Discussion and Responses
Question: Discuss the similarities and differences between male and female robbers (weapon of choice, approach, targets, etc.).
In the crime of robbery, male and female offending show some similarities and dissimilarities. For both sexes the goal and motivation to commit robbery is the same – acquisition of a targeted valuable item or items. It is the strategy or the manner of committing the crime that differentiates male and female robbery. For male robbers, physical confrontation with their victims comes with the territory, which manifests the masculine culture prevalent on the streets. Women robbers, however, use different strategies in committing robbery. Women robbers usually target other women for which they can indulge in physical confrontation, but physical confrontation with male victims are not their usual modus operandi. Women robbers can also join males as the latter’s accomplice in committing the crime. In this approach, women play a subordinate role to male robbers. Lastly, women robbers can also use their body to lure men for the purpose of robbing them during unguarded moments (Alvarez and Bachman 2014).
I completely agree with your last statement. The differences in the strategies used by male and female robbers can be explained by their relative ability and skill in the choices they make. For example, male robbers will use their strength and physical power if need be to overwhelm their victim to show that their masculinity. This is the masculine culture on display out there in the streets. However, as you say women can use their feminine wiles to disarm their would-be male victims. Usually males fall for this strategy, hence, use this to their advantage. What I don’t understand, however, is why do women often use knife as their weapon of choice when they would be better off bringing a gun? The use of a knife takes some muscular power and quickness, while guns are more threatening and can compensate for whatever weakness they project.
Post of Hunter Dillashaw
Thank you for differentiating the terms ‘robbery’ and ‘burglary’ and citing the relevant provisions of law. So the way I understand it from your post is that the primary difference between the two is that burglary always involves unauthorized trespass to the residence or place of another although the real intent is to commit another felony while inside the place. On the other hand, robbery always involves force and violence and the forcible acquisition of another’s possession. With respect to the commission of robbery by the sexes, I can see that the victimology profile most often involve women, which makes sense because it would be easier to overwhelm them being the physically weaker sex. Perhaps other usual targets of robbers, whether male or female, are elderly people because of the possibility that the latter cannot defend themselves against attacks. What is very interesting is the textbook’s statement that the poor and the minority are more vulnerable to robbery than people with higher income (Alvarez and Bachman 2014, p. 141). Really? That does not make sense at all. In that case, these people are in double jeopardy – from poverty and from robbers.
Question: If you were trying to get the most accurate picture of hate crime commission, which data source(s) would you approach and why?
Hate crime has been defined by Congress as “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation” (FBI 2015). In other words, a hate crime can be any crime, but it is the underlying motivation of hate that makes a crime a hate crime. There are three major data collection sources that measure hate crimes, among others: the Uniform Crime Reports (or UCR), the National Crime Victimization Survey (or NCVR), and the National Incident-Based Reporting System (or NIBRS).
If I would like a comprehensive and true picture of hate crime, I would probably refer to all three data source and use them in combination, supplementing the weakness of one with the strength of the other/s and vice-versa. This is because all of these data sources have both strengths and weaknesses and to use only one of them would be to exploit not only its advantages, but also be weighed down by its disadvantages. For example, the UCR has been criticized for its self-reporting nature, but the NCVS has also weaknesses. Some crimes are excluded from this survey, such as homicide. In addition, because the data collection conducts its survey only at a particular time of the year, and not immediately after an incident occurred, the interviewee may have already forgotten some of the details of the incident. On the other hand, although the NIBRS is more detailed and comprehensive, it is not yet as widespread as the other two (FBI 2015). However, it has been said that most victims of hate crimes, such as gays and lesbians and members of the minority, are often wary of the police and may not report hate crime to the latter, which makes the UCR comparatively weaker than the other two.
Post by Hunter Dillashaw
The additional question asked to victims whether they may have been victims of hate crimes may also actually pose as a disadvantage to the NCVS. Various jurisdictions define hate crime differently. In some, hate must be a ‘substantial’ element, but others may not make a distinction. Moreover, the interviewee may misperceive the bias motives of others and that they could fall into the trap of misinterpreting the motivation of the attacks against them. Nonetheless, the NCVS has a clear advantage over the other data sources, but to get a clear picture I would use and compare all the major data sources.
References
Alvarez, A.; Bachman, R. (2014) Violence: The Enduring Problem. Sage Publications. Inc. (p 145-146).
FBI (2015). Hate Crime – Overview. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview.
