The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

The Interface between the Scottish Police Service and the Public as Victims of Crime: Victim Perceptions

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Research literature about the victims of crime has tended, over the past twenty years, to be dominated by a single major theme; it is the effect upon victims of the lack of information available to them about developments in their case from the police and the courts. The comprehensive study by Newburn and Merry : "Keeping in Touch - Police/Victim Communication in Two Areas" (1990) covered in detail much of the ground reported by their predecessors Shapland, Willmore and Duff (1985) and subsequently revisited by researchers over the next fifteen years. Indeed, there is a sense of deja vu when reading much of the later material.

While the present study is concerned with the victims of volume crime in Scotland (i.e. housebreaking and vehicle-related incidents), which accounted for 26% of all crimes recorded in Scotland in 2001-2002, the literature under review did not often identify volume crime as a separate category when referring to the victims' perceptions of the police. However, there was usually a distinction made between the impact on victims of different types of offence. This is referred to in this chapter where appropriate.

The present victimisation study is prompted by the Scottish Strategy for Victims launched in January 2001 and endorsed by the Scottish Parliament. The Strategy document listed a number of key principles, including:

• A recognition of the importance of the victim and the need to provide practical and emotional support to assist the victim to recover, and to help towards prevention of further crime or secondary victimisation;
• A commitment to provide explanations for victims about the criminal justice and other processes with which they are involved;
• A recognition that victims have a legitimate interest in the cases with which they are involved and so have a contribution to make;
• A commitment to offer victims information on the progress of their cases; and
• A recognition that victims should have a voice throughout all stages of the criminal justice system.

The policy objectives underpinning the three main aims of the Strategy are:

• the provision of emotional and practical support to victims;
• the provision of information to victims; and
• greater participation of victims in the criminal justice system.

(Scottish Strategy for Victims : Progress Report, 2003, p.4.)

Williams (1999b, p. 14) has argued that "victims' needs have been the subject of lip-service, but have not received the degree of attention devoted to offenders." He found the situation in the U.K. to be rather similar to that in the Netherlands. There, Wemmers (1996) had shown that the 1988 legislation, which required the police and prosecution to keep victims informed of the progress of cases and of their rights to restitution, was poorly implemented. Only a third of the Dutch victims who sought information actually received it, and over 70% of those suffering financial loss received no compensation.

More optimistically, Zedner (2002, p.419) took the view that at least:

"victims, once on the margins of criminological research, are now a central focus of academic research. . . . the victim has moved from being a `forgotten actor` to become a key player in the judicial process. The promotion of victims' interests at both national and international level has prompted debate about victims' rights and the setting of standards of service. For victims are now the subject of political as much as criminological attention."

Possibly both Williams and Zedner were right because a flurry of academic research and political agonising (and even of official guidance) does not necessarily result in effective administrative action - though, as the Strategy paper above illustrates, it may well provide an important precursor.

The present review is concerned principally with research literature which deals with the degrees of satisfaction expressed by victims about their experience of the police and, more generally, of the criminal justice system.

INITIAL CONTACTS BETWEEN VICTIMS AND THE POLICE

Newburn and Merry (1990) thought it probable that " many victims report offences to the police despite the fact that they view the offence as trivial and do not regard themselves as a victim. . . .[yet]. . . . they still regard it as important that it should be reported." (p.6). Indeed, 40% of their respondents said that they appreciated that there was little that the police could be expected to do. With these provisos, the reasons given for reporting an offence to the police were given as:

Beginning with the initial contact between the victim and the police, Newburn and Merry (1990) interviewed 100 victims drawn from two areas and concurred with the findings of Shapland et al. (1985) and of Smith and Grey (1985) which noted that while some had encountered difficulties with the 999 system or when telephoning their local police station, the majority of victims had experienced no problems when reporting an offence. Indeed, " the majority expressed neither dissatisfaction nor any explicit thoughts about how the contact might have been improved" (Newburn and Merry, 1990, pp.5-6)

Response time would seem likely to be a significant element in determining a victim's perception of police effectiveness, although studies which combine discussion of a variety of different types of offence may fail to establish the precise meaning of aggregated data on satisfaction in this area. MacLeod, Prescott and Carson (1996) interviewed 255 victims of crime in three Scottish cities and found that 70% reported that the police had arrived within sixty minutes of being called to an incident and that 86% were satisfied with the time taken by the police to respond. There has been surprisingly little other research in this area.

