MISTAKES INDIVIDUALS MAKE: FACILITATION
Arguments stressing personal accountability focus on the notions of victim facilitation, precipitation, and provocation. All three of these blameworthy behaviors are derived from the broader theme of shared responsibility. Each concept describes the specific, identifiable, and undesirable actions taken by certain individuals immediately before they were harmed. Provocation is the most serious charge that can be leveled at an injured party, while facilitation
explore the victim’s intentions. (Franklin and Franklin, 1976, p. 134)
An analytical framework must be found that salvages the positive contributions of the concept of victim pre- cipitation, while avoiding its flaws—its tendency to consider a victim’s provocations as both a necessary and sufficient condition for an offense to occur; its portrayal of some offenders as unrealistically passive; and its questionable moral and legal implications about who is the guilty party. (Sheley, 1979, pp. 126–127)
Crime victimization is a neglected social problem in part because victim precipitation studies typically fail to articulate the distress of the victims and instead suggest that some may be to blame for their own plight. The inferences often drawn from these studies—that some individuals can steer clear of trouble by avoiding certain situations—suffer from the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of treating the victims’ behavior as both
necessary and sufficient to cause the crime. (Teevan, 1979, p. 7)
To accept precipitation and provocation as legitimate excuses for attenuating responsibility for violent crime is false, illogical, psychologically harmful to victims, and socially irresponsible…. Victim-blaming has been injected into the literature on crime by well- meaning but offender-oriented professionals. It becomes the basis and excuse for the indifference shown to supposedly “undeserving” victims. (Reiff, 1979, pp. 12, 14)
The eager acceptance of arguments about victim responsibility by scholars and the public alike is unde- served; these accounts of why the crime occurred often lack empirical verification, can lead to cruel insensitiv- ity to the suffering of the victim, and tend to exonerate or even justify the acts of the offenders, especially rapists. (Anderson and Renzetti, 1980, p. 325)
TH E O N GO IN G C ON T RO VE RSY O VE R S HARE D RE S P ON S IB I L I T Y 143
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
is the least serious. Unfortunately, these three terms have been used somewhat loosely and inconsis- tently by criminologists and victimologists to the point that important distinctions have been blurred or buried.
The term facilitation ought to be reserved for situations in which victims carelessly and inadver- tently make it easier for a thief to steal. Those who negligently and unwittingly assist their offenders share a minor amount of blame. They increase the risks of losing their own property by their thought- less actions. Facilitation is more like a catalyst in a chemical reaction that, given the right ingredients and conditions, speeds up the interaction. Facilitat- ing victims attract criminally inclined people to their poorly guarded possessions and thereby influ- ence the spatial distribution of crime, but not the number of incidents.
Auto theft, burglary, and identity theft are three property crimes where the problem of facili- tation can arise. A motorist who thoughtlessly exits his vehicle but leaves the engine running can be considered blameworthy if a juvenile joyrider seizes the opportunity and impulsively hops behind the wheel and drives off. Similarly, a ransacked home is the price a person might pay for neglecting to observe standard security measures. Those who are careless about protecting their personal informa- tion are highly susceptible to identity theft.