Columbia Southern Gender Equality Essay and Victim of A Crime Questions

Columbia Southern University

Question Description

1.Essay question

Is gender-based civil law a necessary requirement? Do you think both genders should be treated equally? Why, or why not?

Your response must be 150 words no formatting required.


2.Unit VII Scholarly Activity

For this activity, you are required to submit a minimum three-page paper that uses at least two credible sources (other than your textbook). All source material must be referenced (paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations). Conduct research using the online library databases to address the following questions:

  • What are the rights guaranteed to victims?
  • Imagine you are a victim of a crime. What would/should you do if your rights are violated?
  • What are the rights and laws involved in domestic violence cases? Are restraining orders and mandatory arrests enough to help a victim?
  • What kinds of victim’s rights, compensation programs, and prevention programs for victims of domestic violence exist in your state (Mississippi)? Are there any national programs? How do these help the victim?

I have attached two articles from the CSU library databases that are required for this assignment. Feel free to use other sources as necessary.

**Note** there is an essay question and a separate 3 page paper

Unformatted Attachment Preview

J Quant Criminol (2015) 31:653–675 DOI 10.1007/s10940-014-9244-3 ORIGINAL PAPER Unpacking the Victim-Offender Overlap: On Role Differentiation and Socio-psychological Characteristics Jean-Louis van Gelder • Margit Averdijk Manuel Eisner • Denis Ribaud • Published online: 21 December 2014  Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract Objectives Provide insight into the victim-offender overlap and role differentiation by examining to what extent socio-psychological characteristics, risky lifestyles/routine activities and immersion in a violent subculture explain differences between victims, offenders and victim-offenders. Specifically, we measure to what extent anxiety and depression, negative peer relations, dominance, and self-control account for differences in adolescents’ inclination towards (violent) offending, victimization or both, over and above risky lifestyles/routine activities or immersion in a violent subculture. Methods Building on the method proposed by Osgood and Schreck (Criminology 45:273–311, 2007), we use two waves of panel data from the Zurich Project on the Social Development of Children and Youths, a prospective longitudinal study of adolescents in Switzerland. Results Incorporating socio-psychological characteristics provides a more encompassing view of both the victim-offender overlap and victim versus offender role differentiation than routine activities/risky lifestyles and subcultural theory alone. Specifically, sociopsychological characteristics in particular differentiate between those who take on predominantly offender roles versus those who are predominantly victims. Conclusion Unpacking the victim-offender overlap and examining differences in sociopsychological characteristics furthers our understanding of the etiology of the victimoffender overlap. Jean-Louis van Gelder and Margit Averdijk are both to be regarded as first author of this article. J.-L. van Gelder (&) Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), De Boelelaan 1077a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: M. Averdijk  D. Ribaud Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ), Zurich, Switzerland M. Eisner University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 123 654 J Quant Criminol (2015) 31:653–675 Keywords Victimization  Victim-offender overlap  Subcultural theory  Risky lifestyles  Routine activities Introduction Research on the association between victimization and offending has yielded strong correlations between the two (e.g., Berg et al. 2012; Hay and Evans 2006; von Hentig 1948; Lauritsen and Laub 2007; Lauritsen et al. 1991; Ousey et al. 2011; Jensen and Brownfield 1986; Schreck et al. 2008; Singer 1981, 1986; Wolfgang 1958). As Lauritsen and Laub (2007) note, little if any research has actually failed to demonstrate the association and it holds across time, place, subgroups, data-sources and type of crime. Unsurprisingly, it ranks among the most robust empirical relations in criminology (Reiss and Roth 1993). However, in their search for common correlates, few studies have explicitly considered that only part of the offender population also falls victim to crime and that not all victims also engage in offending. This lack of specificity has implied a restricted ability to account for unique processes and antecedents of overlap between offenders and victims or lack thereof (Schreck et al. 2008). That is, a focus restricted to victim-offenders to the neglect of how victims and offenders differ may mean losing vital information regarding the etiology of this relation. Additionally, the more individuals tend to adopt one role over the other, the greater the need for specific and separate theorizing and research to account for both phenomena (Schreck et al. 2008, p. 874). Recently, various studies (e.g., Broidy et al. 2006; Daday et al. 2005; Schreck et al. 2008; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2000) have started