PREDICTING THE CHANCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM SOMEDAY: PROJECTING CUMULATIVE RISKS
Yearly victimization rates might lull some people into a false sense of security. Annual rates give the impression that crime is a rare event. Only a hand- ful of people out of every thousand fall prey to offenders; most people get through a year unscathed. But fears about victimization do not conform to a January-to-December cycle. People worry that they might be robbed, raped, or mur- dered at some point during their lives. As the years
go by, the small annual rates can add up to a formi- dable level for individuals who fall into several high-risk categories.
Lifetime likelihoods are estimates of the cumulative risks of victimization, viewed over a span of 60 or more years (from age 12 into the 70s, the average life expectancy in the United States today). These projections yield a very different pic- ture of the seriousness of the contemporary crime problem. What appears to be a rare event in any given year looms as a real possibility over the course of an entire lifetime (Koppel, 1987), according to the gloomy projections in Table 4.10.
(Note the difference between lifetime likeli- hoods and prevalence rates. A prevalence rate refers to the proportion of the population that has already experienced victimization. It adds together the cur- rent year’s casualties to those who suffered during previous years. Expressed as a fraction, the numera- tor would be this year’s new cases plus a larger number of old or preexisting cases from previous years; the denominator would be the size of the population. Lifetime likelihoods are estimates about what the grand total might be in the years ahead, calculated by projecting current rates into the future.)
Over a span of about 60 years, nearly every- body will experience at least one theft, and most people may eventually suffer three or more thefts, according to the projections made on the basis of the relatively high rates of reported crimes that pre- vailed during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Although the chance that a girl or woman will be forcibly raped in a given year is minuscule, it rises to a lifetime threat of 80 per 1,000, or 8 percent (about 1 female in every 12). For black females, the risk is somewhat greater (at 11 percent, or nearly one in nine) over a lifetime. (Note that these projections don’t differentiate between date rape, acquaintance rape, and attacks by strangers— see Chapter 10.) Robbery is a more common crime, so the projection is that about 30 percent of the population will be robbed at least once over a 60-year period. Of this group, 5 percent will be robbed twice, and 1 percent will be robbed three or more times.
A CL OSE R LOOK AT T H E V I C T IMS OF IN T ERP E RSO N AL C R IME S OF V IOL E N C E AN D T H E FT 129
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Taking differential risks by sex and race into account, males are more likely to be robbed at least once in their lives (37 percent) than females (22 per- cent), and blacks are more likely to be robbed one or more times than whites (51 percent compared to 27 percent). When it comes to assault, the terms like- lihood and probability take on their everyday meanings as well as their special statistical connotations. Being assaulted at least once in a lifetime is probable for most people—roughly three out of every four per- sons. (However, this alarming prediction includes failed attempts to inflict physical injury, threats of bodily harm that were not carried out, minor scuffles, and intrafamily violence.) Males face a greater likeli- hood of becoming embroiled in a fight someday than females (82 percent compared to 62 percent).
Similarly, the projected cumulative risks are unnerving for property crimes committed against households (not individuals) over a time span of 20 years (not a lifetime of over 60 years starting at age 12). Based on the relatively high rates of bur- glary that prevailed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the prediction was that over 70 percent of all families would experience a burglary or an attempted break-in over the next 20 years, and nearly one quarter would suffer twice, and about one in seven would be targeted three times or more. On the other hand, only a little less than 20 percent would lose a car to thieves over a 20- year span (see the rows in Table 4.10).
However, the mathematical and sociological assumptions underlying these unnerving projections
T A B L E 4.10 Chances of Becoming a Victim over a Lifetime
Type of Victimization and Person’s Race, Sex, and Age
Percentage of Persons Who Will Be Victimized Someday over the Next 60 years
Once or more Once Twice Three times
or more
Rape All females, over a lifetime beginning at age 12 8 8 — — Whites 8* 7 — — Blacks 11 10 1 __
Robbery All persons, over a lifetime beginning at age 12 30* 25 5 1
Males 37 29 7 — Females 22* 19 2 — Whites 27 23 4 4 Blacks 51 35 12 —
Assaults All persons, over a lifetime beginning at age 12 74 35 24 15
Males 82 31 26 25 Females 62 37 18 7 Whites 74* 35 24 16 Blacks 73* 35 25 12
Burglary All households, over a span of 20 years 72 36 23 14 Motor Vehicle Theft All households, over a span of 20 years 19 17 2 __
NOTES: *Figures do not add up to total shown in “once or more column” because of rounding. Estimates include attempts. Projections are based on average victimization rates calculated by the National Crime Survey (earlier name for the NCVS) for the years 1975–1984; for rape, 1973–1982. ___ indicates that the lifetime likelihood is miniscule, less than 0.5 percent. For burglary and motor vehicle theft, the unit of analysis is households, not individuals; and the time span is only 20 years, not 60 years or more.
