Over the last few weeks we've been looking at what different theories say about crime and victimisation. We've seen that there's a big difference between theories that start from the perspective that society is basically working well (classical and 'lifestyle' victimology) and theories that start from the position that society is characterised by unjust power relations (feminist and radical victimologies). For a classical victimologist, crime is a localised problem to be dealt with - or minimised - so that we can all get on with our lives. For a radical victimologist, crime is one example of much broader injustices that run through society: somebody who's a victim of crime is likely to have been a victim of other social problems already.
This is all well and good, but it's all theoretical: it doesn't tell us who victims of crime actually are. For that matter, theory doesn't tell us whether we can make any generalisations about victims of crime: perhaps crime is just something that strikes at random, like lightning. (SPOILER: it isn't.) So this week we looked at what we know about crime victims, and how we know about crime victims.
There was a lot in the lecture, too much to summarise here: the history of victim surveys, the demographics of violent crime, the use and misuse of statistics about domestic burglary... Hopefully you will have got something interesting out of it. For this blog post I want to stress two points.
Firstly, our knowledge is incomplete. This is a common problem with social statistics: this is the reason why the news doesn't report the number of unemployed people, but always gives the number of those out of work and claiming benefits. Nobody knows precisely how many people are not working; the DSS does know precisely how many people claim unemployment-related benefits. Similarly with crime: nobody knows precisely how many crimes are committed. We do know precisely how many crimes are recorded by the police, but we also know that lots of crimes aren't - which is why we use figures from the British Crime Survey. But the BCS is a sample-based survey - they ask roughly 50,000 people about their experiences of crime, then multiply out to give an estimate of the number of crimes in the country as a whole. There is no precisely accurate figure for the number of crimes that are committed. What's more, because it's a residential survey completed by adults, we know that the BCS is highly unlikely to record crimes against some groups of people: for example, children, dependent elderly people, students living in halls, people of no fixed abode... Every statement about crime levels should be followed by "as far as we know".
Secondly, crime is highly patterned (as far as we know). To some extent, the feminist and radical versions of victimology are borne out by the figures. Social exclusion: living in a neighbourhood with "high levels of disorder" is associated with a higher risk of crime. Ethnicity: BME people are statistically at a higher risk of crime than Whites, even if we're only talking about "colour-blind" crimes like burglary. Gender: almost half of all victims of domestic violence are repeat victims, suggesting very strongly that domestic violence is - as feminists say - part of a continuing relationship of unequal power.
There are also some interesting and very significant findings about age, which don't quite fit any of the main variants of victimology. If you're under 25, your statistical risk of crime is much higher than average, particularly if you're living alone or with other young people; this is especially true of men, but it's true of women as well. Generally, being young seems to aggravate all the other risk factors. It may also make it that much harder to get redress, or to be taken seriously by the criminal justice system at all. Radical victimology comes in many different forms, but as far as I know there isn't much of a school of anti-ageist victimology; this could be an opportunity for someone.
I hope you liked the film, or at least found it thought-provoking. Next week we'll be looking at the whole process of 'moving on' from victimisation (and from victimhood?). We'll also be doing some serious talking about the essay, so if you've got any questions about your essay, do bring them along to a seminar.
No comments:
Post a Comment