to address this gap in the literature and revealed meaningful differences between victims, offenders and victim-offenders. Building on this research and using an analytical method proposed by Osgood and Schreck (2007; see also Schreck et al. 2008), the present study examines what factors underlie the tendency to primarily take offender or victim roles in cases of violence. That is, our focus is not restricted to the victim-offender overlap, but in particular addresses factors that are associated with people’s tendency towards victimization versus offending. Extending earlier work, the present study goes beyond using routine activities/risky lifestyles and subcultural theory as explanatory factors by also examining a series of sociopsychological characteristics, such as anxiety, depression and social isolation, that may account for differences in offender versus victim role-taking. We hypothesize that these characteristics can discriminate between those individuals who tend to adopt victim roles and those who predominantly tend towards offending. In line with earlier work, we expect that routine activities/risky lifestyles and subcultural theory explanations discriminate in particular between the group of victim-offenders and their normative peers who have neither been victimized nor have offended. To examine these predictions, we use data from the Zurich Project on the Social Development of Children and Youths (z-proso), a longitudinal study of a sample of urban Swiss adolescents containing extensive multiwave data on both offending and victimization. Analogous to Schreck et al. (2008), we focus on violent offending and victimization during adolescence as it has been associated with a variety of important negative life outcomes such as school failure, substance use, and juvenile arrests, and because identifying risk factors of violent outcomes is critical with regard to adolescent development. Below, we first briefly discuss the dominant perspectives that have been used to account for the victim-offender overlap, i.e., routine activities/risky lifestyle theory and subcultural 123 J Quant Criminol (2015) 31:653–675 655 theory. We subsequently provide an individual differences perspective that details how socio-psychological characteristics are likely to be related to victimization, offending or both. This is followed by an overview of our research design, method of analysis and presentation of the results. We conclude with a discussion of how our findings extend previous efforts and contribute to the literature, and provide suggestions for future research. Routine Activities/Risky Lifestyle and Subcultural Explanations for the Victim-Offender Overlap The first major publication to draw attention to the fact that victims and offenders may belong to the same group of individuals was von Hentig’s (1948) The Criminal and His Victim in which he argued that although the ‘‘doer-sufferer relation is put in our codes in mechanical terms (…), the relationships between the perpetrator and the victim are much more intricate (…). It may happen that the two distinct categories merge. There are cases in which they are reversed and in the long chain of causative forces the victim to assume the role of a determinant’’ (pp. 383–384). Another early publication drawing attention to the overlap is Wolfgang’s (1958) analysis of incident files of homicides. This study showed that victims and offenders were often no strangers to each other as killings were frequently the result of domestic quarrels, altercations over money, or motivated by jealousy or revenge, each of which implicate a prior social relationship between the parties involved. Importantly, the victims had often been the first to use physical force against their eventual slayers (Wolfgang 1958). These early works provided initial support for the idea that victims and offenders are not as distinct as was generally assumed and while most crime research still tends to be either offender-focused or victim-focused, it is now commonly understood that offenders and victims overlap in various important ways (Jennings et al. 2012). Routine Activities/Risky Lifestyle Theory The most common theoretical framework to account for the victim-offender overlap is the routine activities/lifestyle perspective (Cohen and Felson 1979; Hindelang et al. 1978). The underlying idea is that risky lifestyles (Hindelang et al. 1978) and routine activities (Cohen and Felson 1979) bring potential victims into contact with motived offenders and expose them to situations conducive to victimization. In addition, Osgood et al. (1996) found that unstructured socializing with (deviant) peers in the absence of authority figures also predicts participation in offending. Other studies report similar findings (Anderson and Hughes 2009; Bernasco et al. 2013; Bernburg and Thorlindsson 2001; Hay and Forrest 2008; Maimon and Browning 2010). Substance use, e.g., illicit drugs and alcohol consumption, which is also characteristic of risky lifestyles, is yet another factor related to both victimization (e.g., Felson and Burchfield 2004; Gover 2004; Lauritsen et al. 1992; Malik et al. 1997; Vogel and Himelein 1995) and offending (e.g., Elliott et al. 1985, 1989; Zhang et al. 1997). Subcultural Theory An alternative perspective regularly used to account for the relation between victimization