The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE THE EXPERIENCE OF VICTIMS

3.1 This chapter focuses on the experiences of victims of crime. First, it examines how the risk of being a victim of each particular type of crime differs by key demographic groups (section 3.1). It then explores where, when and why incidents took place (section 3.2); whether incidents were reported to the police; and experiences of subsequent dealings with the Criminal Justice System (section 3.3). Finally, it investigates the impact that crime has had on those who have been victims (section 3.4).

Unequal Risk of Crime

3.2 The demographic information collected by the SCVS from both victims and non-victims permits examination of the differential risks of being the victim of certain crimes across different population groups. It is recognised that people of a certain age, sex or socio-economic group are at greater or lesser risk of being victimised than other groups. A detailed analysis of how the risk of being the victim of housebreaking, vandalism, vehicle theft and violent crime differ by key demographic characteristics is shown in Annex Tables A3.1 to A3.4. However, it must be noted that much of the information contained within these tables needs to be treated with a degree of caution. Comparison with the data collected in previous sweeps of the surveys shows a lack of consistency which is likely to be as a result of the larger sampling errors associated with analysing small sub-groups of the population. When examining prevalence rates of low incidence crimes such as robbery, these larger sampling errors become even more problematic.

3.3 The implication of this is that some demographic variations may be due to sampling error rather than real differences, and that to be credible, the variations need to show a degree of consistency over time. This section does not therefore go into detail on all demographic variations, but focuses on the risk factors that have remained consistent over numerous sweeps of the survey. With this in mind, the main demographic variations were as follows:

• Those aged 16 to 24 (both men and women) were most likely to become victims of personal crime. Twenty-one per cent of men and 19% of women in this age group had been the victim of a personal crime. The risks were significantly higher than the risks for 25-44 year olds, for example, where 9% of men and 6% of women had been victims of personal crimes. This pattern is consistent with findings from previous Scottish crime surveys.
• The high prevalence of personal crime amongst 16 to 24 year olds was principally as a result of their higher risk of being the victim of violent crime, particularly assault: 18% of 16 to 24 year old men had been the victim of a violent crime in 2005/6, compared with just 6%of 25 to 44 year old men, while this applied to 9% of 16 to 24 year old women, compared with 3% of 25 to 44 year old women. The prevalence of assault among 16 to 24 year olds was 16% among men and 8% among women.
• Those aged 60 or over were the least likely to have been the victim of either personal or household crime. At 9% the prevalence of household crime amongst those aged over 60 was just over half that of any other age group, and similarly at 2% the prevalence of personal crime was just over half that of any other age group.

Repeat and Multiple Victimisation

3.4 This section presents analysis of:

• Repeat victimisation: the risk of being a victim of the same type of offence more than once between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006.
• Multiple victimisation: the risk of being the victim of more than one crime (whether the same type of crime or not) over the same period.

3.5 It should be noted that the figures below represent the extent of repeat and multiple victimisation over one year only; some victims will experience numerous incidents but over a longer period of time.

Repeat victimisation

3.6 Details on repeat victimisation are shown below for different types of crime; this analysis is limited to types of crime where there are sufficient numbers of respondents to allow meaningful analysis. It should also be noted that base sizes are too small to examine demographic variations for repeat victimisation of individual types of crime (however, demographic variations can be examined for multiple victimisation - see section 3.2.2).

Housebreaking

3.7 Of households that had been a victim of housebreaking in 2005/6, 21% had experienced 2 or more incidents of housebreaking during that time. This is similar to the proportion recorded in previous survey sweeps, as shown in table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Percentage of victims of housebreaking experiencing repeat victimisation, 1992-2005/6

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of housebreaking (n = 106); 2003 SCS, victims of housebreaking (n = 146); 2000 SCS, victims of housebreaking (n = 201); 1996 SCS (n = 197); 1993 SCS, victims of housebreaking (n = 320)

Vandalism

3.8 Around 3 in 10 households that had experienced vandalism in 2005/6 had been the victim of more than one incident, and one in 8 had experienced 3 or more incidents. Figures are similar to those recorded in previous years.

Table 3.2 Percentage of victims of vandalism experiencing repeat victimisation, 1992-2005/6

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of vandalism (n = 391); 2003 SCS, victims of vandalism (n = 503); 2000 SCS, victims of vandalism (n = 343); 1996 SCS, victims of vandalism (n = 342); 1993 SCS, victims of vandalism (n = 333)

Motor vehicle theft

3.9 The figures for motor vehicle theft are again consistent with previous sweeps of the survey. In 2005/6, one in 5 households who had experienced motor vehicle theft was the victim of more than one incident.

