Cohen, Kluegel, and Land's five risk factors for criminal victimization

Criminology

Five main risk factors for criminal victimization

Cohen, Kluegel, and Land in their article Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory adopts the interpretation of five factors in association with criminal victimization risks. These factors include

Exposure: The three authors define this risk factor for victimization as the "visibility and accessibility of persons or objects to potential offenders at any given time and place" (Cohen et al., 1981). This represents the capacity of the criminal offender to encounter the victim of the crime. The more frequently this factor (exposure) occurs, the more chance or opportunities to harm the victim or his or her property by the offender. For this factor to be effective, the victim must experience physical relationship or distance with the offender for the crime to occur. Accessibility of the victim would determine if he or she is in danger for prominent criminal attacks.

Proximity: The three authors define proximity as "the physical distance between areas where potential targets of crime reside and areas where relatively large populations of offenders are found" (Cohen et al., 1981). The difference between the first and the second factors for victimization is that the former illustrates the physical visibility aspects while the later evaluates the effect of offenders in relation to physical distance of the residential. When the distance between residential location of the victims and the offender is minimal, there would be high chances for victimization risk. This argument bases its foundation on the social interaction and gravity law of distance.

Target Attractiveness: The article defines target attractiveness as "the material or symbolic desirability of persons or property targets to potential offenders, as well as the perceived inertia of a target against illegal treatment" (Cohen et al., 1981). This factor focuses on the mass or weight, size, and physical abilities of the victim of crime to attain protection against criminal offenders. The ability of the property to appeal effectively to the criminal offender might prove to be a motivation to commit a crime. The essence of victimization risk depends on the extent of the target attractiveness. This illustrates that when the target attractiveness is high, victimization risks would be high.

Guardianship: The article refers to this factor as "the effectiveness of a person (housewives, neighbors, pedestrians, private security guards, law enforcement officers) or objects (burglar alarms, locks, barred windows) in preventing the violation from occurring, either by their presence alone or by some sort of direct or indirect action" (Cohen et al., 1981). The presence of effective guardianship would scare off the criminal offenders thus reducing the elements of victimization risk. Absence of the guardianship factors would enhance the ability of the criminal offenders to attack their targets. This would be because of the reduction on the security system.

Definitional Properties of Specific Crimes: The article refers to this factor as "the features of specific crimes that act to constrain strictly instrumental actions by potential offenders" (Cohen et al., 1981). The notion to this factor is that some crimes prove to be difficult to commit hence reduces the victimization risks to individuals within the target groups.

The main cause of property crime

The main cause for property crime is the presence of social inequality in the society. The presence of social inequality promotes the development of anomie (state of norm less) thus an opportunity for crime to take place. The difference between social status in the society results in the development of tension in the society. This creates the mood for property crime thus the main cause for the criminal activities in relation to physical property. Social inequality divides the society into different classes depending on the economic status of an individual. The creation classes lead to the development of tensions in view of exploitation and bridging of economical gaps. This is an indication that social inequality and poverty are the reasons behind numerous criminal activities in the contemporary world.

How guardianship relates to income level

Guardianship has direct, proportional relationship to the income levels. Increase in the income levels enhances the level of guardianship thus reduction of victimization risk. Individuals with higher income levels have the capacity to purchase guardianship instrumentals such as alarms, locks, and security gadgets. Higher income levels also allow society members to marry easily thus increasing the guardianship capabilities. This is through an increase in the number of potential targets that routinely attach to the victims of criminal offences. Individuals with low-income levels have minimal capacity to purchase guardianship instrumentals. Such instrumentals include alarms and locks. This situation enhances the victimization risks in relation to crime targets.

Compare and Contrast

Both articles (Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review and The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime) illustrates that inequality is a significant cause of criminal activities. The Cohen et al. article notes the fact that social inequality leads to the development or enhancement of crime in relation to property (Cohen et al., 1981). This is an illustration of the development of tension between different classes in the society hence presence of criminal activities within the community. The second article indicates that inequality within the society is a cause of criminal activity (Blau, 1982). Inequality in this context expresses both social and economic factors. The presence of inequality in the context of the society allows for effective room for offenders to participate in criminal activities thus victimizing other societal members.

Cohen's article notes the presence of five victimization factors (proximity, guardianship, features of crime, target attractiveness, and exposure) as aiding the prospect of criminal activities in relation to the society (Cohen et al., 1981). The second article notes the presence of religion or race, inequality, and poverty as the factors behind victimization of the criminal targets in the context of the society (Blau, 1982). Both articles agree on the fact that income levels in the community play a pivotal role in determining the extent of criminal activities in the society. This agreement is directly proportional to the criminal activities. Greater differences in the income levels determine higher rates of criminal activities than in the presence of minimal income disparities. Both articles view crime as a social problem facing the contemporary communities. The articles also have a similar view on the fact that crime society should face crime as a unit since it affects everyone in the context of the community.