With regard to the professional conduct of the initial contact, Newburn and Merry found that 85% of the victims in their survey were "satisfied or very satisfied" with the police. They noted also (p.37) that:

"Satisfaction and dissatisfaction appeared to be related to the manner in which the police were perceived by the victim to be dealing with the case. Concern, sympathy and interest led to feelings of satisfaction: conversely, where these were missing dissatisfaction ensued. The general demeanour and behaviour of the investigating officer appeared to be crucial, and this reinforces the message of Shapland et al's (1985) research that it is respect and concern that victims desire."

This finding is consistent with that of MacLeod, Prescott and Carson (1996) to whom 49% said that they felt that the police had done all that they could. Fifteen per cent of their respondents said that they were impressed with the promptness of the police response and the depth of investigation; and 7% were impressed by the generally sympathetic and helpful attitude of the officers.

The Progress Report on the Scottish Strategy for Victims (Scottish Executive, 2003, p. 9) noted perceptively that:

"Becoming a victim of crime can make an individual feel powerless and a lack of information about what is happening with their case can add to these feelings of helplessness. To many victims, the criminal justice process itself may seem remote and difficult to understand. However, access to information can do a great deal to help victims feel more in control."

KEEPING VICTIMS INFORMED

Once the initial contact is over the lack of follow-up information from the police to the victim has been a well-researched source of dissatisfaction. Newburn and Merry (1990) were told by all the 50 police officers in their sample that, during the initial contact with a victim, they gave their name and telephone number, and most officers said that they would write this information down for victims. It appeared that the principal reason for doing this was to enable victims to ring them up a day or two after the offence to provide further information. It was also to enable victims to make contact again to inquire about what was happening in their case. Officers said that whenever possible they would try to let the victim know when an offender had been apprehended, but none of the police recalled ever having had victims contacting them to ask for advice about what was likely to happen in court. They also said they had never been asked about possible compensation or how to contact a Victim Support scheme. Conversely, a number of the victims explained this reticence by suggesting that they did not realise that they were able to ask for information about the progress or outcome of their case. In fact, ten of the victims did actually ring the police, of whom seven said that they received a negative or unhelpful response.

Perhaps precisely because there is a number of practical barriers to the establishment of a robust information system for keeping victims of crime informed of the progress of their cases, there is a substantial body of research evidence about the difficulties of devising and maintaining effective channels of communication between the police, the other relevant authorities and agencies, and the victims during the progress of a case. Victims tend to assume that it is the job of the police to keep them informed, and do not necessarily understand the roles of the other criminal justice agencies in this respect. The various agencies do not necessarily communicate very well among themselves, adding to the complexity of the issue (see Crawford and Newburn, 2003, p. 227).

Newburn and Merry noted that " finding out what happened to the offender was described as being very important by most victims. It was the signal to them that the case had been officially closed." Nonetheless, whilst the police tended to inform victims when an arrest was made, they were much less likely to let them know the final outcome (1990, p.19). As Williams (1999a, p. 103) noted:

"Information is one of the needs most frequently identified in research about victims and communications failures are among the most frequent complaints of those victims expressing dissatisfaction with the service they receive from the courts and the police (see also Anderson and Leitch 1996; Mawby and Walklate 1994)."

The MVA Consultancy (1995) conducted research commissioned by the Scottish Office as part of a Crown Office review of its provisions for keeping victims informed about the progress of their cases. The 915 victims interviewed were broadly representative of the age and sex of all crime victims and of the distribution of offences. MVA found that the police considered themselves to be the main providers of information about the progress of cases and that this was generally the perception of victims.

Forty-seven per cent of all the respondents said that the police had contacted them directly with information, usually when they were told if anyone had been charged. 476 of the 915 victims reported that they had been provided with no up-date on their cases, with 89% of them saying that they had wanted information but did not get it. MVA (1995, p.1) commented that:

"A significant proportion of victims said they had not received information at key stages in their case. This included 35% of victims who said they had not yet been told whether anyone had been charged and a further 58% of victims who knew someone had been charged but had not been told the outcome of their case despite reporting the crime over one year ago."

Reasons given to MVA (p.4) by victims for wanting information were summarised under five main headings:

1. Curiosity - 40% - the victim being simply interested, or thinking that it would be nice to know if anyone had been charged, or a decision made to prosecute, etc.
2. Rights - 22% - with victims feeling that they have a right to certain information in relation to their case, so that the criminal justice agencies can be seen to be doing their job.
3. Anger - 19% - where victims experience anger and often need information to satisfy a need for retribution.
4. Fear - 16% - in which victims want information in connection with their case for personal safety reasons.
5. Financial -2% - when a victim wants information in connection with compensation and insurance.

Corrigan (2000), in the report of his research project into policing and the internet with a focus on customer service, referred to the MVA study and commented that:

"This study also examined the responsiveness to victims' information needs by prosecutors and courts. It was identified that these were exclusively reactive e.g. they may provide information if asked but they did not proactively offer information to victims. Indeed 14% of the sample discovered something relevant to their case e.g. court appearance or a decision not to prosecute, from a newspaper or from a third party as compared with the 15% who received similar information when they contacted the Sheriff Clerk/Procurator Fiscal."

Within the free text responses to this survey, there was a clear correlation between the lack of information and a perceived lack of activity or interest by the police and general criminal justice community.

"In terms of how information should be provided to victims, 40% expressed a preference for personal contact, with the remaining 60% preferring telephone, letter, leaflet, or other means. (It should be noted that this study pre-dated general acceptance of E-mail or internet as public communication media.) Some victims also reported difficulties experienced in identifying who 'their' investigating officer was and how/ when to contact this person."

(p.12)

During 1992/93 MacLeod, Prescott and Carson (1996) engaged in extensive interviews with 255 victims from Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow a year after the crimes had been reported. Sixty per cent said that they had not been informed about the outcome of police enquiries although most of them wished that they had been. Of the 40% who were informed, 80% expressed themselves satisfied with the outcome. The research does not report what percentage of victims recalled being told that they would be kept informed.

In terms of practical action the 2003 Progress Report of the Scottish Strategy for Victims referred to the distribution of over 225,000 Victims of Crime Information leaflets to health and community agencies in order to provide information about the criminal justice process in a clear and accessible way. Additionally, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has recently set up a Victim Information and Advice Service for vulnerable victims and those in the most serious cases in six of the eleven procurator fiscal areas. This is a part of the implementation of better support systems for victims of crime, about whom the Progress Report (p.7) remarked that:

"When an individual becomes a victim of crime, they will turn to the police, courts and prosecution service for action to deal with the offence itself, but they may also need support in helping them to deal with the impact of the crime on their life."

OTHER SOURCES OF ADVICE AND SUPPORT

In addition to the studies of the availability of timely information to victims of crime, there has been considerable research into the provision of advice and support services for victims. Ingram (2000) recorded his findings from the 2000 Scottish Crime Survey with regard to " the emotional reactions of victims to victimisation in 1999, other practical problems and inconveniences caused by incidents of crime and post-incident support needs, including awareness and use of Victim Support." He found that 34% of the 1070 victims interviewed for the Survey wanted some kind of post-incident support, but that over a third of this 34% of respondents had neither asked for nor received an offer of support. Of the total sample 76% said that they " had heard of Victim Support." The types of support most commonly mentioned by victims were: information from the police; someone to talk to or moral support; and protection from further victimisation or harassment.

Of the 1070 respondents, 31% said that they had asked for or had received support from a range of different people or organisations, but it was in only 3% of cases that victims had asked for or received an offer of help from Victim Support. Somewhat surprisingly 86% of the victims did not think that Victim Support would have been helpful. The reasons for this are not explored in the study. Ingram concluded that:

"The data reveal that there is a gap between support needs and provision, although this tends to be in relation to less serious cases. It is not clear if this is a gap that could usefully be filled by Victim Support, as the majority of victims did not think that it would have been useful to have been contacted by the service. It should be recognised, however, that such responses may reflect misconceptions about what it is that Victim Support does and the `types` of victims they exist to help."

Maguire and Kynch (2000) undertook a rather similar type of study into the public perceptions and victims' experiences of Victim Support as part of the 1998 British Crime Survey (i.e. in England and Wales). They found that among the victims of incidents of crime known to the police, the victim reported one or more needs in 63% of the cases: 29% wanted 'information from the police'; 19% needed 'someone to talk to'; 19% wanted 'protection from further victimisation'; and 14% wanted 'advice on security.' (p.8)

Maguire and Kynch correlated the extent to which these particular needs were expressed with whether or not help of any kind was actually asked for or offered from any source. Of the 19% who expressed a need for 'someone to talk to', most sought or received help, whereas the needs for information, advice and protection from further victimisation were more likely to remain unmet. Maguire and Kynch (p.11) concluded that:

"....only 61% of those expressing definite needs had been in contact with one or more potential providers of support or assistance; in other words, at least 39% could be said to have had 'unmet needs.' The bulk of this unmet need seems to have concerned information and advice; practical help; and protection from further victimisation; those with a need for 'someone to talk to' were more likely to have sought or received help. While it is possible that in many cases the needs expressed were fairly minor and/or temporary in nature, this appears to be a problem worthy of further investigation"

Williams (1999b) pointed to the danger of creating expectations which are unlikely to be met. In a phrase which might well be appreciated by police officers he remarked that " central government control has been increased and victims have been led to expect a particular standard of 'customer care' which local services may be hard pressed to deliver in practice....." (p.391). In the same paper he also noted that at that time the Victim's Charter in England and Wales gave very selective information on the support available. In effect, it " concealed some of the choices which are open to them and guides them [toward Victim Support] away from collective action." (p.384).

VICTIMS' EXPECTATIONS

The expectations of victims about their contacts with the police and other agencies were investigated by Newburn and Merry (1990) who found that while the great majority expressed general satisfaction, about 20 of the 100 victims in their sample felt that the service provided did not meet their expectations. Victims tended to be dissatisfied when they did not feel that all that could be done was being done (as did the police officers themselves). According to Newburn and Merry (p.6):

"The major reason for this feeling of dissatisfaction appeared to be the time taken and the [degree of ] interest shown by the officer involved in the case. . . . . .Although the officer was courteous and appeared interested they did not really feel that all that could be done was being done. To an extent this ties in with police officers' own estimation of their jobs and capabilities. . . . . because of the lack of time they were not always able to deal with cases in the way that they would like."

Clearly, police responses to crime reports have to be prioritised, and one would expect response times to vary accordingly. Over half the victims in Newburn and Merry's study said that all that they expected was for the police to come and ask them questions and to take down all the relevant details of the case. On the whole, Newburn and Merry found that victims did not have high expectations of what could be achieved by the police - most of them believed that clear-up rates were low and that detection was by no means guaranteed. This is interesting in view of the Accounts Commission's finding that clear-up rates for volume crimes have been improving slowly but steadily in recent years (Accounts Commission, 2001). Even with regard to the provision of information about the outcome of 'their' case in court, where most victims wanted to be informed and thought that they should have been informed, only 55% said that they had expected to be informed.

Expectations are to some extent associated with what victims believe that they have the right to receive, and the MVA Consultancy (1995) explored the types of information which victims and the representatives of the criminal justice agencies thought that all types of crime victims are entitled to receive. (Cf. pp 4-5 ). This is discussed further below.

