Question 1: The Dark Figure of Crime
The official crime statistics should be efficient and effective for statistical record-keeping, transparency, and accountability. However, the official crime data accuracy might be questionable since not all crimes committed are discovered or reported. Sociologists and crime experts refer to such crimes as the dark figure of crime (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). Despite such offenses having been committed, they never get recorded in the criminal justice system. For instance, some victimization types, such as robbery and sexual assault, significantly contribute to the dark figure of crime. In comparison, both robbery and sexual assault are mostly committed via the use of physical force and other coercion forms, including intoxication. Although both crimes in question carry different societal perceptions, they are interpersonal violent crimes.
However, the two crimes differ in various ways, including the decision to disclose. For instance, robbery crimes are reported almost twice as often as sexual assault. Also, about 20% of sexual assault victims use victim agencies, while only 9% of the robbery victims use victim agencies (Muniz, 2019). Sexual assault victims often fraught with stigma and blame, while robbery victims do not. Robbery is observed as an instrumental crime that is done with a tangible objective. Conversely, sexual assault is an expressive crime executed not for financial gains but because of sadism and anger. Due to these differences, sexual assault and robbery have diverse influences to the dark figure of crime. The low rate of sexual assault reports significantly contributes to the unreported crimes. Most of the sexual assault cases go unreported or undiscovered. Likewise, the low usage of victim agencies by robbery victims also results in some cases being undiscovered.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question 2: Difference Between the Boost Theory and the Flag Theory
The state dependency theory of recurring victimization states that once an individual is victimized for the first time, victimization chances for a subsequent time are high. As a result, the theory is also referred to as the boost theory of recurring victimization. The theory suggests that a prospect event or state highly determined by a previous event or state. The idea behind this theory is that when an individual experience victimization, they either become an attractive target or more vulnerable for future victimization. Conversely, the flag concept maintains that some victims' behaviors make them prospective targets for initial and recurring subsequent victimization (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). Unlike the boost theory, the flag theory argues that the recurring victims are likely to have particular attributes that make vulnerable or attractive targets for future victimization.
In comparison, the flag theory offers a preferable explanation for recurring victimization. A person might possess some attributes that make them more vulnerable to victimization (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). For instance, if a person walks in a dangerous place at night with no security, they are likely to robbers. If they continue using the same route after the first robbery, the chances for recurring victimization are relatively high without enhancing their security.
Arguably, the routine activity theory is a criminological theory that can expounds the recurring victimization. It suggests that victimization occurs due to the convergence of a prospect offender, a lack of capable guardianship, and an attractive target. Besides, the routine refers to indiscriminate social activity patterns in society (Pratt & Turanovic, 2015). As a result, the periodic activity structure influences the type of situation likely to emerge. Thus, the offender can predict the victim's move, allowing them to plan for the crime easily. If the victim does not change their routine, the chances of routine victimization rise.
Question 3: Perceived Fear of Victimization and Risk of Victimization
Arguably, most individuals have different perceptions of risk and fear. For instance, unlike risk, most people have a perception that fear is directly proportional to the crimes perceived seriousness. Another difference between the two is the pattern. The examination of fear of victimization is primarily based on an individual's characteristics, such as age and gender (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). However, not all examinations of the risk of victimization are based on personal characteristics. For instance, some risks for crimes are equal to both genders. The existence of fear is grounded on the insights of people's susceptibility to victimization, while the risk is not. Such concepts create different perceptions for risk and fear of victimization.
However, there are some similarities between the two models. Arguably, the apparent risk of victimization is the immediate cause of fear. Both the apparent risk and fear of victimization are significantly affected by their previous experiences. Similarly, individuals' social characteristics are also perceived to affect the victimizations in question. The victimizations in question are heightened by the cues encountered in the surroundings (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). For instance, darkness is a potent sign of danger that heightens the risk of victimization. As a result, it incites fear and heightens it as well. Therefore, although the models of the risk of victimization and fear of victimization vary in many ways, they are related. Question 4: Criminological Theories’ Usefulness In Explaining Criminal Victimization
Lifestyle Theory and Routine Activities Theory
These theories give a relevant scope in studying why and how the often victimized targets may signal offenders on their vulnerability to victimization. The victims in play are frequently targeted to take part in lifestyle-routine activities, thus having exposure to repeated victimization. This theory explains seven victimization types: theft of automobiles, bicycles, threats, and sexual assault. They also evaluated how the prior victimization influenced the possibility of repeated victimization. Pratt & Turanovic (2015) considered the connections between subsequent and prior victimization across the contributors in the life course. The sample size in which they conducted the study was a population size of nearly 2,000 persons in the Netherlands.
Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory is a hypothetical framework that researchers have applied to evaluate how recurrent victimization happens. The context explains why some targets and individuals are victimized, whereas others are not. The theory claims that when perpetrators are determining whether or not to tap the advantage of the criminal occasions, they consider the potential costs like getting caught and undergoing punishment and the potential paybacks such as completing the crime successfully. The rational choice theory relates to the lifestyle and/or routine activities concept due to its rationality in nature (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). Therefore, it helps the perpetrators select their attractive targets proximate to their location and suitability.
State Dependence Theory
This theory increases the chances of the victimization target being victimized subsequently. The idea connotes that the cases of subsequent victimization depend on the previous state of events. A Myriad of victimization training finds that the prior victimization is a sturdy predictor of consequent victimization. This theory argues that victimization makes some people attractive targets or more vulnerable for future victimization (Fisher & Sloan, 2015). As a result, the chances of recurring victimization are heightened.
References
Fisher, B., & Sloan, J. J. (2015). Introduction to victimology: Contemporary theory, research, and practice . Oxford University Press, USA.
Muniz, c. N. (2019). Sexual assault and robbery disclosure: An examination of black's theory of the behavior of law . The University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9061&context=etd
Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2015). Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: The importance of "Risk" to the study of victimization. Victims & Offenders , 11 (3), 335-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1057351