SOURCE: Adapted from Koppel, 1987.
130 CH APT ER 4
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
are very complex and subject to challenge. The calculations were based on estimates derived by averaging victimization rates for the years 1975 to 1984, and then extrapolating these numbers into the future (Koppel, 1987). If crime rates drop sub- stantially over the next 40 years or so, as they already have during the 1990s and 2000s, these pro- jections will turn out to be overly pessimistic. Con- versely, if the crime problem intensifies during the next few decades of the twenty-first century, the real odds will be much greater than the percentages in Table 4.10.
Lifetime likelihoods of being murdered also have been computed. Unlike the projections above, which are based on NCVS findings, mur- der risk estimates are derived from UCR data. Dif- ferential cumulative risks can be presented as ratios, such as “1 out of every x people will be murdered.” All the remaining individuals (x 1) within this category are expected to die from diseases and other natural causes, accidents, or suicides. A small x indicates a grave danger. Over- all, roughly 1 American out of every 200 will die a violent death (based on the homicide levels of the late 1990s). But the risks vary tremendously, depending on personal attributes, especially sex and race. In general, males are more likely to be slain than females, and blacks are more likely than whites. But when data for both sex and race is included, black females turn out to be in greater
danger of being murdered (1 out of every 171) than white males (1 out of every 241). White females have the least to fear, relatively speaking, of the four groupings (1 will be killed out of every 684). But the prospects facing black males are frightening. If the rates of the late 1990s continue over the decades, 1 out of every 35 black males (about 3 percent) eventually will become a victim of homicide (FBI, 1999). In the early 1980s, the crime problem was more severe so the projected threat was even greater: the prediction was that 1 out of every 21 black males (nearly 5 percent) would die violently (Langan, 1985).
The recognition of differential risks touches off another round of questions for victimologists to grapple with as they analyze UCR and NCVS data. Why does the burden of victimization fall so heavily on some groups of people and not others? Did crime victims do something “wrong” to jeop- ardize their well-being, or were their misfortunes basically due to bad luck or fate? What can each person—who by definition is a potential target— do to minimize risks? Are there policies the govern- ment or society can implement to help all of its members lead safer lives? To what degree is an indi- vidual responsible for his or her own future, and to what extent do forces beyond any individual’s abil- ity to control determine the risks of becoming a crime victim? These controversial issues are care- fully investigated in the next chapter.
SUMMARY
This chapter focused on the people harmed by inter- personal crimes, especially acts of violence by mur- derers, assailants, and robbers; but also by stealing, like burglary, motor vehicle theft, and identity theft.
Various groupings of people face different risks of being harmed by criminals. International comparisons demonstrate that societal conditions and traditions greatly affect a country’s murder rates: The United States stands out as suffering higher rates of violence than similar advanced industrialized societies. Where a person lives and interacts with others is a major determinant of differential risks.
Trends capture changes in victimization rates over time, while patterns indicate connections between the attributes of victims and the frequency with which they are targeted. Data from the UCR and the NCVS indicates that many types of victi- mizations are taking place far less frequently in recent years than during their peak period of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Murders and serious assaults are down sharply since the early 1990s. The gravest risks still are faced by poor young men in urban settings. Robberies take place much less frequently as
A CL OSE R LOOK AT T H E V I C T IMS OF IN T ERP E RSO N AL C R IME S OF V IOL E N C E AN D T H E FT 131
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
well, but the same categories of people—poor young men in big cities—still are the most likely targets.
The differential risks of experiencing a property crime—burglary, motor vehicle theft, and a stolen identity—vary substantially by location more so than by the characteristics of the persons who are directly affected. Whereas burglaries and vehicle thefts have dropped sharply over the decades, identity theft has mushroomed into a common aggravation—and for
some, a huge source of distress—during the twenty- first century.
Cumulative risks indicate the odds of being vic- timized over the course of a lifetime: suffering an assault someday is a danger most people will endure; and experiencing a burglary over a 20-year span is likely for most households Studying the reasons for differential risks yields theories that explain why cer- tain groups are more vulnerable to attack than others. This will be the focus of the next chapter.