Discuss why the characteristics of victims are so important to crime analysis
Although victim characteristics is only one of many aspects considered in theoretical victimology, which studies the victim factors in the crime (Fattah, 2000), these characteristics has been found influential in the planning and eventual commission of the crime. Since the history of this field of study, there was a running belief that the victim may have a contribution in the genesis of the crime. As early as 1940, despite many crimes wherein the victim has little or no direct or indirect contribution in the occurrence of the crime, many observers noted that there was real interaction and mutual contribution between the criminal and the victim, the killer and the killed, or the duper and the duped (cf. von Hentig, 1940). These cases had been observed wherein the victim had consented, cooperated, conspired, and even provoked the crime or the perpetrator(s) of the crime. In such cases, these victims were not merely victims but the causative factors of the crimes perpetrated. Fattah (2000) identified these victim factors to the crime perpetration as behaviors like carelessness (which involves negligent actions that make the victim vulnerable to the criminal attack), imprudence (which involves unnecessary or illogical actions, such as going through a crime infested alley or section of the city, that actively increases the chances of criminal attacks to occur), recklessness (which involves actions that creates a motivation in the criminal to victimize instead), and the like. Thus, the victim’s role in the crime can either be motivational (arouses, attracts, incudes, or incites criminal act from the perpetrator) or functional (facilitates, participates, precipitates, provokes, or triggers the perpetrator to take a criminal act).
What are the different types of “mapping” criminal activity? How does this process aid in analyzing crime?
The generally accepted principle in crime analysis holds that crime is seldom a random act or evenly distribution across specific geographical areas (Paynich & Hill, 2010). In effect, each geographical locations usually have their own unique patterns of crimes perpetrated (or ‘hot spots’) and often with reasonable predictability. Thus, the ability of law enforcers to map these crime patterns within in their specific jurisdictions makes crime analysis far more specific, effective, and relevant. Moreover, crime mapping (and hotspot analysis) will signal existing and emerging patterns of crimes, helping law enforcers prioritize their allocation of limited resources (International Association of Crime Analysts [IACA], 2013). The three most commonly used mapping techniques are point, line, and polygon mapping. Point mapping clearly demonstrates repeat incidents in a single location within a specific time frame (e.g. month or year). To distinguish multiple crimes within a single location, a system of color codes or graduated symbols is often adopted to represent different crimes. Repeated address can also be graduated by establishing a minimum quantity of crimes before placing a map point. Line (street) mapping demonstrates hot (high crime frequency) streets also using color coded lines and/or points. Crime incident locations can either be matched with street layouts or the points file is joined to the street segments file of the map. This approach is, however, trickier in accurately representing actual street addresses where crime occurred and can vary according to the precinct’s geocoding policy (street file coding vs. address coding). Meanwhile, polygon (area) mapping is more feasible in determining law enforcement jurisdictions with greater share of crimes perpetrated, according to crime types. This approach has the capability to illustrate various geographical levels (e.g. specific address or intersection, specific block or block clusters, or neighborhood).
The International Association of Criminal Analysts (2014) three major products, often confidential and for internal use only, of strategic crime analysis: crime trend report (CTR); exception reports; annual reports; and research reports. The CTR contains a long-term analysis of general or specific crime trends (increasing or decreasing), such as a general crime trend forecast or drug-related homicides forecast (cf. Gottlieb & Arenberg, 1992). The exception reports contain statistical summaries of crime types to highlight observable deviation of crime trends from the jurisdictional norm (e.g. a surge of cybercrimes report). Conversely, annual reports includes informational aggregates, such as crimes broken down by geography, months, and activity types (e.g. crime type, call type, and accidents), and sometimes compared with the state and national statistics; while the research reports provides a formal scientific report on a research project that evaluates a problem solving project (e.g. a drug trafficking intervention project) or a specific program and contains recommendations (Boba, 2001). The research reports are apparently the least important in terms of direct crime fighting impacts due to its usual tendency towards evaluation objectives rather than specific crime detection or anticipation applications. The other reports, in contrast, bear information that can be indispensable in planning for strategies that may be implemented in the years following its data collection year or years.
References
Boba, R. (2001, November). Introductory guide to crime analysis and mapping. Washington,
DC: Community Oriented Policing Services.
Fattah, E.A. (2000). The vital role of victimology in the rehabilitation of offenders and the
reintegration into society. 112th International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers, Resource Material Series No. 56, 71-86.
Gottlieb, S. & Arenberg, S. (1992, July 2). Crime analysis: From concept to reality. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
IACA. (2014, October). Definition and types of crime analysis. IACA Standards, Methods, &
Technology Committee White Paper 2014-02. Overland Park, KS: International Association of Crime Analysts.
IACA. (2013). Identifying high crimes. IACA Standards, Methods, & Technology Committee
White Paper 2013-02. Overland Park, KS: International Association of Crime Analysts.
Paynich, R. & Hill, B. (2010). Fundamentals of Crime Mapping. Burlington, MA: Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Von Hentig, H. (1940, September-October). Remarks on the interaction of perpetrator and
victim. Journal of Criminal law and Criminology, 31(3), 303-309.
