To counter this perception there is an assumption that corporations act with integrity and do not knowingly provide flawed goods or services, or at the very least will rectify the situation without fuss.
However, in the competitive world of business, organizations continually seek ways to maximize profit sometimes at the expense of the oblivious customer. Within the business world, entrepreneurs seek innovative ways to improve their business and increase profit by bending or even breaking rules in a manner that could be considered reckless or even bordering on illegal.
Buchhandler-Raphael similarly criticizes the overcriminalization of consensual crimes. Brown and Jackson is a widely read undergraduate textbook which explores taxation and public expenditure.
Brown, C. Public sector economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. This book explains the relationship between government income through taxation and its ability to finance services and its relationship to taxpayers whether they are individuals, householders, or corporate entities. Buchhandler-Raphael, M. Drugs, dignity, and the danger: Human dignity as a constitutional constraint to limit overcriminalization.
Tennessee Law Review The article questions the justification for continuing criminalization of behaviors that either inflict harm on self or on other consenting adults. It also advocates consent as an acceptable form of defense.
Gorbert, J. Rethinking corporate crime. London: Butterworths. This is a critical examination of current criminal law as applied to business practice. It considers the ability of the legal system to control corporate criminality through a multi-disciplined approach. This book is suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate study. Hughes, B. Perhaps the most danger of aligning victim precipitation and victim blame comes in the form of legal attempts to understand victim and offender roles.
This may be in the form of the so-called partial defences, such as provocation, of the full defences, such as self defence. If there is a problem with doing this from the point of view of understanding the various roles in the crime, then it would be reasonable to assert that your problem is with the law, not with the theory of victim precipitation per se.
While this may be a problem for some, the outcome of any cases will likely hang on a large number of factors, only one of which is any identified precipitation. What is more, it could be said that considering the actions of the victim is only fair, giving the common but-for argument used in legal discourse.
Studying precipitation helps understand risk factors related not only to the initial victimisation but also to possible re-victimisation.
This means that those maladaptive behaviours which lead to crime are more likely to be repeated. Therefore, identifying and understanding the root cause of these can be useful in providing primary, secondary, and tertiary intervention so as to reduce or eliminate the harm or loss experienced by victims.
Indeed much of the work done by the author in helping victims of stalking has been in demonstrating the role their own behaviour has played and how to change this so as to reduce or totally eliminate the intrusions. Victim precipitation has been used in our understanding of victimisation for over sixty years or so now, during which time it has been studied and criticised. Research shows that precipitation occurs with some frequency, which one would consider enough of a reason to continue with study of the phenomenon.
Critics, however, argue that precipitation is tantamount to victim blaming and that, at the very least, use of the term and the theory behind it should stop. The purpose of this article and the works done by this author and others is to show that victim precipitation is still useful in understanding crime, and that beyond concerns about blame, may actually provide a positive contribution to reducing crime and victimisation.
At the very least we cannot profess to truly know what happened in a crime unless a full accounting of both the victim and offender behaviour has been undertaken.
Like it or not, victim precipitation will provide part of this understanding. I would like to thank Natasha Petroff, Juli Jalil, and Claire Ferguson, fellow authors on the full paper for their assistance in bringing my ideas about victim precipitation to form. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
Withdrawal Guidlines. Publication Ethics. Withdrawal Policies Publication Ethics. First, the current study measured fear of crime on campus generally, as other scholars have done Fisher et al, ; however, some recent research argues the need for asking respondents about their fear of specific types of crime Ferraro, , ; Wilcox et al, Therefore, future research may benefit by examining fear of specific types of crime for example, IPV, sexual assault, stalking, and so on.
Second, although the current study examined specific types of personal crimes including stalking, sexual assault, family violence and IPV , the measure for property crime victimization is broad and includes all forms of property crime. As mentioned earlier, fear of crime has been traditionally associated with more personal and violent types of crimes and the nature and type of personal crimes tends to vary substantially more than property crime victimization.
However, given that victims of property crime reported being more fearful of crime than non-victims, future research examining the relationship between fear and victimization by various types of property crime would contribute to the literature.
Third, given the college environment, an examination of other features of students' lives may be especially helpful in teasing out the factors associated with campus fear for example, night classes, residential location, and so on. Fourth, the response rate 19 per cent is low.
Although some other web-based surveys report similarly low response rates Couper, , it is important to note that this is a limitation of the current research. Finally, these findings and the following implications for security should be interpreted with caution given generalizability concerns. Certainly, future research could build upon the current study by addressing many of these issues, perhaps by employing qualitative methods. These findings have several important implications for security.
Females are generally more fearful across circumstances, even when controlling for variation in victimization and key sociological measures such as vicarious victimization. No doubt, preventing victimization is a critical undertaking for campus police agencies, especially given that crime victimization operates differently on fear of crime among women.
Perhaps female sexual assault victims are less fearful on campus at night because they were victimized by acquaintances rather than by strangers. It is also possible that victims of stalking are more fearful on campus during the day because they experienced stalking during daylight hours. In addition to women being at higher risk for some types of victimization, fear may be a response that is determined by physiological and early developmental factors, including divergent gender-based socialization and normative expectations.
This suggests two general possibilities: 1 women are physiologically more fearful across conditions, in which case fear cannot be mitigated in a comprehensive way by any set of policies or prevention efforts; or 2 women are socialized to be more fearful, regardless of experience, in which case efforts to educate the community on the prevalence and impact of crime in a way that promotes understanding rather than apprehension may be beneficial.
