals
iv. Asks about crime that has occurred to all members of the household who are 12 years old and older
v. Two stages
1. Stage 1: Asked if they experienced rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, personal theft, household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and/or theft in previous six months.
2. Stage 2: If person experienced a crime the respondent completes an incident report detailing the event
vi. Advantages
1. Includes variation in crimes
2. Includes crimes reported and not reported to police
3. Short recall period of six months
4. Two-stage process allows for more accurate estimates
vii. Disadvantages
1. Memory problems
2. People can lie
3. Murder and “victimless” crimes not included
4. Crime to commercial establishments not included
5. No one under the age of 12 is included
viii. Extent of Crime Victimization
1. 2008 – over 21,000,000 victimizations experienced
2. Property crimes prevail (16.3 million property crimes versus 4.9 million violent crimes)
3. Most common property crime = theft
4. Most common violent crime = simple assault
ix. Typical Victimization and Victim
1. Males most likely to be victimized (except in case of rape and sexual assault)
2. Persons who are black have higher victimization rates
3. Less than half of all victimizations reported to police
4. Most victims of violent crime know their offender
5. Only 1 in 5 incidents involved use of a weapon
d. International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS)
i. Purpose – to compare victimization across countries
ii. First conducted in 1989 and repeated in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004/5
iii. Over 340,000 persons surveyed in 78 countries
iv. Asked about 10 different victimizations: car theft, theft from or out of a car, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft, attempted or completed burglary, sexual victimization, threats, assault, robbery, and theft of personal property
v. Similar to NCVS, if a person experiences a victimization he or she is asked follow-up questions
II. Theories and Explanations of Victimization
a. Link Between Victimization and Offending
i. Victim and Offender Characteristics
1. Highest rates of violent victimization occur to and by young, black, males.
2. Likely to live in urban areas
ii. Link Between Victimization and Offending
1. Offenders exposed to riskier lifestyles where victimization is more likely
2. Subcultural theory of violence – violence is a part of the value system for subgroups of the population and in certain regions of the country
a. Disrespect is an oft-presented reason for retaliation
3. Earlier victimizations may make one vulnerable to committing delinquent or criminal acts later in life
b. Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theory
i. Victimization risk is best understood within the social context – wherein the victims activities or lifestyles can create opportunities for an offender
ii. Routine Activities Theory
1. Three elements
a. Motivated offender
b. Suitable target
c. Capable guardianship
d. Ex. More people out of the home due to work since World War II. Houses unguarded, motivated offender has more potential targets.
iii. Lifestyles Theory
1. Victimization becomes more likely when one’s behavior or lifestyle puts them in vulnerable situations
a. Working out of the home or engaging in leisure activities
b. Principle of homogamy: More a person comes into contact with likely offenders, the more likely the person is to be victimized
2. May be more likely to come into contact with motivated offenders
3. Ex. Person lives in a bad neighborhood and gets off work at 11pm. Has to walk home from bus stop. May encounter ruffians on the walk home.
iv. Structural and Social Process Factors
1. Neighborhood context
a. Some places have higher rates of victimization
b. “Hot spots” – concentrated areas of crime (Lawrence Sherman)
c. If someone lives in a “hot spot” they are more likely to be victimized
d. Family structure
i. Neighborhoods that have higher rates of households headed by females have higher victimization rates for theft and violent crime
e. Structural density – percentage of units in structures of five or more units
f. Residential mobility – percent of persons 5 or older who lived elsewhere five years before
g. Neighborhoods with little cohesion are not able to support the informal social controls that may prevent or decrease criminal victimizations
2. Exposure to delinquent peers
a. Families and peers are strong influences on kids
b. Having delinquent peers increases one’s risk of committing crime and of becoming a victim of crime (in the presence of motivated offenders and in risky situations)
3. Family
a. Weak emotional ties to family, parents in particular, makes one more vulnerable to victimization as they are not protected
4. Control-balance theory
a. Control surplus – having more control than one is subject to
b. Control deficit – having less control than one is subject to
c. Both situations can lead to deviant behavior and victimization
5. Social Interactionist Perspective
a. The more distressed a person is, the more likely he or she may “put off” another which could lead to victimization.