Table 3.3 Percentage of victims of motor vehicle theft experiencing repeat victimisation, 1992-2006

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of motor vehicle theft (n = 167); 2003 SCS, victims of motor vehicle theft (n = 275); 2000 SCS, victims of motor vehicle theft (n = 283); 1996 SCS, victims of motor vehicle theft (n = 461); 1993 SCS, victims of motor vehicle theft (n = 541)

Violent crime

3.10 Three in 10 victims of violent crime in 2005/6 had experienced two or more incidents, with one in 6 the victim of 3 or more incidents. These figures are again very similar to those obtained in previous survey sweeps.

Table 3.4 Percentage of victims of violent crime experiencing repeat victimisation, 1992-2006

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of violent crime (n = 166); 2003 SCS, victims of violent crime (n = 178); 2000 SCS, victims of violent crime (n = 140); 1996 SCS, victims of violent crime (n = 123); 1993 SCS, victims of violent crime (n = 137)

Multiple victimisation

3.11 This section examines multiple victimisation, specifically the prevalence of multiple incidents of personal and/or household crime. Table 3.5 gives the overall risk of victimisation, broken down by whether respondents were the victim of a single or multiple personal/household crime.

Table 3.5 Risk of victimisation by whether single or multiple incident

Source: 2006 SCVS (n=4,988)

3.12 Annex Table A3.5 provides a more detailed breakdown of multiple household and personal crimes, analysed by demographic variables. The key findings are as follows:

• 16 to 24 year old men were most likely to have experienced multiple incidents of personal crimes (10% in this group had experienced multiple personal crimes), while 16 to 24 year old women had experienced a relatively high proportion of multiple incidents of both personal and household crime (one in 4 of those experiencing a crime had been a victim of both personal and household crimes). Older people who were the victims of crime tended to have experienced a single incident of household crime only.
• Looking at Scottish ACORN group, 'struggling singles' were most likely to be the victims of multiple crimes (with 5% the victim of 3 or more household crimes), while those in rural areas were more likely than average to have experienced one crime only.

Where, When and Why

3.13 All respondents who reported that they had been victims of crime during the reference period were asked a series of questions about the incident in the section of the questionnaire known as the 'victim form'. The main purpose of this section of the questionnaire is to collect all the information that is required to classify the incident into specific offence categories. However, the section also collects contextual details which can provide a greater level of understanding about the nature of each incident. In this section, we examine responses to questions about where, when and why incidents had taken place.

Where incidents took place

3.14 The majority of offences (78%) took place within the respondent's local area (which was defined as within 15 minutes walk from the respondent's home). Figure 3.1 gives a more precise breakdown of the locations of incidents.

Figure 3.1 Location of incidents

Source: 2006 SCVS - All offences between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 (n = 1,562)

3.15 The most common location where incidents occurred was immediately outside the home, where around half of offences (49%) took place. This category includes incidents which took place on the street outside the home, on driveways, doorsteps, balconies and in the garden. The second most common location was inside the respondent's home (or garage). Crimes committed inside the respondent's home will have included offences where the offender broke into the property (such as housebreaking); offences which were carried out by someone who was let into the house (for example, workmen, bogus callers or acquaintances) and incidents where the offender was actually one of the household members. The other locations where significant proportions of offences took place were inside or around the respondent's workplace (10%) and inside or around pubs, bars or nightclubs (7%).

3.16 Obviously there were differences according to the type of crime that was being reported. Table 3.6 shows the reported locations of the main types of household crime (those who did not know the location have been excluded from analysis). Personal crimes are dealt with in table 3.7.

3.17 The majority of vehicle thefts and incidents of vehicle vandalism took place outside the home but other locations where significant proportions of incidents took place were at or near the workplace, at the shops, at the home of a friend or relative, or at an 'other' location including car parks and in the street.

Table 3.6 Location of incidents of household crime

Source: 2006 SCVS - Household thefts (n=354); Vehicle thefts (n= 210); Property vandalism (n=132); Motor vehicle vandalism (n= 283)

3.18 The nature of personal crimes means that they tend to take place across a greater variety of locations than household crimes (Table 3.7). In 2005/6 the most common locations in which assaults took place were pubs, bars and nightclubs (20%) and the workplace (19%). Just under 3 in 10 assaults took place either inside or immediately outside the respondent's home.

3.19 Pubs, bars and nightclubs were also a common location for 'thefts from the person' ¹⁶ (22%) and 'other personal thefts' (18%), although the most common location for 'other personal thefts' was the workplace, where almost 4 in 10 (37%) of such incidents took place.

Table 3.7 Location of incidents of personal crimes

Source: 2006 SCVS (n = 4,988) Assault (n=169); Theft from the person (n=43); Other personal theft (n=108)

When incidents took place

3.20 Incidents were spread fairly evenly throughout the year. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of single incidents of both household and personal crimes which took place within each quarter. A slightly lower proportion of household crimes took place between January and March 2006 than in any of the other quarters, while a slightly higher proportion of personal crimes took place between July and September 2005 than in the other quarters.

