Examining What Makes Violent Crime Victims Unique: Extending Statistical Methods for Studying Specialization to the Analysis of Crime Victims

Examining what Makes Violent Crime Victims Unique: Extending Statistical Methods for Studying Specialization to the Analysis of Crime Victims
Student’s Name
Institution’s Name
Abstract
The field of victimization exists in fragments where several theories exist. Theorizing within victimization studies intends to locate and explain specific types of victims. Schreck et al. undertook a study to determine the factors that make violent crime victims unique. However, what stands out throughout the paper is the addressing of shortcomings apparent in the past and present victimization studies. In addition to having persons on the ground, the article employed the Item Response Theory as advanced by Osgood and Schreck. The investigation came to a finding that crime victims experience different consequences; however, some victims showed a predictable tendency towards violent criminalization. Victims get viewed from the standpoint that they are solely responsible for that state of victimization. The debate on which theory best depicts the reality of the situation has been on the table for several decades with no conclusive answer. It is possible that adults might have exhibited a different pattern. However, the findings do not suggest that there is a distinct way adults might have responded.
Keywords: Victimization, Crime, Victimology

Schreck, C. J., Ousey, G. C., Fisher, B. S., & Wilcox, P. (2012). Examining what makes violent crime victims unique: Extending statistical methods for studying specialization to the analysis of crime victims.

Journal of quantitative criminology, 28(4), 651-671.
Summary of article
The field of victimization exists in fragments where several theories exist. There exist approaches focusing on victims of violence and victims of other crimes. Theorizing within victimization studies intends to locate and explain specific types of victims. Up to this date, empirical research on the integrity of any theory is inconclusive and limited, thus the reason why the researchers undertook the study.
Schreck et al. (2012) undertook a study to determine the factors that make violent crime victims unique. During the study, the researchers had the objectives of understanding why the majority of research focuses on certain types of victims; and if factors that render people crime victims are distinct per case. Also, the researchers examined how and if risk factors associated with crime victimization differ from those attributed to nonviolent crime victimization. However, what stands out throughout the paper is the addressing of shortcomings apparent in the past and present victimization studies.
More than three thousand youth from Kentucky helped the researchers during the study period. In addition to having persons on the ground, the paper employed the Item Response Theory as advanced by Osgood and Schreck. Using of the theory was a necessity for the research to unearth the properties and predictors of what leads to crime victimization due to specific types of criminal activities. Dependent, independent, and control variables got utilized during the study. Under Independent variables, impulsivity and violent subculture helped develop the paper. For control variables, demographic controls and other controls such as friends’ tendency to engage in violence got utilized.
The study came to a finding that crime victims experience different consequences; however, some victims showed a predictable tendency towards violent criminalization. In conclusion, use of a correct approach might add understanding on the causes of victimization. Statistical methods meant for studying offense specialization may help future academicians in the field of victimology.
Relationship of article to lecture material
The report by Schreck et al. (2012)relates to what Karmen (2012)discusses in Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Schreck et al. (2012) examine the factors that distinguish crime victims from other victims who fall victims dues to varied reasons. As opposed to Karmen and Andrew (2012) who dig deeper into victimization and victimology, Schreck et al. (2012) pursue a narrow field of victimology by focusing only on crime victims. Schreck et al. (2012) undertake to explore how offenders turn victims and why they quickly get into victimization. Contrary to theoretical expectations as laid out in the book by Karmen and Andrew (2012), the researcher found out that males were more susceptible to crime especially under violent victimization than they showed towards nonviolent victimization. As much as Schreck et al. (2012) wish to explore uncharted waters, they keep refereeing to the typological theories of victimization as studied by Karmen and Andrew (2012).
Analysis of article from own viewpoint
The report by Schreck et al. (2012) appeals to the victim precipitation theory. Victims get viewed from the standpoint that they are solely responsible for that state of victimization. For example, males are prone to get victimized due to their higher tendency of committing crimes. From the results of the study, victims do passively or actively initiate a criminal act that later renders them victims of the same crime. It is not necessary the commission of a crime that would make one a victim but also be in a position where someone of influence is likely to take advantage. Some of the situations people find themselves in by creating the circumstances themselves include, job status, successes, love interests, among many other cases.
In the conclusion of the study, the researchers tend to ignore their findings by asking the questions bordering on the best theory on criminalization. Schreck et al. (2012) continue to weigh between typological and general approaches in so far as their importance towards victimization understanding is concerned.
As much as a more substantial portion of the article by Schreck et al. (2012) tends to reflect on the principles of ‘The Victim Precipitation Theory,’ many generalizations do not reflect reality (Harper, 2014). The debate on which theory best depicts the reality of the situation has been on the table for several decades with no conclusive answer.
Schreck et al. (2012) derived data from children and adolescents; this might have been the reason for the typological flow of the research. Children and adolescents exhibit a pattern in all their social life; hence, victimization cannot get ruled out. It is possible that adults might have presented a different design. However, the findings do not suggest that there is a distinct way adults might have responded.
Questions raised by the article
Schreck et al. (2012) pose the following question in the paper. Does crime specialization contribute in any way to criminal victimization? Are there general theories that are better suited to predict patterns of victimization give that the models do vary from one victim to the other? The paper raises only two questions that the researchers explore in the article while emphasizing the objectives of the study.

References
Harper, L. (2014). The Four Theories of Victimization. Soapboxie. Retrieved 16 January 2018, from https://soapboxie.com/government/The-Four-Theories-of-Victimization
Karmen, A. (2012). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Cengage Learning.
Schreck, C. J., Ousey, G. C., Fisher, B. S., & Wilcox, P. (2012). Examining what makes violent crime victims unique: Extending statistical methods for studying specialization to the analysis of crime victims. Journal of quantitative criminology, 28(4), 651-671