b. If a distressed person is harmed, he or she may retaliate and continue the cycle of aggression
v. Life-Course Perspective
1. Development of offending over time
2. The General Theory of Crime
a. 1990 – Gottfredson and Hirschi
b. Criminal behavior caused by low self-control
c. Persons with low self-control more likely to engage in criminal behavior which also puts them at risk for victimization
d. Some have found that low self-control leads to victimization even if they are NOT also engaging in criminal behavior
3. Age-graded Theory of Adult Social Bonds
a. Marriage and employment – if one is engaged in one or both of these areas they are less likely to engage in crime
4. Genes and Victimization
a. Certain neurotransmitters linked with criminal behavior
b. Gene X Environment interaction – Those with variant genes that may make them vulnerable to criminal behavior (and victimization) may be more important to consider for those that also live in environments where the “triggers” to being criminal or victimized also exist
c. Role of Alcohol in Victimization
i. 27.5 percent of victims identified in NCVS believed offender to be under the influence of alcohol
ii. Alcohol impedes inhibition (enhances vulnerability)
iii. Alcohol impedes ability of one to protect oneself
iv. Alcohol use may be a reason why people do not report crimes
Doerner & Lab Chapter 2 Measuring Criminal Victimization
The purpose of Chapter 2 is to introduce students to the criminal victimization data. Many students have a tendency to recoil in horror whenever they encounter materials with a quantitative orientation. As a result, the authors made a deliberate decision not to reproduce an endless litany of statistics. Instead, they decided to concentrate on the development of crime victim surveys and to emphasize how each new wave represents or represented an improvement over what had been done before. The chapter starts with a discussion of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. While explaining the shortcomings of this database, the student is introduced to the “dark figure of crime.” Given this limitation, the stage is set for bringing in victim surveys as an alternative source of data. Victimization surveys are presented in “generations” to emphasize their continuous development over the years. The first generation starts with the NORC-Ennis effort undertaken for the 1967 President’s Commission. The typical comparison of UCR numbers with this survey plays off on the idea of the “dark figure of crime.” At this point, criticisms of the victimization survey approach are raised to show its peculiarities. The imperfections brought up here serve as the entry into the “second generation.” After showing how these revised strategies countered the earlier problems but had troubles of their own, the chapter moves into the “third generation.” After a brief description of these ventures, the recent redesign makes its debut as the “fourth generation.” Finally, the student is introduced to the notion of victim recidivism or repeat victimization. This orientation shows students how each innovation has built upon previous efforts. To gain a fuller appreciation for victimization data, the chapter introduces students to victim surveys that are conducted outside the United States. In addition, the concepts of repeat victimization, victim recidivism, and hot spots are used to demonstrate how versatile victimization data can be.
Crime Statistics: Crime statistics may be described as the process of collection, collation and quantification of crimes committed in a given geographic space or location, usually a country, state, county, district, city, town etc. or part thereof, for a specific time period, usually one year. The collection agencies and sources are multiple, both "official" or traditional and "non-official" or non-traditional, including law enforcement, courts, corrections, the SR, VS etc.
Official versus Unofficial Data Sources
Data Sources – what are the primary sources of gathering crime data?
What is crime statistics?
What is the major clearinghouses of crime in this country and the world?
Law enforcement – Police
The Courts
The Corrections
Unofficial
S-R
VS - NCVS
Offenders -
Victims -
Official Police Reports
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
Organization of the Operation
Local Level
State Level
Federal Level
Index Offenses
Violent Crimes
Murder
Forcible Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Property Crimes
Burglary
Larceny-Theft
Motor Vehicle Theft
Arson
Advantages
Compiled annually since 1931.
Enables comparisons from year to year.
Enables comparisons from place to place.
Standardized offense definitions.
Gathers a lot of information and details.
Disadvantages
“Dark figure” of crime.
Hierarchy rule.
Lack of detailed information about victims.
Changes and Improvements
Supplementary Homicide Reports
National Incident-Based Reporting System or NIBRS
Much more detailed information
See Table 2-1
Victimization Surveys
Unofficial Data Source
Contacting people and asking them if they have been crime victims.
Generations of Victimization Surveys
Development
See Table 2-3
1st Generation
The 1967 NORC/Ennis Survey
1st National Victimization Survey
Targeted 10,000 households
Asked participants to reveal victimization episodes that took place during the previous 12 months.
“Dark figure” of crime = 50%
In other words, the survey uncovered twice as many crimes as did the UCR.
Some offenses were more underreported than others.
See Table 2-4
Some Methodological Considerations
Geographical Location of Incident
Offense Definitions
Small Sample Base
Respondent Selection
Respondent Recall
Telescoping
Memory decay
Unless telescoping and memory decay “exactly offset one another, the survey estimates of the amount of crime that occurred is inaccurate” (Schneider et al., 1978, 18-19).
2nd Generation
Late 1960s, early 1970s
Accuracy Tests
Reverse Record Check
Forward Record Check
Details next slide
Reverse Record Check
Locate victim names in police files.
Contact these victims and ask about the incident.
Check victim accounts against police files for accuracy.
Forward Record Check
Survey people from the general population.
Ask victims if they reported to the police.
Go to the police station and check victim accounts against police files for accuracy.
One-third of the victim accounts were absent from the police files.
Findings
Memory decay increased as the time between the incident and the survey increased.
Recall was better for some offenses than for other offenses.
Telescoping of incidents from outside to inside the time frame took place.
Question wording affected responses.
Assumptions of Record Checks
Police records are an appropriate benchmark.
Record checks can only be conducted on crimes the police know about.
Victims are a highly mobile group, making re-contact and record checks difficult.
Implications
Revised Questions – more specific wording and better questions needed to assist recall.
Panel Design – repeated interviews of the same group over shorter periods of time.
Bounding – establishing a memorable temporal reference point, such as “since the last interview.”
Household- vs. Self-Respondents – speaking directly with victims would produce more accurate results.
Parallel Definitions – would enhance comparability with UCR data.
3rd Generation
Three Strategies:
National Crime Survey (NCS)
Business Survey
Single-City Surveys
National Crime Survey (NCS)
Launched in 1972.
Sampled 72,000 households from the U.S.
Panel designed meant surveying households every 6 months for 3 years.
Check against previous interviews to guard against memory decay and telescoping.
Encountered the mover-stayer problem.
Relied upon self-respondents as opposed to household-respondents.
Business Survey
Commercial or retail victimization.
Problems locating victim respondents.
Too costly and, thus, discontinued.
We will revisit related aspects in Chapter 12, “Victimization at Work and School.”
Single-City Surveys
26 of the largest American cities.
12,000 households sampled in each city.
Findings overlapped with national survey.
Too costly and, thus, discontinued.
4th Generation
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
Current strategy in use.
Major redesign implemented in 1992.
Improvements
Screen questions, probes about victimization experiences, revised.
Discovery of gray-area events.
Victimizations that do not conform to the usual common stereotype.
Shorter reference period explored, but then abandoned.
Mover-stayer problem resolved.
Special periodical supplements.
See Table 2-6 [available in Image Slide Collection]
Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) to ensure accuracy.
Today’s NCVS targets 86,000 respondents living in 43,000 households in the USA
Response rate exceeds 90%.
Surveys Outside the USA
British Crime Survey (BCS)
Similar to the NCVS.
Links victimization location to census information to afford a community-based analysis.
International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS)
Conducted in 78 countries.
Incorporates political corruption, hate crimes, slave trade, and other crimes.
Allows cross-country comparisons.
Comparing NCVS and UCR
The 2008 NCVS found 21 million crimes.
The 2008 UCR found half as many Index Offenses.
The “dark figure of crime” persists.
Below is Table 2-7:
UCR and NCVS Crime Rates
Chart below is based on Figure 2-1:
Repeat Victimization
Repeated occurrence of crime involving either:
the same person, or
The same location
Chart below is based on Table 2-9:
Prevalence = # of individual victims
Incidence = # of victimization episodes
If incidence = prevalence, no recidivism.
If incidence GT prevalence, recidivism.
See Table 2-10
“Hot Spots”
Places where “the occurrence of crime is so frequent that it is highly predictable” (Sherman, 1995, p. 36).
Risk Heterogeneity - Prior victimization or some other factor renders the victim or location as an appropriate target for further victimization. Prior victimization or some other factor renders the victim or location as an appropriate target for further victimization. An example would be repeated fights involving patrons at a bar.
Event Dependency - The same offender commits a subsequent offense against the same target (either the same victim or at the same location).
Revictimization: Past victimization is the best predictor of future victimization. Revictimization occurs quickly in time.Victim recidivism may indicate increased vulnerability due to circumstances or lifestyle.
Supplementary Notes
Dearth of data on crime victims: Surveys conducted in the past twenty-five years have yielded a considerable amount of data on criminal victimization and have shed much light on the general socio-demographic characteristics of the victims of the selected offenses they cover. In contrast, we have very little systematic information on victims of those crimes not included in the surveys. Nor are there much data available on the psychological makeup, personality, attitudes, and behavior of the victims of crime in general. As a result, victimology lacks a similar body of knowledge to that which criminology has accumulated over the years on adult offenders and juvenile delinquents. This penury makes it difficult to formulate and test advanced hypotheses, let alone develop theories on the victims of crime.
Lack of cooperation: The most practical way of collecting data on the victims of crime is by means of questionnaires, personal and telephone interviews, and psychological and psychiatric testing. And while superficial interviews like the ones used in victimization surveys may generate little reluctance on the part of the interviewees, in-depth interviews and serious attempts to obtain highly personal information from the victims are likely to be met with strong resistance. A large percentage of those approached would no doubt refuse to cooperate or take part in the interview. There are many cases where the victim's unwillingness to cooperate is to be expected:
- In cases where the victimization was a singularly traumatic experience, as in rape or sexual molestation, the victim might want to forget the whole episode and might, therefore, be unwilling to talk about it or discuss it. This unwillingness is likely to increase when the attempt to interview the victim is made a long time after the victimization has occurred or after the victim has successfully removed the unpleasant memories of the event from his or her mind.
- In cases where victims have demonstrated some naivety, credulity, cupidity, greed, stupidity, or dishonesty, as is common in certain types of con games, fraud, swindling, and so forth, they might be ashamed to reveal an unflattering personality trait to the interviewer.
- Feelings of shame, embarrassment, or fear of the law also prevent many victims of blackmail and extortion from reporting the incidents or from talking about them. The so-called "dirty hands" victims involved in the drug trade, prostitution, illegal gambling, stolen goods, smuggling, and so forth are likely to be among the most uncooperative victims when it comes to research. Fear of retaliation may also be a deterrent for some victims.
- In cases where victims have contributed in one way or another to their own victimization, be it through provocation, precipitation, facilitation, or participation, they are likely to be reluctant to reveal the details of their behavior or the traits of their personality. Typical of this category of victims is the consenting minor in statutory rape.
- Whenever the victim has not reported the victimization to the police it may be assumed that he or she has reasons for not wishing to make the incident known or to reveal all the details of the victimization. The same reasons might prevent the victim from cooperating with an interviewer whose aim is to obtain this information.
The situation of the victim: Collecting data on victims’ experiences is often difficult due to the situation of the victim:
- In most instances, for example in nonviolent property crimes, the victims cannot be subjected to medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination without their consent, and it is doubtful that many would be willing to give this consent. Contrary to the offender who, when known, is in the hands of the criminal justice authorities and may be forced, under certain circumstances, to submit to various tests to evaluate his personality, assess his mental condition, measure his intelligence, and so forth, the victim is in a different legal position. In general, victims cannot be coerced or compelled to cooperate as offenders usually are.
- In some cases victims are no longer alive or are difficult to locate. They might have moved out of fear of retaliation or renewed victimization, or for some other reason, and their whereabouts and new location may be unknown.
- While the offender in most cases is an individual or several individuals, the victims of crime are not always natural persons: a victim may be a group, a business, or an organization. Organizations are particularly problematic when it comes to victim-centered research. This is probably why victimization research has always suffered from a person-centered bias.
Sources of bias: Victimological research has also to deal with a number of specific problems, such as the dearth of data on crime victims, the lack of cooperation of many victims, and so forth. Even the definition of the term “victim” is a problematic task, and whomever the criminal law considers a victim does not always fit or concur with the criminological concept of a victim. Furthermore, many criminal acts are not committed against specific, tangible victims. There are crimes against nonspecific or abstract victims and others made punishable because of the danger to a potential and, as yet, undetermined victim. And there are crimes that are considered by many as being victimless crimes because they have no victim. All this shows how vague and loose is the designation of “victim.” It also demonstrates that the existence of an individual or specific victim is not the sole criterion that guides the legislator in criminalizing those with a given behavior. When choosing projects to research and when gathering and interpreting data, victimologists must put aside their personal political orientations toward criminal justice policies (such as conservatism or liberalism); their allegiances to causes (such as preserving civil liberties or advancing women’s rights or outlawing abortion); and any positive or negative feelings toward entire groups (such as being pro-police or hostile to gun owners). Advocacy, whether for or against some policy or practice, should be kept separate from assessing the facts or drawing conclusions based on evidence. Scientific skepticism-not self-interest or preconceived notions-must prevail when evaluating whether victims’ rights legislation, prevention strategies, antitheft hardware, and recovery programs genuinely work or are ineffective or even counter-productive in reaching their stated goals. Expert opinion, in reports, in court testimony, or in the classroom must be based on facts, not faith. Research, policy analyses, and program evaluations must tell the whole truth, no matter who is disappointed or insulted.
Three types of biases undermine the ability of any social scientists (not just victimologists) to achieve objectivity and draw conclusions based on solid evidence (see Myrdal, 1944).
The first may arise from personal experiences, taking the form of individual preferences and prejudices. For example, victimologists who have been personally harmed in some way (by a burglary, robbery, or rape, for example) might become so sensitized to the plight of their fellow victims that they can see issues only from the victim's point of view. Conversely, those who have never been through such an ordeal might be unable to truly grasp what the injured parties must endure. In either case, the victimologist may develop a bias, whether it be oversensitivity and over-identification or insensitivity and lack of identification.
A second type of bias derives from the legacy of the discipline itself. The language, concepts, theories, and research priorities can reflect the collective preferences and priorities of its founders and their followers. For instance, it is widely acknowledged that the pioneers in this field of study introduced a victim-blaming orientation into the new discipline, but over the decades the tide has decisively turned. Today, the vast majority of victimologists make no secret of their opposite commitments: not to find fault with those who are suffering but rather to devise more effective means of aid, support, and recovery.
