In order to understand crime levels, there are generally used three conventional sources that provide crime data: official crime reports, self-reports and victim surveys. Crime reports that are produced by criminal justice agencies include different information that depends on the regulations of the registering agency. Police reports do not give an accurate account of the number of crimes because not all crimes are reported by victims, not all police calls are defined to be crimes that should be registered and not all police departments underscore the importance of crime reports.
The U.S. Department of Justice leads two statistical programs to take the dimensions of, nature, and reflection of crime on the people in the country: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Every one of these programs provides worth-while information about the facets of the Nation’s crime problem. Since the UCR and NCVS programs are administered for different purposes, apply various methods, and concentrate on various facets of crime, the information they provide together shows a more intelligible panorama of the Nation’s crime problem than anyone could provide alone.
The FBI’s UCR Program that started in 1929 gathers information on the crimes reported to law enforcement authorities: robbery, murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, theft of motor vehicles, and arson. On their behalf, the law enforcement agencies report data for arrests in twenty one supplementary crime categories.
The UCR Program collects data from monthly reports of law enforcement units or individual records for crime incidents delivered directly to the FBI or to other centralized state agencies that on their behalf report to the FBI. The Program assiduously examines each report it receives for accuracy, reliability and probable errors. Large deviations in crime levels may show amended records procedures, fragmentary reporting, or variations in a jurisdiction’s boundaries. To identify any unusual instability in an agency’s crime counting, the Program compares the monthly reports to preceding submissions of the agency and with reports from similar agencies.
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) gathers information from the population, particularly from victims on violent, nonfatal and property crimes, reported and not reported to the police. The crimes were committed against individuals of age twelve or older coming from a representative sample of U.S. households. This information produces the national rates and levels of personal and property victimization. Violent crimes that were measured involve rape or sexual assault, aggravated assault, simple assault, and robbery. Property crimes include household burglary, theft and motor vehicle theft.
Rochelle F. Hanson, Genelle K. Sawyer, Angela M. Begle, and Grace S. Hubel wrote a review of specialized literature, examining the functional impact of crime victimization on different aspects of quality of life. They present their findings within a conceptual framework that involves role functioning, satisfaction of life, well-being, describing and analyzing victims’ social and material conditions that include the related to the crime costs for medications, mental health and employer costs, as well as health care utilization. The review manifests the fact that crime victimization affects multiple spheres of human life as parenting skills, damaged occupational functioning, problematic intimate relationships, unemployment, etc. Data on correlation between crime victimization and entire satisfaction of life was mixed, requiring further investigation. The authors conclude with drawing the directions for future research.
Crime victimization can affect the individual’s ability to perform different roles, including parenting, intimate relationships, and social and occupational functioning.
Much of the review investigates the effect of crime victimization on parenting. It concentrates on female victims who suffer from partner violence or parents’ violence with a history of abuse in childhood. In broad terms, theories suggest that the violence of the partner has a negative influence on the ability to parent because of the victim’s own emotional and physical distress (e.g., Graham, Rawlings, & Rigsby, 1994; Herman, 1992)
Another result of crime victimization is the disintegration or collapse of intimate relationships due to the alterations in a victim’s ability to function in the role of intimate partner or a spouse. As written in Whisman (2006), Whiffen and Oliver (2004) two mechanisms are suggested by which child or adult trauma may influence intimate relationships. The first is the avoidance symptom when the victim avoids his/her partner and the second is when the child abuse is an obstacle for the victim to form intimate attachment with anyone.
Another sequence of crime victimization is the ability of the victim to receive and maintain successful employment. A lot of research has been conducted in this area with female victims of partner violence. In comparison to nonvictims, the victims of partner violence show lower productivity; more frequent tiredness; job turnover along with unemployment; fewer hours worked in the past year; higher likelihood of getting assistance (e.g., Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2007; Staggs & Riger, 2005; Tolman & Wang, 2005)
Further examinations studied the link between victimization and life satisfaction and well-being. The studies concentrated on indicants such as fear of crime, concerns for personal safety, happiness, and satisfaction with overall quality of life (e.g., Demaris & Kaukinen, 2005; Michalos & Zumbo, 2000; Norris & Kaniasty, 1994; Zlotnick, Johnson, & Kohn, 2006). For instance, in their examination of the effect of crime-related issues on satisfaction with quality of life and happiness in British Columbia, Michalos and Zumbo made the conclusion that “crime-related issues have relatively little impact on people’s satisfaction with the quality of their lives, with life satisfaction or happiness here” (Michalos, Zumbo, 2000, p. 290).
In her article The Four Theories of Victimization, Laine Harper cites Jennifer Truman of the U.S. Department of Justice, "During 2010, U.S. residents age 12 and older experienced an estimated 18.7 million violent and property crime victimizations. While this rate is down from previous years, this number is disturbing.” (Truman, J., 2011, n. p., qtd. by Harper, L., 2014) Here the theories will be enumerated without being profoundly discussed. First is the theory about the victim’s precipitation which means that the victims themselves may “initiate, either passively or actively, the criminal act that ultimately leads to injury or death.” (Harper, L., 2014, n. p.) The next theory is the so called lifestyle theory. The name indicates that the lifestyle of the victim create suitable and inviting conditions for the offenders to act. Third is the deviant place theory in which it is considered that the victim being in “bad areas” became victim of abusive behavior. And the last, but not by significance, is the routine activity theory that is explained by three conditions that have to be available: “1. The availability of suitable targets, 2. The absence of capable guardians, and 3. The presence of motivated offenders .” (Ibid)
In the last decades and even more a theory called the “Stockholm syndrome” gains popularity and well discussed by Dee L. R. Graham in his book Loving to survive: Sexual terror, men’s violence, and women’s lives. This is the most extravagant theory in which the mmain theme is: “Love thine enemy.” (Graham, 1994. p. 2)
Works cited
Demaris, A., Kaukinen, C., Violent Victimization and Women’s Mental and Physical Health: Evidence from a National Sample, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2005;42: 384–411, Print
Graham, D., Rawlings, E., Rigsby, R., Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives. New York: New York University Press; ISBN: 978-0-8147-3059-1 Print
Hanson, R. F., Sawyer, G. K., Begle, A. M., & Hubel, G. S., The Impact of Crime Victimization,. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2010, 23(2), 189–197. http://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20508
Michalos AC, Zumbo B., Criminal Victimization and the Quality of Life. Social Indicators, Research. 2000; 50: 245–296, Print
Reeves, C., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., The Effects and Costs of Intimate Partner Violence for Work Organizations, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2007;22:327–344. [PubMed]
Whiffen, V. E., Oliver, L. E., The Relationship Between Traumatic Stress and Marital Intimacy. Catherall, D., editor. Handbook of Stress, Trauma, and the Family. New York: CRC Press; 2004. pp. 137–157, Print
Whisman, M. A., Childhood Trauma and Marital Outcomes in Adulthood: Personal Relationships, 2006; 13: 375–386, Print