Greater understanding of these processes may aid in developing interventions to address fear of crime on campus differentially for males and females, who apparently experience campus fear in different ways. Second, these findings draw out an interesting subtext that demonstrates a potential relationship between fear of crime and race.
Although hate crime victimization was not specifically measured in our survey, this type of crime may be much more salient to minorities than to Whites, in part because of the long history of anti-minority victimization in the United States. This influence should not be understated given the geographical context of the study the South and the composition of the student body from which the sample was drawn more than 65 per cent White. This presents another implication for security: some individuals may be simultaneously fearful of crime and distrustful of the police.
To the extent that police are viewed with mistrust or disdain Alpert and Dunham, , they may not be viewed as capable of adequately fulfilling the crime prevention role. Policies that emphasize community-building, even in the context of a college campus whose residents are highly transient in the span of as little as 3—5 years, may serve a dual purpose to promote the university's image and reduce aggregate levels of fear among minorities.
Third, it appears that, consistent with prior research on this topic, fear of crime is associated with very different covariates depending on the time of day. In the daytime, several factors related to individual-level victimization experiences were identified as significant predictors of fear whereas at night, these effects largely disappeared.
Sloan et al's 2-year panel study of students, faculty and staff showed that a follow-up survey after several campus police safety improvements resulted in little change in fear or perceived risk of crime victimization. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to security must take into effect not only the logistical challenges in different contexts for example, improving outside lighting requires capital expenditures, electricity, infrastructure, and so on , but also the psychological processes underlying individuals' responses.
Fear may very well be more pervasive at night, but given the comparatively small number of covariates, it may be easier to target in narrowly focused interventions. Future research may be able to disentangle these effects by employing qualitative methods that focus on campus security, crime victimization and fear. Administrators and law enforcement personnel should continue to be sensitive to opinions and suggestions from students, faculty and staff, who may be leveraged as informal agents of social control in the campus context.
Overall, these findings present interesting challenges to policymakers, campus officials and law enforcement personnel. Campus security has perhaps never occupied a more visible place in public discourse given recent, high-profile tragedies.
Traditional approaches to improving campus security, such as improving public disclosure about the nature and quantity of crimes on college campuses as in the Clery Act see Fisher, , posit that the public are safer when they are more aware of trends in victimization on campuses. Along these lines, our findings indicate that crime victimization is associated with fear on campus, both during the day and night.
Therefore, addressing fear and victimization on campus may be of increasing interest to university administrators. Assessing where on- or off-campus and when day or night students experience different types of crime victimization, as well as examining students' fear of specific types of crimes, may be the first steps in addressing the dynamic relationship between victimization and fear among men and women on campus.
The school shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Virginia Tech on 16 April occurred during the time data were collected for the current research. It is difficult to determine the effect, if any, this incident had on the response rate or answers to survey questions. The authors conducted a second, independent web-based survey of the same length and with the same population in September and found a similar response rate.
It is important to note that other studies examining fear of crime have utilized a variety of measures, including general fear and fear of specific types of crime for example, Wilcox et al, The regressions estimated for the present study utilized a procedure in which negative predicted probabilities can occur, although this is not necessarily a critical flaw, nor does it necessarily cast doubt on the interpretation of the findings Williams, The negative predicted probabilities are possible because the model is estimated without the constraint of parallel lines, meaning that some lines may converge in negative space McCullagh and Nelder, Although the final results presented herein use a combined scale for three types of vicarious victimization, the regression models were also estimated using each of the three types as separate independent variables.
When the three vicarious victimization types were separated, none of the three terms achieved significance; thus, the substantive conclusions were identical no matter which method was utilized. The procedure, called gologit2, is available as a downloadable ADO extension in Stata version 8 or higher.
A test for the equality of coefficients across models was not included in these results owing to the nature of the analysis. As models were estimated using the partial proportional odds approach, in which some independent variables were constrained by the parallel lines assumption whereas others were not, some independent terms in the models possess multiple coefficients for example, one for each category of the dependent variable.
Agnew, R. Criminology 30 1 : 47— Article Google Scholar. Alpert, G. Google Scholar. Barberet, R. Book Google Scholar. Brant, R. Biometrics 46 4 : — Chiricos, T. Criminology 35 1 : — Couper, M. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 4 : — Dull, R. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12 5 : — Ferraro, K. Social Forces 75 2 : — Fisher, B. Justice Quarterly 20 3 : — In: B. Fisher and J. III Sloan eds. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing. Garofalo, J. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 1 : 80— Gibson, C.
Justice Quarterly 19 3 : — Gover, A. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23 12 : — Jennings, W. A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education 18 2 : — Lane, J. Justice Quarterly — McCreedy, K. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 12 1 : 69— McCullagh, P.
Nobles, M. Justice Quarterly, in press. Parker, K. The Journal of Social Psychology 5 : — Skogan, W. Crime and Delinquency 33 1 : — Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sloan III, J. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 12 1 : 81— Straus, M. Journal of Family Issues 17 3 : — Tjaden, P. NCJ Warr, M. In: D. Duffee ed. Measurement and Analysis of Crime: Criminal Justice Wilcox, P. Crime and Delinquency 53 2 : — Williams, R. The Stata Journal 6 1 : 58— Download references. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar.
Correspondence to Kathleen A Fox.
0コメント