Introduction

The existing concepts of victimization created ample body of empirical study, generally recorded within the last twenty years (Reyns, 2013, 103). Two of the most commonly recognized standpoints, life experience, and repetitive actions concepts have always stood out in terms of rational thinking and empirical analysis. However, the maturation of theories of victimization meets the same serious impediments as other concepts of criminality. These include insufficient attention to dissimilarity in terms of form of crime, grouped thinking, and poor connectivity between concepts and findings. Thus, victimization ideals are widely known in the criminological fields. This paper will discuss CJ’s victimization from a lifestyle theory perspective.

The Concept of Victim Precipitation Theory

Just like any other criminology theories, victim precipitation entails underlying reasons that push one into crime. Although most ideas center on actions and objectives of the perpetrators, victim precipitation pursues insight pertaining the interaction between the target and the perpetrator of the crime (Pratt, and Turanovic , 2016, 54). Underneath this concept, the target contributes to the crime as much as the perpetrator. For instance, in the case of CJ, he hangs around gang members thus contributing to his state of hospitalization. The victim becomes an active contributor in the criminality: first, when the victim takes part in the crime and secondly, when the victim incites the lawbreaker hence pushing the individual to carry out the criminality. These are the two aspects of the victim precipitation principle. For example, the gang, which CJ is part of, provokes a rival gang leading to a violent altercation on both sides and CJ ends up in hospital due to bodily harm. In this context, CJ is an active participant in the crime as he and other gang members provoke the rival gang into the violent dispute.

The opening systematic research on victim participation in criminal activity took place in late 1950s by Wolfgang. He was the first researcher to look at crime from both sides of the spectrum, victim precipitation in the process coining the term, ‘victim precipitation’. During the early years of his studies, Marvin Wolfgang became a famous descriptor for all conventional contact destructive criminalities such as murder and rape (Turanovic, and Pratt, 2014, 108). Application of homicide to aspects of victim precipitation restricts the theory to cases in which the victim starts a physical squabble against the perpetrator or murderer. In addition, according to the theory of victim precipitation, in case of intensified battering, sly language or gesticulations are under infuriating activities.

 In other words, victim precipitation muggings includes circumstances where the target operated without considering his or her own self-protection while handling his or her own finances or any other valuable items (Van et.al, 2018, 68). Also, the theory applies to rape; when an individual gives the perpetrator consent then changes their mind later or invites the perpetrator verbally or using gesticulations but withdraws their consent before the actual act. In the case of CJ, he does not consider his self-protection before attacking the rival gang, hence sustains grievous injuries after the fight. In each of the applications mentioned above, there is a clear timeline as the events melt down from victims initiating some sort of action resulting to corresponding victimization.

Past researches, utilizing law enforcement reports unveiled some degree of victim participation in most of the crimes taking place on a daily basis. The level of victim precipitation fluctuates with type of wrongdoing committed (Messner et.al, 2007, 116). Projected data on victim precipitation varies from 22 to 38% among homicides, 14% for motivated attacks, 4-19% for rape cases and the remainders 11% for armed burglary are some of the criminal activities facilitated by victim participation. These statistics may be low approximations of the frequency of victim participation due to the impartial obstructive description of victim precipitation existing in some crimes that is murder, attack and the huge cases with inadequate or insufficient information (Tseloni et.al, 2004, 107). The national survey reported that inadequate data prevents experts from exploring the existence of victim participation in more than 51% cases. Nevertheless, the significance of the concept of victim precipitation clearly stands out in numerous homicide cases hence the victim or the perpetrator depends on the situation.

Routine Activity Concept

Routine activity idea suggests a macro point of view on criminality in that it forecasts on the manner in which alterations within social and economic settings impact the entire crime and victimization frequency. Authors of the concepts assumed that illegal actions are systematically noteworthy phenomenon implying that violations are not coincidental events. Consequently, criminal activities are as a result of routine or regular behavior, individuals participate in and develop over time (McNeeley, 2015, 113). The behavior of a person can make them vulnerable or a suitable target for a calculating perpetrator. In addition, routine activities concepts entail the arrangements of criminality to the daily patterns resulting from societal relations. Therefore, crime rises from usual and self-determining factors accessible to an individual.

This theory applies to CJ’s case where he voluntarily hangs around gang members through the societal interactions in his neighborhood and ends up engaging in criminal activities, which nearly cost him his life (Spalek, 2016, 188). If there is a vulnerable target in a situation that presents numerous benefits, a driven perpetrator will definitely commit a crime. CJ1 is only 16 years old, yet he hangs around dangerous gangs, consumes alcohol and drugs. Therefore, according to the theory, he is an unprotected victim.

Lifestyle Theory of CJ

 Lifestyle and routine activity share the same perspective on victimization. Both theories interpret victimization via the lens of a highly stirred criminal, a vulnerable victim, and the absence of guardianship (Muftić, and Hunt, 2013, 209). These two theories vary in terms of traits, which increase risk of victimization. On one hand, lifestyle theory perceives risk as a probabilistic term, for instance, specific behavior put an individual at risk of victimization than others.

            In the excerpt, CJ is only 16 years of age, with lack of proper guidance, which in turn pushes him to social interactions among gang members. There is no one advising him to stay away from trouble (Kivivuori, Suonpää, and Lehti, 2014, 206). Lifestyle theory does not depend on the relational dynamics between a target and perpetrator. Past studies revealed that even though degrees of victimization vary from one place to another, personal and situational features found in each locality remained similar. For example, CJ’s is a youth; youths are at a higher risk of victimization than members of older age group are and men are at a greater risk of victimization than their counterpart females. Victimization can differ in quantity but identical in nature and quality hence depicting lifestyle theory of victimization.

In summary, for the successful manifestation of personal victimization in CJ’s case, three things took place: CJ’s gang intersected with the rival gang in time and space hence causing the violence and eventual hospitalization of CJ. Secondly, some cause of disagreement arose between CJ’s gang and the rival gang, creating victim vulnerability by the perpetrator hence leading to bodily harm. Thirdly, the lawbreaker was willing and capable of making actual his threats or utilization of brutal force to attain his desired results. The root of the challenge is accurately tracing all the elements that led to the CJ’s circumstance. For instance, factors which contributed to CJ’s exposure to great risk contexts and forces or aspects, which aided the meeting between the perpetrator and the target. The answer to CJ’s situation lies in his lifestyle.

The lifestyle of CJ can answer all the questions that led to his hospitalization due to grievous bodily harm. At the end of the day, his lifestyle, dictates his decision-making mechanism, and pattern activities, which in turn helps in predicting the coming into contact with his aggressor. After all, if the victim and the perpetrator never crossed roads, life style theory could not occur. It is vital to note that the lifestyle theory does not make an attempt to elaborate on social and mental undercurrents of a criminal event. Therefore are collections of patterned activities, job-related activities and leisure activities that take part in the formation of personal victimization. Lifestyle majorly concentrates on issues individuals take part throughout their daily lives. In addition, CJ’s lifestyle results from gang group adaptations to social and traditional constraints. For example, he starts smoking and doing drugs the moments he starts hanging out with other gang members. Likewise, gang members influence his beliefs and behavior hence he fights off a rival gang but unfortunately stabbed in the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Reyns, B.W., 2013. Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), pp.216-238.

Pratt, T.C. and Turanovic, J.J., 2016. Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: The importance of “risk” to the study of victimization. Victims & Offenders, 11(3), pp.335-354.

Turanovic, J.J. and Pratt, T.C., 2014. “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of quantitative criminology, 30(1), pp.29-56.

Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K. and Walrave, M., 2018. Cyber dating abuse victimization among secondary school students from a lifestyle-routine activities theory perspective. Journal of interpersonal violence, 33(17), pp.2767-2776.

Messner, S.F., Lu, Z., Zhang, L. and Liu, J., 2007. Risks of criminal victimization in contemporary urban China: An application of lifestyle/routine activities theory. Justice Quarterly, 24(3), pp.496-522.

Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G. and Pease, K., 2004. Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: A cross-national comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), pp.66-91.

McNeeley, S., 2015. Lifestyle-routine activities and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(1), pp.30-52.

Muftić, L.R. and Hunt, D.E., 2013. Victim precipitation: Further understanding the linkage between victimization and offending in homicide. Homicide studies, 17(3), pp.239-254.

Kivivuori, J., Suonpää, K. and Lehti, M., 2014. Patterns and theories of European homicide research. European Journal of Criminology, 11(5), pp.530-551.

Spalek, B., 2016. Crime victims: Theory, policy and practice. Macmillan International Higher Education.