Figure 3.2 Proportion of household and personal crimes per quarter

Source: 2006 SCVS, Single household incidents (n=773); Personal single incidents (n=348)

3.21 Respondents were also asked whether each offence reported took place during the week or the weekend (with the weekend being defined as between 6 p.m. on Friday and 6 a.m. on Monday). Personal crimes were more likely than household crimes to take place at the weekend, with around half (48%) of personal crimes taking place then compared with just over a third of household crimes (35%). More specifically, violent crimes were more likely than other types of personal crime to take place at the weekend (56% compared with 41% of thefts from the person or other personal theft).

3.22 In terms of the actual time of day at which incidents took place, the majority of both household and personal crimes took place between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. This was particularly the case for household crimes, 73% of which took place at this time, compared with 59% of personal crimes. Looking in more detail at personal crimes, 72% of violent crimes took place between 6pm and 6 a.m., compared with 37% of thefts from the person or other personal theft.

3.23 Breaking down the time of day further, Table 3.8 shows that there were some clear differences between household and personal crimes. The most common times at which personal crimes were reported as having taken place were the afternoon, when 3 in 10 crimes (31%) occurred, and the evening when a further 3 in 10 crimes (31%) took place. On the other hand household crimes were most likely to have taken place at night (36% between midnight and 6 a.m.). This is presumably because there is a greater chance of committing this type of crime undetected when it is dark and there are less people around.

3.24 Overall, just under half of crimes took place at the weekend between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. (46%). This was higher for household crimes than personal crimes (52% compared with 43%), and was highest for vandalism (57%). Violent crimes were more likely than other personal crimes to take place at this time (53% compared with 31% of theft from person/other personal theft).

Table 3.8 Time of day at which incidents took place

Source: 2006 SCVS, Household crimes (n=985); Personal crimes (n=471)

Why incidents took place

3.25 For each crime reported, respondents were asked to give their opinion as to why the incident took place. The main reasons given for both household and personal crimes are summarised in Table 3.9.

3.26 In most incidents of vandalism (65%), respondents thought that the offence was just 'mindless' or that the offenders were young people or children doing it for 'fun' or just 'something to do' - in other words, there was no real reason for the offence. For both household theft (including vehicle thefts) and personal theft, the 2 most common reasons given were that the offences were spur of the moment or opportunist, with the offender taking advantage of a situation which made the offence possible; or that the offender sought material gain through the acquisition of money or property. One in 5 household or vehicle thefts (21%) were thought to have been committed by young people 'for something to do'.

3.27 The most common reason given for assaults was that the offender was drunk or under the influence of drugs. This was given as a reason by half of all respondents (49%) who had been the victim of an assault. This is perhaps related to the finding that a significant proportion of assaults took place in or around pubs, bars or nightclubs. One in 5 assaults (20%) were also thought to have taken place because of personal relationships / history between the victim and the offender.

Table 3.9 Why respondents thought that offences had taken place

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of vandalism (n=415); victims of household/vehicle theft (n=564); victims of assault (n=215); victims of personal theft (n=151)

3.28 Additional questions on the victim form assessed the influence of alcohol or drugs on crimes. Where respondents were able to say anything about the person or people who committed the crime, 45% said that the person/one of the people was under the influence of alcohol when they committed the crime. This was higher for personal than household crimes (53% compared with 35%) and, reflecting the findings above on the reason for the offence, highest for incidents of assault (67%). One in 4 victims who were able to say anything about the person or people who committed the crime said that they were under the influence of drugs (25%); there were no significant differences by type of offence.

3.29 A minority of victims said that they were responsible in some way for what happened in the crime (8%), and of these 5% said that this was because they were under the influence of alcohol. However, when asked directly whether they had had any alcohol immediately before the incident took place, 34% of victims said that this was the case (this question was limited to incidents that involved actual or threatened violence).

Experience of Criminal Justice System

Reporting incidents to the police

3.30 All respondents who reported being the victim of an offence were asked whether the police came to know about the matter. In total, around 4 in 10 offences (38%) were reported to the police, but this varied considerably by crime type; details are shown in Table 3.10, which breaks down the various crime types, and shows figures for the total number of incidents recorded by the survey, and the percentage of these that respondents said they reported to the police.

3.31 Crimes involving theft were in general more likely to be reported to the police, which is likely to be at least partly explained by the fact that insurance companies require incidents to be reported in order to process any claims for stolen property. Almost all vehicle thefts (94%) and 6 in 10 housebreaking incidents (62%) were reported, as were around half (51%) of thefts from the person. Thefts from motor vehicles and bicycle thefts were reported by less than half of victims (46% and 44% respectively) and less than a quarter of other personal thefts and other household thefts were reported. However, there were only 23 vehicle thefts, 37 bicycle thefts and 28 attempted thefts recorded by the survey, so these proportions are subject to a large degree of error.

