4 Gradinga This Manual Return Is 40 Pointsb Forms Required 1040 Pa ✓ Solved
4 Grading: a. This manual return is 40 points b. Forms required: 1040 pages 1 and 2, Schedules1, A, and D, Form 8949, Part II. (5) Additional Helpful Information: a. Please use the sequence numbers in the upper right-hand corner of the official IRS forms for the proper order. b. Do not calculate next year’s estimates or any late filing penalty or interest.
Warning ï‚– As I mentioned already, some of this content can be triggering for individuals who have endured trauma or have been victims of crime. ï‚– Please take care of yourself at all times. If you need to exit the class or turn off your camera at any point, please do so. Your well-being and safety are more important than anything. 24-Hour Hotline 1.888. Chapter 2: Opportunity Theories of Victimization Generations of Victimology Theories Academic Evolution of Victimology ï‚– Second-generation victimologists: ï‚– Transitioned victimology away from typologies, victim precipitation, and victim blaming ï‚– Focused on explaining how various opportunities are related to victimization ï‚– Third-generation victimologists: ï‚– Developed and refined lifestyle-routine activities theory (L-RAT) by identifying specific behaviors related to victimization and through innovative theoretical tests ï‚– Focused on how opportunities change according to place Opportunity Perspective ï‚– Identifying the circumstances that increase the risk for victimization to occur ï‚– Key theories: 1.
Lifestyle-exposure theory 2. Routine activities theory 3. Multilevel opportunity theory 4. Structural-choice theory Lifestyle-Exposure Theory Lifestyle- Exposure Theory ï‚– Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978) ï‚– First theory to account for patterns in victimization ï‚– Needed after NCS data demonstrated that victimization is not random and disproportionately affects certain groups of people Lifestyle- Exposure Theory Figure 2-1 (p. 37) ï‚– Key concepts: ï‚– Different lifestyles expose people to varying risk levels for personal victimization ï‚– Lifestyles are related to personal demographic characteristics (e.g., age, race, gender, education) Lifestyle- Exposure Theory ï‚– Role expectations: ï‚– Cultural norms associated with an individual’s status that define expected behavior during interactions with others ï‚– Structural constraints: ï‚– Limitations on behavior because of larger institutional arrangements (e.g., economic, familial, education, legal) Lifestyle- Exposure Theory ï‚– There is individual variation within role expectations and structural constraints ï‚– Variations in lifestyles determine whether an individual is exposed to times, places, and people who increase victimization risk ï‚– Principle of homogamy: ï‚– Personal relationships are the result of similar lifestyles and interests ï‚– Associations can increase risk of victimization Routine Activities Theory Routine Activities Theory ï‚– Cohen and Felson (1979) ï‚– Similar to lifestyle-exposure theory ï‚– Accounts for lifestyle and exposure being related to victimization ï‚– Different from lifestyle-exposure theory ï‚– Focuses on elements beyond exposure (such as proximity, guardianship, and target attractiveness) Routine Activities Theory ï‚– 1960‒1975 ï‚– Paradox of improving social conditions and increasing crime rates over this time period ï‚– Hypothesis: ï‚– Increasing crime rates a result of changes in the population’s daily routines ï‚– More people spending time outside the home ï‚– More women in college and in the workforce ï‚– Outside the home, personal victimization risk increases ï‚– As fewer people are home, property victimization risk increases because there are fewer guardians Absence of Capable Guardians Motivated Offenders Suitable Targets CRIMEInteraction of 3 Factors How these converge in time and space depends upon the routine activities of individuals in society L-RAT (Lifestyle- Routine Activities) Merger ï‚– Victimization is a function of four important concepts: 1.