and offending is provided by subcultural theory/subculture of violence explanations, which posit that violence occurs predominantly among groups that hold norms that support or 123 656 J Quant Criminol (2015) 31:653–675 encourage the use of force to resolve conflicts, such as gangs (Anderson 1999; Berg et al. 2012; Berg and Loeber 2011; Cohen 1955; Jacobs and Wright 2006; Lauritsen and Laub 2007; Singer 1981, 1986). According to this perspective, individuals alternate between offender and victim roles in areas characterized by disorganization and norms of violence (Schreck et al. 2008). In early support of this idea, Wolfgang’s (1958) study of homicide in Philadelphia showed that a quick resort to physical combat is a measure of daring, courage, defense or status and a cultural means of expression especially for lower-class males. In a similar vein, Singer (1981, 1986) argued that the association between victimization and offending is partially rooted in cycles of retaliatory violence that are driven by oppositional conduct norms. In the US context, subcultures of violence are often interpreted to be neighborhoodrelated and linked to neighborhood disadvantage and disorganization. For example, in a recent study, Berg et al. (2012) found that the reciprocal relation between victimization and offending was particularly strong in neighborhoods where a street culture predominates. In Europe, on the other hand, differences between neighborhoods tend to be less obvious and neighborhood context tends to exert a much smaller influence on the offending rate of its residents (Averdijk et al. 2012; Müller 2008). Instead, subcultures of violence are more related to honor cultures expressed in violence-justifying masculinity norms, which are closely related to ethnic and socio-economic background (Cohen 1972; Enzmann et al. 2003; Ribeaud and Eisner 2009). Although most empirical evidence sides with theories that suggest that offending increases the risk of victimization (Ousey et al. 2011), a negative relation between victimization and offending has also been argued. For example, ethnographic accounts (e.g., Anderson 1999; Katz 1988) suggest that the use of violence against others can be used to gain respect, demonstrate toughness, and avoid subsequent harassment and hence serves as a deterrent to victimization. Ousey et al. (2011) found evidence for the commonly found reciprocal positive relation between offending and victimization in a longitudinal model without controls added to it. However, when controlling for time-stable individual characteristics and dispositions, victimization turned out to be negatively related to later offending and vice versa. As will be argued in more detail below, we think that it may precisely be individual characteristics and dispositional factors that can account for differences between victims-offenders, non-offending victims, and non-victimized offenders. Victims, Offenders and Victim-Offenders Foreshadowing recent attempts to increase specificity in the victim-offender outcome variable, von Hentig (1948) argued that not all victims are alike in the sense that certain groups of victims are passive recipients of violence whereas others actively contribute to their own misfortunes. Hence, in spite of the fact that victims and offenders often belong to the same group, victims and offenders should not simply be treated alike in analytic frameworks. Recently, several studies have started to examine how victims and offenders differ. For example, focusing on assault among undergraduate students, Mustaine and Tewksbury (2000) found that several factors differentiate victims and offenders. Whereas victimization was best predicted by a high exposure to potential offenders or likely criminal events and, to a lesser extent, by the potential victim’s alcohol use and lifestyle, offending, was best predicted by demographic characteristics and participation in other illegal activities. 123 J Quant Criminol (2015) 31:653–675 657 Furthermore, Klevens et al. (2002) found that victims tended to avoid risky activities, whereas victim-offenders did not. For homicide, Broidy et al. (2006) found that victims with no prior offending history differed from the offenders on demographic characteristics and social contexts. In contrast, Daday et al. (2005), comparing victims and offenders of non-lethal violence, found that both victims and offenders live in socially disorganized neighborhoods and share risky lifestyles and violent behaviors. Recently, Schreck et al. (2008) proposed a novel statistical approach to analyze tendencies to gravitate towards either violent offending or victimization. Based on a longitudinal study of US adolescents, they found meaningful variation in the tendency toward either victimization or offending for age, drinking and attachment to parents. Older participants tended towards a victim role, as did those who got drunk frequently and those who were more attached to their parents.1 Other variables, such as those reflecting risky lifestyles and emotional distress, were associated with a general exposure to violent encounters, whether as a victim or as an offender, but not with the differential tendency towards either victimization or offending. In sum, recent research suggests that there may exist certain characteristics that predispose people towards offending but