Sanders (2002) referred to the Victim's Charter in England and Wales (Home Office, 1990; 1996) with the reminder that victims are still not parties to proceedings - unless they engage in a private prosecution - and as victims have no enforceable rights in relation to prosecution and subsequent decisions. Nonetheless, he was of the opinion that the Charters set out the 'responsibilities' of the criminal justice agencies and what victims, correspondingly, are entitled to expect (pp.202-3). Increasingly, prosecutors have come to recognise the importance of keeping victims informed. Sanders refers (2002, pp. 214-5) to changes made in 2001/2 which aimed to ensure that prosecution lawyers in England and Wales speak directly to certain categories of victims to help them understand decisions made in their cases. In Scotland, the Victim Information and Advice Service has been set up within area offices of the Procurator Fiscal. This is designed to ensure that prosecutors provide relevant information to victims and create opportunities for victims to express any concerns quickly to officials with the power to act upon them. A website has also been created to give easy access to information for victims (Scottish Executive, 2003). However, this applies only to defined categories of vulnerable victims and to those involved in the most serious cases.

Victims' expectations of the service they should receive may well influence their perceptions of the role of the police in the criminal justice system. As noted earlier, some victims report offences to the police even though they expect little response from the police and regard the incident as trivial (Newburn and Merry, 1990).

MacLeod, Prescott and Carson (1996, p.6) found that " for one in five victims, the most upsetting aspect of the incident was the feeling of having been let down in some way by the criminal justice system. More than eight out of ten victims felt that some change was desirable in the criminal justice system." Nineteen per cent referred to the need for a general review of the system; the need for reduced bureaucracy and more access to information for victims. MacLeod et al commented that in some cases " victims may have been factually incorrect about police investigation and criminal court procedure. However, for these victims, their reported experiences and feelings were no less valid for being factually incorrect. . ."(p.2)

Sanders (2002) described the developmental process by which police forces became bureaucracies positioned between victims and the courts and, therefore, effectively between victims and 'their' cases. Under the common law 'expediency' approach no crimes need to be investigated or prosecuted, but in theory any member of the public may investigate or prosecute. There is no legal requirement that the prosecution must take any particular heed of the wishes or interests of the victims, receive information from victims or provide information to victims.

The Scottish Strategy for Victims (Scottish Executive, 2000, 2003) recognised that this approach may make victims feel dispossessed because there is no apparent role for them in the process other than that of a witness, and it set out some administrative measures designed to " deliver greater participation" (p. 10) for victims. These include guidance on data protection, which has helped to improve referral rates, and the establishment of a Victim Information and Advice Service within Procurator Fiscal area offices to liaise with vulnerable victims and those involved in the most serious cases.

LEVELS OF SATISFACTION WITH THE POLICE RESPONSE

The diminishing satisfaction over time of victims with the management of cases has been a source of some concern and study. From England and Wales, where Sims and Myhill (2001) examined the findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey, it was reported that :

"In 58% of reported incidents, victims were very or fairly satisfied with the way the police dealt with the matter. The proportion of victims satisfied with the police response has been gradually decreasing since the 1994 British Crime Survey. . . . . . .Satisfaction levels appear to be directly influenced by the practical outcome of police investigations. 77% of victims were very or fairly satisfied with police handling of the case if charges were brought, compared with 39% if the police knew who the offender was but brought no charges."

(p.4)

Newburn and Merry (1990) referred back to Shapland et al (1985) whose longitudinal study of the experiences of victims

"charted continuous decline in levels of reported satisfaction as the victims progressed through the [criminal justice] system. In that study the victims appeared generally happy with their initial contacts with the police but, as their cases continued, they became increasingly frustrated with the opacity of the system. Crucial to this feeling were the difficulties they encountered in trying to keep in touch with developments in their cases."

In qualitative terms, Newburn and Merry re-iterated the findings of Shapland et al. that victims' satisfaction with their initial meeting with the police was mainly due to " the manner of the police, the speed at which the police came and whether the police were seen to do what the victim expected they would do" (pp.1-2).

Despite the emphasis upon the paucity of information available to victims, the MVA Consultancy (1995) found that dissatisfaction was not always the result of a lack of information, though the alternative offered is itself somewhat opaque: " Some victims felt that they had been treated insensitively by criminal justice agencies. If the agencies had treated them more sensitively, then it is likely that information would not have been such an issue" (p.2).

Newburn and Merry (1990) reported that many police officers had suggested to them that the promise of a follow-up visit from a Scene of Crime Officer or from a Crime Prevention Officer - particularly in burglary (housebreaking) cases - could serve to assure the victims that something was being done on their behalf. However, the necessity for a follow-up visit was generally seen to be determined by police requirements rather than victims' needs. Although Newburn and Merry do not mention it, the effect of a broken promise is unlikely to inspire victims' greater confidence in the police. They did, however, suggest that " much of the positive work done by the police in the hours and days after the offence was first reported was undone in the eyes of the victim by the lack of contact as the case progressed..." (p.18).

The research report published by Newburn and Merry some thirteen years ago has tended to dominate this review, perhaps because their chosen study was so immediately relevant to the present investigation. Much of what has been found in subsequent research was proposed by them when they asserted that:

". . . . satisfaction and dissatisfaction appear to be related to the manner in which the police were perceived by the victim to be dealing with the case. Concern, sympathy and interest led to feelings of satisfaction; conversely, where those were missing, dissatisfaction ensued. . . . . . It is respect and concern that victims desire. Much of the research that has looked at the relationship between the police and victims of crime has suggested that in many ways the police look upon the victim as a resource, as a source of information and evidence which enables them to succeed in the primary task of policing - that of apprehending and prosecuting offenders. It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that victims of crime find this relationship unsatisfactory. What they appear to desire is to be treated rather more like customers and rather less like an informational resource."

(pp.37-38)

In that context it is of interest that the sub-title of Corrigan's Research Project (2000) at the Scottish Police College was " A Focus on Customer Service." Newburn and Merry's references to " concern, sympathy and interest" and to " respect" are among the very few references found in this literature to officers' personal interactions with victims, rather than their overall professionalism. Another example (quoted earlier) was MacLeod, Prescott and Carson's discussion of the " generally sympathetic and helpful attitude" of investigating officers (1996). However, this personal aspect of victims' relationship with police officers seems to have been under-researched to date.

The Scottish Strategy for Victims Progress Report (Scottish Executive, 2003) listed some of the things that have already been done or begun in Scotland to deliver better support systems for victims, including improvements in " the support provided by the police in relation to repeat victimisation, racist crime, homophobic crime, stalking and harassment, and improved awareness of the needs of the elderly victims of crime" (p.8).

REPEAT VICTIMISATION

Like a number of other researchers, Williams (1999a, p.23)) pondered the phenomenon of repeat victimisation:

"Some people become victims of crime not once but repeatedly. Early research on victims examined the phenomenon of repeat victimisation and there was a tendency in some of this work to blame victims themselves for their predicament, or at least to appear to do so… More recent researchers have argued that linking repeat victimisation to the victims' lifestyle or behaviour diverts attention away from broader issues like class and gender divisions, and thereby individualises the social processes by which victims are created."

He asked whether such variables as gender, race, class or disability might interact with poverty and lack of opportunities to explain the concentration of victimisation in particular areas and groups. (The issue of victim-blaming is discussed below).

Katherine Williams (2001, pp.99-100) asserted that:

"certain groups (e.g. those living in the inner cities, the young, ethnic minorities) will suffer far higher rates of victimisation. Apart from the uneven distribution, those who suffer most are those who can least afford the loss and to whom even a small loss may be devastating. …Recent studies have categorically shown that 'victimisation predicts further victimisation', thus what is happening is not so much an increase in the total number of people becoming victims, but for actual victims to suffer more than once."

In a comment addressed principally to researchers Ingram (2000, Chap.1) noted that:

"The questions dealing with reactions to victimisation and with Victim Support services are, of course, only asked of respondents who have fallen victim to crime. In the 2000 Scottish Crime Survey there were 1,474 cases available for analysis, representing some 1,070 respondents. The unit of analysis here is the incident and it is important to remember that some respondents will have been victimised more than once. This relatively small number of cases means that care must be exercised when interpreting the data and there are limits to the type of analysis that can be conducted - for example it is not possible to control for crime type when examining other significant variables."

As implied by Katherine Williams, repeat victimisation would appear to be closely associated with the greater vulnerability of some victims. Maguire and Kynch (2000) used the findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey (in England and Wales) to try to identify some highly specific categories of victims who appeared to be exceptionally vulnerable by dint of their personal or social circumstances. To some extent their initial categories were assembled on the basis of their sense of compassion for " the very old, the very poor, and people suffering from extreme poverty, restricted lifestyles, social isolation, harassment, and/or repeat victimisation who are likely to be more vulnerable to the emotional and/or practical effects of crime, and may have less access to help from social networks or official sources." (p.6)

The composition of the groups was subsequently refined in the light of the Survey evidence about impact and needs. In the following list, they stated that:

"respondents in all these categories were much more likely to have been 'very much' affected by the incidents they experienced, and having wanted help after them, than victims as a whole :

• the very poor and uninsured
• the very poor with restricted mobility
• single parents
• the intimidated
• the relatively housebound - victims reporting that they never or rarely go out after dark for reasons of disability, being a carer, lack of money or transport, various fears, or having 'nowhere to go.'" (p.6)

As well as vulnerability, repeat victimisation may be a result of the same offender targeting the same victim again. Pease (1996, pp. 326-7) found that " the best single predictor of burglary victimisation was past victimisation". Clearly, as van Dijk (2001, pp. 30, 33) has pointed out, reporting on the findings of the 1996 International Crime Victims Survey:

"Whatever the precise causes of repeat victimisation are, its statistical prevalence has important policy implications. If victimisation flags heightened vulnerability for future victimisations, victims are a priority target group of crime prevention advice… repeat victims, in short, might want more than other victims to see some real action from the police on their behalf… Repeat victims contact the police with more demanding aims than other victims."

Repeat victims are more likely than first-time victims to want an offender arrested, and consequently they are more likely to be dissatisfied with police handling of their cases. Burglary /housebreaking victims in particular are highly likely to be re-victimised (Pease, 1998), often within a matter of weeks (Polvi et al, 1991). Police responses to burglary (housebreaking) reflect this knowledge, for example in the priority given to crime prevention advice. Victims of repeat burglaries (housebreaking) are more likely to take notice of crime prevention advice (Morgan, 2001) but they may also resent being told that they are likely targets for further offences. A good deal depends upon how this information is communicated by police officers: if done clumsily it can come across as a form of victim-blaming. As Farrell and Pease put it (1993, p. 3), "there might be an understandable reluctance to be frank about it because it may evoke fear of crime. It is not reassuring to tell a victim that a burglar may indeed come back."

BLAMING THE VICTIM - OR APPEARING TO DO SO

The psychological reactions to victimisation often include self-blame (Williams, 1999a), and an insensitive police response can clearly heighten this effect. This has been observed in research on sexual offences, in particular rape, but is also likely to be a factor in relation to volume crime. Crime prevention advice needs to be given in a way which does not induce guilt or seem to blame the victim. If this is done in the case of burglary (housebreaking), there is evidence that it can be an effective form of crime prevention, ideally linking with the provision of crime prevention advice with other forms of victim assistance such as 'cocooning' and the provision of Victim Support (Crawford, 1998; Forrester et al, 1990). The likelihood that insensitive advice about the prospects of repeat victimisation might make matters worse for victims should perhaps be considered in the training of operational police officers.

« Previous | Contents | Next »