The Distribution of Crime Victimisation in the Population

This paper addresses the question of how best to determine the appropriate theoretical model for explaining the frequency distribution typically observed in self-report crime victimisation surveys of general adult household populations. The contemporary, prevailing approach is characterised as a ‘double-hurdle model’ of exposure to victimisation risk mat focuses, separately, upon the transition initially from a non-victim to a victim state (the ‘lifestyle-exposure’ hypothesis), and thence upon the transition to a subsequent, specific level of risk (the ‘repeat victimisation hypothesis’). An alternative model — the ‘immunity hypothesis’ — is proposed with the aim of addressing some of the theoretical and empirical difficulties identified in the current approach. This model takes the form of a compound-Poisson generalisation of the Negative Binomial statistical distribution. Its chief difference from the current approach is its assumption of a general tendency in the population towards ‘immunity from’ rather than ‘exposure to’ crime victimisation risk. An outflow table of data on household property crime victimisation from a longitudinal panel survey is analysed. The results provide support for the hypotheses derived from the immunity model.

[1]  M. Townsley,et al.  Infectious Burglaries. A Test of the Near Repeat Hypothesis , 2003 .

[2]  Ken Pease,et al.  Crimes which repeat: undigested evidence from the British Crime Survey 1992 , 1996 .

[3]  Denise R. Osborn,et al.  The Distribution of Household Property Crimes , 1998 .

[4]  G. Farrell,et al.  LIKE TAKING CANDY Why does Repeat Victimization Occur , 1995 .

[5]  David P. Farrington,et al.  Building a safer society : strategic approaches to crime prevention , 1996 .

[6]  Ken Pease,et al.  Modelling property crime using the British Crime Survey , 2002 .

[7]  Tim Hope,et al.  THE FLUX OF VICTIMIZATION , 1995 .

[8]  Sandra Walklate,et al.  Is a victim a victim a victim , 1997 .

[9]  Tim Hope,et al.  Are repeatedly victimized households different? , 1996 .

[10]  A. Tseloni,et al.  Repeat Personal Victimization. ‘Boosts’ or ‘Flags’? , 2003 .

[11]  Ken Pease,et al.  A VICTIM IS A VICTIM IS A VICTIM?Chronic Victimization in Four Sweeps of the British Crime Survey , 1995 .

[12]  J. Shepherd Victims of violent crime. , 1998, Accident and emergency nursing.

[13]  DavidP. Farrington EXPLAINING AND PREVENTING CRIME: THE GLOBALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE—THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 1999 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS* , 2000 .

[14]  Ken Pease,et al.  Once bitten, twice bitten: repeat victimisation and its implications for crime prevention , 1993 .

[15]  Tim Hope,et al.  The Phenomena of Multiple Victimization. The Relationship between Personal and Property Crime Risk , 2001 .

[16]  Terance D. Miethe,et al.  Crime and its social context : toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations , 1995 .

[17]  A. Lincoln Community Crime Prevention , 1989 .

[18]  Prior victimisation and crime risk , 1997 .

[19]  Ken Pease,et al.  Repeat Victimisation: Taking Stock , 1998 .

[20]  Richard F. Sparks,et al.  Multiple Victimization: Evidence, Theory, and Future Research , 1981 .

[21]  Tim Hope,et al.  Crime, Risk and Insecurity , 2000 .

[22]  Frank Morgan,et al.  Repeat Burglary in a Perth Suburb: Indicator of Short-Term or Long-Term Risk , 2001 .

[23]  Gloria Laycock,et al.  Hypothesis-Based Research: , 2001 .

[24]  James F. Nelson Multiple Victimization in American Cities: A Statistical Analysis of Rare Events , 1980, American Journal of Sociology.

[25]  Tim Hope,et al.  Housing, Community and Crime: The Impact of the Priority Estates Project , 1993 .