3.32 Incidents of property vandalism were more likely to be reported than incidents of motor vehicle vandalism (42% compared with 29%).

3.33 Around 4 in 10 incidents of minor assault were reported to the police (38%). Serious assaults and robberies were very rare, so the proportions for these types of crime are subject to a large degree of error.

Table 3.10 Proportion of crimes reported to the police by offence type

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of specific offences

3.34 According to survey estimates, the proportion of crimes reported to the police reached its peak in 1999 at 43% and has been falling ever since. In 2005/6 it reached the lowest proportion ever recorded by the survey ¹⁷.

Satisfaction with police

3.35 Respondents who did report incidents to the police were asked how satisfied they were with the way the police handled the matter. Overall, almost 6 in 10 respondents (57%) said that they were either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied. The number of incidents of each crime type is insufficient to analyse by specific offences, so Table 3.11 breaks incidents down by four broad offence categories. The table shows the number of incidents reported to the police (as identified in the survey), and the proportion of these where the respondent was very or fairly satisfied.

3.36 In general, respondents reporting incidents of theft were more likely than victims of other categories of crime to be satisfied with the way the police dealt with the matter. More than 6 in 10 reporting both household/vehicle thefts and personal thefts said they were satisfied (64%). The proportion satisfied was lower for victims of assault (44%).

Table 3.11 Proportion of respondents either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied with the way the police handled matters reported to them by type of offence

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of specific offences

Outcomes

3.37 In 4 in 10 cases (37%) where the victim reported the offence to the police, respondents reported that the police found out who the offender was. For incidents of assault this proportion was much higher (at 65%) than for any of the other offence types. This is presumably because in most cases of assault the victim will have seen the offender and will have been able to pass this information to the police. Table 3.12 again analyses findings for 4 broad offence categories.

Table 3.12 Proportion of incidents where police found out who offender was

Source: 2006 SCVS, victims of specific offences

3.38 Around a third of cases where the police identified the offender (32%) resulted in court cases (as far as the respondent was aware). There were insufficient cases to permit analysis by offence types but there was no significant difference between household and personal crimes.

3.39 In the majority of cases (74%) where the offender went to court, the offender was found guilty.

Contact with the Procurator Fiscal

3.40 All respondents who reported incidents where the police found out the identity of the offender were asked whether they had had any contact with the Procurator Fiscal. In 17% of incidents where the police had found out the identity of the offender, the respondents had had contact with the Procurator Fiscal. This represented 2% of all respondents who were victims of crime. The majority of respondents (63%) who had had contact with the Procurator Fiscal said they were very or fairly satisfied with the way in which their case had been dealt with.

Impact of Victimisation

3.41 Respondents who reported being a victim of crime were asked about the emotions they felt following the incident. In many cases victims felt several different emotions and so were also asked which emotion they felt most strongly. Overall the most common emotions felt by respondents were anger and annoyance (felt by 47% and 33% respectively). Table 3.13 shows that, as would be expected, the nature of the incident that had been experienced had an impact on the emotions that were felt.

3.42 There was little variation in the emotions felt by victims of motor vehicle vandalism, property vandalism or vehicle theft, where the vast majority felt either angry or annoyed. Anger and annoyance were also the principle emotions felt by victims of household theft, but 8 per cent said they experienced shock. A very small proportion of victims of household theft reported that the emotion they felt most strongly after the incident was either depression or loss of confidence, or that they had difficulty sleeping or felt 'tearful'.

3.43 In general, victims of personal crimes - in particular victims of assault and thefts from the person - reported a greater range of emotions. Anger was still the emotion felt most commonly by victims of assault, but one in 5 (22%) reported shock; 7% felt that their confidence had been reduced or felt vulnerable; 7% felt afraid and 6% felt 'tearful'.

Table 3.13 Emotions felt most strongly by respondents following incidents

Source: 2006 SCVS

Access to support

3.44 All victims were asked whether they (or anyone else in their household) had received support from any agencies to help them get over the crimes they had experienced.

3.45 The agency from which the highest proportion of victims (3%) said they had received support was Victim Support Scotland ( VSS), and this rose to 7% among victims of assault. Victims who reported the incident to the police were also more likely to have received support from VSS (7%). Around a third of those who had had contact with VSS said that this had just taken the form of a letter offering support rather than actual emotional or practical support.

3.46 Although the number of people receiving actual support (rather than simply receiving a letter) from VSS was very small (n=35), almost all (98%) reported that the support they received was helpful.

3.47 Four per cent of respondents received support from some other agency, including the Witness Service, Social Workers, or the Police. Regardless of which agency respondents had received help from, they almost universally regarded the support they received as helpful.

« Previous | Contents | Next »