not victimization and vice versa. Nevertheless, as Broidy et al. (2006) argue, while a variety of theories can help make sense of the victimoffender overlap, there is little theoretical discussion of the conditions under which victim and offender populations diverge and such discussion would be an important step towards understanding the vulnerabilities that presage victimization, particularly where traditional measures of structural disadvantage, risky lifestyle and criminal involvement do not appear to be operative. Below, we explore the possibility that socio-psychological characteristics can account for these differences. An Individual Differences Perspective on the Victimization-Offending Nexus It was again von Hentig (1948) who was among the first to link individual dispositions to people’s tendency towards victimization by proposing different ‘psychological types of victim’, such as ‘the depressed’, ‘the wanton’, and ‘the tormentor’. He also suggested that individual-level variables could explain differences between victims and offenders. In the present study, we follow von Hentig’s intuition and examine the possibility that specific socio-psychological characteristics account for differences in people’s inclination towards offending, victimization or both, over and above risky lifestyles/routine activities or immersion in a violent subculture. Below, we draw out an individual differences perspective grounded in the idea of violent crime as social interaction. Violent Crime as Social Interaction Exceptions aside, violent crime typically implies social interaction, and often also an interpersonal relationship between the actors that precedes the interaction. As psychological characteristics of individuals influence the onset and development of their social 1 Note that in the publication by Schreck et al. (2008), there is an error as the positive sign of the coefficient (‘drunk’) in the body text (p. 892) should instead be negative [as it is (correctly) displayed in Table 5 of their publication] implying that being drunk is related to a tendency towards victimization instead of offending (Schreck personal communication, September 5, 2013). 123 658 J Quant Criminol (2015) 31:653–675 interactions, and interpersonal behavior more generally, it is plausible that certain types of characteristics will also have an impact on how violent interactions come about and develop. If correct, this assumption implies that victims who do not double as offenders possess certain characteristics or traits that set them apart from the latter. More specifically, we argue that there is a constellation of different but related individual characteristics and behaviors that seem to work together to increase people’s risk of victimization. Analogously, those offenders who are able to avoid getting victimized, in spite of their own engagement in delinquency and hence exposure to risk factors such as those embedded in risky lifestyles/routine activities and violent subcultures, are likely to be endowed with different sets of individual qualities than victims and victim-offenders. Anxiety, Depression and Negative Social Relations One of the few individual differences variables used in prior research on the victimoffender overlap is self-control. The core idea of self-control theory is that those who lack it tend to disregard the longer-term consequences of their behavior, which puts them at risk for crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Schreck (1999) reformulated the theory to also account for victimization by arguing that low self-control produces vulnerability to crime. For example, the disregard of long-term consequences makes it less likely that people will take precautions against victimization (Schreck 1999). Several recent empirical studies support the claim that low self-control is predictive not only of offending but also of victimization (e.g., Daigle et al. 2008; Schreck 1999; Ousey et al. 2011; Piquero et al. 2005). In the present study, we examine self-control in combination with a larger set of socio-psychological dispositions. In contrast to self-control, which on the basis of earlier work we expect to primarily influence the overlap between victims and offenders, these other socio-psychological characteristics are expected to discriminate in particular between victims and offenders. While criminologists examining the victim-offender overlap have mainly focused on self-control, psychological research on peer victimization has also examined other variables. Importantly, some of this research (e.g., Swearer et al. 2001; Craig 1998) distinguishes between victims, perpetrators and victim-perpetrators demonstrating meaningful differences between these groups. We think that these findings may extend to general victimization in meaningful ways and therefore draw from this literature to develop our individual differences perspective. As most (violent) crime implies social interaction, it makes sense to assume that victims’ emotional states and behaviors, in particular their internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression, influence their risk of victimization. Specifically, youths with internalizi ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

Here you go. In case o...

CASIMIR (24392)
Duke University

Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors