Abstract
Victimization hasn’t always been a topic of great discussion among criminologists. Although discourse on crime and criminality can be traced back several centuries (Jeffrey, 1959), despite a few exceptions (e.g., Mendelsohn, 1956; Schaefer, 1968; von Hentig, 1948; Wolfgang, 1958), scholarship on victimization did not really take off until the late 1970s. Sparked in part by the Crime Victims’ Rights Movement, the release of large-scale victimization data (i.e., the National Crime Survey), and new theoretical developments—namely, lifestyle (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978) and routine activity (Cohen & Felson, 1979) theories—scholars realized that a lot could be gained from studying crime from the vantage point of the victim. And even though the victimization literature is still young by most criminological standards, the past few decades have seen tremendous growth in victimization scholarship—particularly in the areas of street violence, child maltreatment, intimate partner abuse, and adolescent victimization.
Subsequently, this research has taught us a lot. For example, we know that victimization is unevenly distributed among the population, where victimization rates tend to be highest in structurally disadvantaged communities and among people of color. We also know that overall victimization rates are highest among young males (although rates of sexual assault and intimate partner violence are highest among females) and that individuals’ risks of victimization peak during adolescence and decline into adulthood. And we know that victimization often results in many negative behavioral, health, and social consequences over the life span, especially when it happens during childhood. Various criminological perspectives have also been modified to account for victimization and explain some of these patterns, including self-control (Schreck, 1999), general strain (Agnew, 2002), subcultural (Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2006), and social disorganization theories (Rountree, Land, & Miethe, 1994).
Yet, despite all that we have learned, there is still a lot that we do not know. Theoretical advancements have slowed in recent years, and fundamental questions still remain about the causes and consequences of victimization in society, and how to best intervene and support victims of crime. For instance, what (if anything) are the causes of victimization? Why do some victims suffer worse consequences than others? Why is victimization concentrated across time and space? What can the state do (if anything) to prevent victimization? Can similar interventions work for victims of different crimes, ages, and backgrounds? Admittedly, there are no easy answers to these questions.
I wish to argue here, however, that if we want to answer these and other prominent questions facing the field, then we need to more fully integrate the study of victimization into the life-course perspective (Turanovic, 2018). The life-course perspective can be thought of as a broad intellectual paradigm that is concerned with documenting and explaining within-individual changes over the life span (Laub, 2006). It incorporates principles from a wide variety of disciplines (e.g., psychology, biology, sociology, and history) to explain how behaviors develop and change over time. With respect to the study of crime and deviance, the life-course perspective focuses on three primary areas: the development of offending and antisocial behavior, risk factors for crime at different ages, and the effects of life events and life transitions on offending over time (Farrington, 2003). Over the past few decades, the life-course perspective has become so ubiquitous that it is often viewed as the organizing framework for the contemporary study of crime. As Cullen (2011:310) put it, “life-course criminology is criminology.”
Life-course victimology, however, hasn’t quite gotten off the ground yet (at least not to the same degree). With the notable exceptions of child abuse and gendered pathways scholarship—two areas which have always embraced a life-course focus—the bulk of our theories and research on victimization take a more static, rather than dynamic, approach. But what if we could better understand stability and change in victimization and its consequences over time? If we could, perhaps we would be able to enhance existing theories and guide effective policies and support interventions for victims. It was with this in mind that the special issue was put together.
There are five articles that appear in the issue that bring us closer to addressing these and other pressing concerns. First up is the article by Grubb and Posick (2018). This study is among the first to formally apply Agnew’s (2005) integrated theory of crime to the study of victimization. Using data on youth from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, Grubb and Posick examine the influence of various life domains on victimization (i.e., domains of the self, family, school, and peers) and assess how well these different domains predict victimization both cross-sectionally and longitudinally.
Next, Aaltonen, Kivivuori, and Kuitunen (2018) take a unique theoretical and methodological approach to examining the victim–offender overlap. Drawing on principles of revenge, and using data on police-reported assaults in Finland, they examine how individuals’ violent-offending rates increase and decrease leading up to and following a victimization incident, as well as how victimization rates increase and decrease following incidents of violent crime. They also explore whether victimization and offending incidents that occur closer in time tend to involve the same parties, which would suggest that revenge facilitates the victim–offender overlap.
Erdmann and Reinecke (2018) also examine the victim–offender overlap, but from a developmental perspective. More specially, the authors assess whether victimization and offending follow similar developmental trajectories and whether the strength of the victim–offender overlap changes with age. Seven waves of longitudinal panel data from Germany are used to assess these patterns throughout adolescence and during the transition to early adulthood.
Also drawing from a developmental perspective, Alexander, Serrano-Amerigo, and Harrelson (2018) shed important light on the relationship between childhood polyvictimization and maladaptive life outcomes. In their study of college women in a U.S. Southern state, the authors examine whether experiencing multiple forms of victimization in childhood (i.e., polyvictimization) leads to risky sexual behaviors in early adulthood. The authors also determine whether polyvictimization measures better predict risky sexual behaviors than single-category indicators of victimization.
And last but certainly not least, Pratt (2018) tackles the topic of technology-based victimization over the life course. Drawing from the best available evidence, Pratt dispels the commonly held myth that the elderly are the most likely targets of techno-crimes. He also puts forth a series of helpful new directions to advance future life-course research on technology-based forms of victimization.
I was thrilled to receive such an eclectic set of submissions that focused on various forms of victimization at different stages in the life span and across diverse cultural contexts. In the end, my hope is that the work presented in this special issue sparks further interest in this important topic and gets us one step closer toward a better understanding of the sources and consequences of victimization over the life course.