Exposure to risk ï‚– Exposure: Victim accessibility or visibility to potential offenders ï‚– Increases likelihood of victimization 2. Proximity to motivated offenders ï‚– Proximity: Victim physical closeness to potential offenders ï‚– Increases likelihood of victimization 3. Target attractiveness ï‚– Increases likelihood of victimization 4. Guardianship ï‚– Decreases likelihood of victimization Multilevel Opportunity Theory Multilevel Opportunity Theory ï‚– Wilcox, Land, and Hunt (2003) ï‚– Individual lifestyles and routines generate opportunities for victimization ï‚– Microlevel influences: lifestyle, age, gender ï‚– Community characteristics also generate opportunities for victimization ï‚– Macrolevel influences: poverty rate, percentage of female-headed households, percentage of unemployed Multilevel Opportunity Theory ï‚– Focus on individual- and contextual-level effects of L-RAT concepts on opportunities for victimization ï‚– Individual-level factors on opportunity can be altered or modified by macrolevel factors ï‚– The additive effects (sum of individual effects) of L- RAT concepts influence the nature of environmental opportunities ï‚– Variation in amount of suitable targets, motivated offenders, and capable guardians Effects of Aggregate- Level and Individual- Level Opportunity Factors on Victimization Victimization Individual-Level: Motivated Offender exposure Individual-Level: Target Suitability Individual-Level: Guardianship Aggregate-Level: Opportunity Aggregate-Level Motivated Offenders Aggregate-Level Target Suitability Aggregate-Level Guardianship Individual-Level Exposure (+) aggregate-level offenders = (+) individual exposure (+) aggregate-level suitable targets = (+) importance of individual exposure (+) aggregate-level guardianship = (-) importance of individual exposure Individual-Level Suitability (+) aggregate-level offenders = (+) importance of individual target suitability (+) aggregate-level supply of suitable targets = (-) risk at individual level (+) aggregate-level guardianship = (-) importance of individual target suitability Individual-Level Guardianship (+) aggregate-level offenders = (-) important individual-level guardianship (+) aggregate-level suitable targets = (-) victimization of better guarded targets (+) aggregate-level guardianship = (+) effective individual- level guardianship Structural-Choice Theory Structural- Choice Theory ï‚– Miethe and Meier (1994) ï‚– To explain crime events in their entirety, we must take into account: 1.
Offenders 2. Victims 3. The social context in which they meet ï‚– Sources of offender motivation are as important as victim lifestyles and routine activities Structural- Choice Model of Criminal Events Sources of Offender Motivation 1. Economic Disadvantage 2. Weak Social Bonds 3.
Pro-Crime Values 4. Psychological/Biological Attributes 5. Generalized Needs 6. Non-criminal alternatives Victim Characteristics that Provide Criminal Opportunities 1. Proximity 2.
Exposure 3. Attractiveness 4. Guardianship Social Context 1. The Physical Location Physical Space Darkness Tempo, Pace, Rhythm History 2. The Interpersonal Relationship 3.
The Behavioral Setting At Home At School At Work At Leisure Criminal Events Murder Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Auto Theft Larceny -Theft Structural- Choice Theory - Social Context ï‚– The “microenvironment†in which crime transpires (the social context) ï‚– Physical location ï‚– Facilitates or deters crime depending on type of crime and characteristics of location (physical space, darkness, tempo/pace/rhythm, criminal history) ï‚– Interpersonal relationships ï‚– Victim-offender relationship shapes motivation and opportunity-inducing behaviors ï‚– Behavioral setting ï‚– Properties condition the suitability of crime ï‚– Home, school, work, leisure Measuring and Extending Key Concepts Measuring Key Concepts ï‚– Making a simple idea complex ï‚– No universal agreement on operationalization ï‚– Each concept differs according to type of victimization Measuring Attractive or Suitable Targets ï‚– Targets possess VIVA: ï‚– Value: monetary value, personal value ï‚– Inertia: ease of movement, ease of concealment ï‚– Visibility: need to know about target and where it is ï‚– Access: able to be approached Measuring Attractive or Suitable Targets ï‚– Concealable ï‚– Removable ï‚– Available ï‚– Valuable ï‚– Enjoyable ï‚– Disposable ï‚– Hot Products: Items that attract attention and are targeted by thieves Measuring Attractive or Suitable Targets ï‚– Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) ï‚– Target congruence: the increased vulnerability faced by victims because of certain characteristics ï‚– Target vulnerability: Characteristics that compromise the capacity to resist or deter victimization (these make victim an easier target) ï‚– Physical weakness or small size ï‚– Psychological problems ï‚– Emotional deprivation Measuring Attractive or Suitable Targets ï‚– Target gratifiability: Characteristics which are of some quality, possession, skill, or attribute that the offender wants to obtain, use, have access to, or manipulate ï‚– Female gender ï‚– Prepubescent children ï‚– Having valuable possessions ï‚– Target antagonism: Characteristics that arouse anger, jealousy, or destructive impulses of the offender ï‚– Any other type of hate crime ï‚– Being overly attached (“mama’s boyâ€) ï‚– Disobedient children Measuring Guardianship ï‚– Physical guardianship: ï‚– Target-hardening measures (making target physically harder to access) ï‚– Social guardianship: ï‚– Intervening individuals ï‚– Four types: ï‚– Personal ï‚– Assigned ï‚– Diffuse ï‚– General Measuring Guardianship (The Crime Triangle) Because These coincide Manager Place In the absence of effective Controllers Place Manager Super Controllers Measuring Guardianship Felson and Clarke’s 10 Principles of Opportunity Theory 1.
Opportunities cause crime ï‚– No type of crime or victimization in which opportunity does not play a role 2. Crime opportunities are highly specific ï‚– Depend on type of victimization and specific circumstances 3. Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space ï‚– Crime and victimization are patterned according to where and when opportunities are present Principles of Opportunity Theory, Continued 4. Crime opportunities depend on everyday activities ï‚– Daily activities bring together potential offenders and potential targets 5. One crime produces opportunities for another ï‚– Opportunity is dynamic 6.
Some property offers more tempting crime opportunities ï‚– VIVA, CRAVED Principles of Opportunity Theory, Continued 7. Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities ï‚– New products, new victimizations 8. Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities ï‚– Situational crime prevention 9. Reducing opportunities does not usually move crime to nearby places ï‚– Displacement 10. Focused opportunity reduction can produce wider declines in crime ï‚– Diffusion of benefits, anticipatory benefits Summary of Opportunity Theories of Victimization ï‚– Second- and third-generation victimologists advanced field by: ï‚– Moving away from the idea that victims are responsible for their own victimization ï‚– Focusing on how and why opportunity plays a key role in victimization ï‚– Four main theories ï‚– Research supports importance of opportunity in victimization ï‚– Influential to CJ response to crime
Paper for above instructions
Introduction
Victimology has undergone a significant transformation over the past few decades, shifting from a focus on victim responsibility to understanding how opportunities contribute to victimization. This essay will explore various theories of opportunity within the context of victimization, namely Lifestyle-Exposure Theory, Routine Activities Theory, Multilevel Opportunity Theory, and Structural-Choice Theory. These frameworks illustrate how different social, environmental, and individual factors create opportunities that increase the likelihood of victimization. Understanding these theories is vital for creating effective preventive measures and informing criminal justice responses.
Opportunity Theories of Victimization
1. Lifestyle-Exposure Theory
Developed by Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo in 1978, Lifestyle-Exposure Theory posits that individuals' lifestyles influence their risk of victimization (Hindelang et al., 1978). People with different lifestyles encounter varying levels of risk based on demographic characteristics such as age, race, gender, and socioeconomic status. The theory suggests that certain lifestyles may expose individuals to environments, people, and circumstances that increase their vulnerability (Hindelang et al., 1978).
Key to this theory is the idea of role expectations and structural constraints. Role expectations refer to cultural norms that dictate how individuals should behave, while structural constraints represent societal limitations imposed by institutions such as family, education, and legal systems. Individual variations in these elements shape exposure to situations that could lead to victimization (Clarke & Felson, 1993).
2. Routine Activities Theory
Cohen and Felson's (1979) Routine Activities Theory expands on Lifestyle-Exposure Theory by emphasizing the routine elements of individuals' daily lives that impact victimization risks. The theory identifies three essential factors that must converge for a crime to occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
The postulation that rising crime rates correlate with shifting societal patterns—such as more individuals spending time outside their homes—has been pivotal in understanding victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979). For instance, as more women entered the workforce and have been engaged in public activities, the environment became more conducive for various types of crimes, including theft and assault (Lofland, 2000).
