THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF POSSIBILITIES: RECOGNIZING COMPLETE INNOCENCE AND FULL RESPONSIBILITY
A typology is a classification system that aids in the understanding of what a group has in common and how it differs from others. Over the decades, victi- mologists have devised many typologies to try to illustrate the degree of shared responsibility, if any, that injured parties might bear in particular incidents. Some of the categories of people identified in typol- ogies include those who are “ideal” (above criticism), “culturally legitimate and appropriate” (seen as fair game, outcasts), “deserving” (asking for trouble), “consenting” (willing), and “recidivist” (chronic) (see Fattah, 1991; also Mendelsohn, 1956; Fattah, 1967; Lamborn, 1968; Schafer, 1977; Sheley, 1979).
Up to this point, the degree of responsibility a victim might share with an offender has ranged from “some” to a “great deal.” But the spectrum of possibilities extends further in each direction. A typology of shared responsibility must include at least two more categories in order to be exhaus- tive. At one extreme is “no shared responsibility at all” or complete innocence. The other endpoint can be labeled as full responsibility.
Several teenagers have a beef with some boys across the street. They go up to the roof of a nearby building and start shooting at the rival group using an auto- matic pistol. A 34-year-old mother, who is waiting to
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 137
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
pick up her children from school, hears the sounds of gunfire and tries to shield several nearby youngsters by throwing herself on top of them. She is fatally struck in the chest, and two other bystanders are wounded by the stray bullets. (Baker and Maag, 2011) Completely innocent individuals, such as the
mother killed in the tragedy described above, can- not be faulted for what happened to them. In some cases, they were targeted at random and suffered simply because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Others were crime-conscious peo- ple who tried to avoid trouble. They did what they reasonably could to reduce the risks they faced. To avoid violence, they did nothing to attract the attention of predators and nothing to incite other- wise law-abiding people to attack them. Blameless targets of property crimes took proactive steps to safeguard their possessions in anticipation of the possibility of arson, vandalism, burglary, larceny, or vehicle theft. They did all they could to hinder rather than help any would-be thieves hungry for their possessions.
If taking precautions, keeping a low profile, and minding one’s own business qualify as the basis for blamelessness and complete innocence, then at the other extreme, total complicity becomes the defining characteristic for full responsibility. Logically, a victim can bear sole responsibility only when there is no offender at all. Individuals who are totally responsible for what happened are, by definition, really not victims at all. They suffered no harm from lawbreakers and actually are offenders posing as victims for some ulterior motive. Phony complainants usually seek either reimbursement from private insurance policies or government aid for imaginary losses. They file false claims and thereby commit fraud. For instance, someone who falls down a flight of steps might insist he was pushed by a robber. Fake victims may have motives other than financial gain. Some people may pretend to have been harmed in order to cover up what really occurred. For example, a husband who gambled away his paycheck might tell his wife and detectives that he was held up on the way home.