Although subtle, a third type of bias can be traced back to the mood of the times. Victimologists, like all other members of a society, are influenced by their social environment. The events that shape public opinion during different periods of time can also affect scientific thought. During the 1960s and early 1970s, for example, many people demanded that the government devise ways to help victims get back on their feet financially, medically, and emotionally. This insistence about expanding the social safety net to cushion the blows inflicted not only by job losses and illness but also the depredations of offenders reflected the spirit of egalitarianism and mutual aid of this stage in American history and inspired a great deal of research and policy advocacy. But these ambitious goals have been voiced less often ever since the 1980s, when the themes of “self-reliance,” “reduce social spending by government,” and “cut taxes” gained popularity. This emphasis on individuals taking responsibility for their own well-being as opposed to holding the social-economic system accountable for its shortcomings and failings (especially high rates of unemployment, poverty, and crime) has become the dominant ideology since the "financial meltdown" of 2008 and the onset of the “Great Recession.” Consequently, research projects and proposals about government-funded victim assistance programs have shifted their focus to matters such as "seed money,” ‘sunset provisions” (to phase out efforts that don't rapidly produce results), cost effectiveness, demonstration projects, and the feasibility of self-help, privately financed, or faith-based charitable alternatives. Clearly, inquiries into how victims suffer at the hands of criminals as well as other groups such as journalists and criminal justice officials is unavoidably a value-laden pursuit that arouses intense passions and sharply dissenting views. As a result, some have argued that objectivity is an impossible and unrealistic goal that should be abandoned in favor of a forthright affirmation of values and allegiances. They say that victimologists (and other social scientists) should acknowledge their biases at the outset to alert their audiences to the slant that their analyses and policy recommendations will take. Others argue that objectivity is worth striving for because subjectivity thwarts attempts to accurately describe, understand, and explain what is happening, why it came about, and how conditions can be improved. For the purposes of any textbook/research paper/argument/discourse etc, the best course of action is to present all sides of controversial issues. Nevertheless, space limitations impose hard choices. Although we’ll discuss all forms of victimization, our focus is almost entirely on victims of street crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, kidnapping, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft). There are many other categories of law-breaking: crimes in the “suites” involving a betrayal of trust and an abuse of power by high government officials against their rivals or to the detriment of the general public and by corporate executives who can illegally inflict massive losses and injuries upon their company's workers, customers, stock owners, or competitors. White-collar crimes such as embezzlement by employees against their employers or fraud by citizens against government programs also impose much greater financial costs than street crimes. Organized rackets run by mobsters (drug smuggling, gun trafficking, counterfeiting of documents and currency, gambling, extortion) generate millions of dollars, undermine everyday life, and stimulate official corruption (bribes to look the other way).
Crimes without complainants-victimless activities to some, vice to others-are controversial because the social reaction and criminal justice response might be worse than the original deviant behavior involving transactions between consenting adults (such as prostitution, illegal wagering, and street-level drug selling and buying). Clearly these other categories of crimes are as serious and merit attention from scholars, law enforcement agencies, and concerned citizens. But they are not the types of lawless deeds that come to mind when people talk about “the crime problem” or express fears about being harmed. Street crime scares the public, preoccupies the media, keeps police departments busy, and captures the notice of politicians. These conventional, ordinary, depressingly familiar, and all-too-common predatory acts have tangible, visible, readily identifiable victims who are directly affected and immediately aware of their injuries and losses. In contrast, in the other categories of crime, especially white-collar crime and crime in the suites, the deleterious consequences are experienced by abstractions (such as “a competitive economy” or “national security”), impersonal entities (such as the U.S. Treasury or multinational corporations), or vaguely defined collectivities (such as voters, taxpayers, investors, shareholders, or consumers). It is difficult to grasp precisely "who" has suffered in these cases, and it is nearly impossible to describe or measure the background characteristics or reactions of the injured parties. It is extremely tough to establish in court specifically who the flesh-and-blood victims are in cases of drug smuggling, money laundering, insurance scams, false advertising, bribe-taking, software piracy, counterfeiting of trademarked goods, dumping of toxic wastes, insider trading, electoral fraud, illegal campaign contributions, and income tax evasion. But people hurt by street crimes can be easily identified, observed, contacted, interviewed, studied, counseled, assisted legally, and treated medically. As a result, a wealth of statistical data has accumulated about their wounds, losses, and emotional reactions. For these reasons, victims of interpersonal violence and theft will be the primary focus of attention and concern throughout this text, even though many of the illegal activities cited above inflict much more severe social and economic damage (see Naim, 2005). But note that this decision immediately introduces a bias into this introduction to the field of victimology, one that reflects the experiences of authors of articles and textbooks, the collective priorities of the discipline's founders and most prolific researchers, and the mood of the times!