3. Multilevel Opportunity Theory
Wilcox, Land, and Hunt (2003) developed Multilevel Opportunity Theory to further refine the understanding of how victimization opportunities arise. This theory acknowledges that individual factors, such as lifestyle, age, and gender, interact with community-level characteristics, like local poverty and crime rates, to generate opportunities for victimization (Wilcox et al., 2003).
By merging individual-level insights with macro-level community characteristics, the theory elucidates that the environment surrounding an individual significantly influences victimization risks. For example, a person may have a low likelihood of being victimized in a well-guarded neighborhood, while the same individual may face heightened risks in an area plagued by economic disadvantage and crime (Wilcox et al., 2003).
4. Structural-Choice Theory
Structural-Choice Theory, proposed by Miethe and Meier (1994), emphasizes the importance of interdependencies between offenders and victims within specific social contexts. This approach underscores that understanding crime requires a holistic view, incorporating attributes of offenders, victims, and the environments they interact in. According to this model, offenders make choices based on the social context, which includes economic disadvantages, social bonds, and personal motivations (Miethe & Meier, 1994).
In this framework, victim characteristics provide opportunities for victimization. For example, personal isolation, lifestyle choices, or lack of situational awareness can make an individual a target (Miethe & Meier, 1994). Understanding both macro- and micro-contexts is essential to developing effective strategies to reduce victimization risk.
The Importance of Opportunity in Victimization
Research has consistently emphasized the role of opportunity in shaping victimization patterns rather than attributing blame to victims themselves. The integration of opportunity theories has influenced criminal justice responses and policy-making by highlighting that crime prevention strategies should focus not only on potential offenders but also on the socio-environmental contexts in which victimization occurs (Felson, 1994).
Preventive measures informed by these theories might involve situational crime prevention strategies that enhance guardianship, such as increasing neighborhood watch programs, improving lighting in public spaces, or utilizing technology to bolster surveillance. Understanding the interconnectedness of victimization opportunities allows for a multi-faceted approach to crime prevention.
Conclusion
The evolution of victimology theories underscores the significance of understanding opportunities in victimization phenomena. By advancing beyond victim-blaming perspectives to frameworks emphasizing the social and environmental contexts influencing crime and victimization, we gain critical insight into effective prevention strategies. The theories discussed—Lifestyle-Exposure Theory, Routine Activities Theory, Multilevel Opportunity Theory, and Structural-Choice Theory—each offer valuable perspectives that can inform both theoretical understanding and practical interventions. An integrated approach that acknowledges the complex interplay of individual behaviors and broader societal factors is essential for reducing the risk of victimization and enhancing community safety.
References
1. Clarke, R.V., & Felson, M. (1993). Routine activity and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology, 31(4), 507-526.
2. Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
3. Felson, M. (1994). Crime and everyday life: Insights and implications for victims. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
4. Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. (1996). Child victimization: An ecological perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(3), 233-246.
5. Hindelang, M.J., Gottfredson, M.R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victimization: A study in the relationship of crime, victim, and social structure to criminal victimization. The American Sociological Review, 43(2), 276-290.
6. Lofland, L.H. (2000). Social Networks: The New Durkheimian Perspective. In: Handbook of Sociological Theory. Springer.
7. Miethe, T.D., & Meier, R.F. (1994). Opportunity and crime: The influence of social context on the risk of victimization. Crime & Delinquency, 40(4), 404-425.
8. Wilcox, P., Land, K.C., & Hunt, D. (2003). The multilevel nature of victimization: Individual and community contexts of risk. Social Problems, 50(3), 381-401.
9. Rountree, P.W., & Land, K.C. (1996). Perceptions of crime and criminal victimization: A comparison of two communities. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12(4), 407-432.
10. Campbell, R. (2002). Mutuality and configuration through intimate relationships in the study of women's victimization. Women & Criminal Justice, 14(1), 19-31.