Theory application to violent victimization
In every crime that takes places there are victims who are involved in it and thus, the art of being a victim of a crime is what is referred to as victimization. There is no crime that occurs without victims as victims themselves are the grassroots to the occurrence of any crime. In efforts to clearly understand victimization, we have four theories which are related to victimization. These theories help criminologists to study victims' roles in relation to the occurrence of crimes. The main theories that properly elaborate the victimization process include precipitation of victims, individual’s lifestyle, deviant place and routine activity. Under this theory, crime is associated with an individual's lifestyle. Thus, the extent to which one is exposed to crime depends upon the kind of life he/she lives (Reiss, 1981).
An individual who lives a lifestyle that is highly exposed to risky situations is likely to be exposed to a high rate of crime than an individual who lives a lifestyle that is less exposed to risky situations. In most of the incidents, this riskiness of lifestyle is mainly associated with the increased time spent in the public as most crimes take place in public areas. The time spent out in public that leads to the riskiness of exposure to crime is either time spent at the night or the time that people might spend with strangers. These factors are the existence of an offender who is motivated by crime, the existence of convenient targets as well as the absence of a fit guardian.
According to this theory, the rate of crime is not determined by social classes of individuals. Thus, as long as one of the factors named above is present an individual will be highly exposed to crime rates despite the kind of social class he/she belongs to. Under this theory it is hard for an individual to prevent himself from levels of crime rate as crime occurs automatically as long as the factors that facilitate crime are present hence despite individuals will to get rid of crime , the crime itself will not be ready to let the individual go (Meier & Miethe, 1993). How do these theories relate to Carla's case of victimization? The case of Carla is a good example of victimization incident where the four theories that have been discussed can all be illustrated to this story.
According to you, which victimization theory is least relevant in this case and why? Theory of precipitation, as it states that the victim initiates or encourages the occurrence of a crime that he/she encounters. There are no clear incidents that show Carla provoked the offenders for her to end up facing the crime that she encountered. Do you feel that Carla precipitated or was partially to blame for the crime? Give reasons for your answer. Yes, as it is her fault that led to the occurrence of the crime. This is because she knew it was risky to walk at night lonely especially for a girl but she still kept on going to Casey’s place at night continuously despite the high risk associated with this action.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop