Victim-Offender Overlap, Victims' Rights, and Criminal Justice

Introduction to the Victim-Offender Overlap and Routine Activity Theory

Routine activity theory requires that three conditions be present at the same time and in the same place. As one author puts it, "Crime is a complex phenomenon that occurs when an offender, a victim, and a law intersect in time and space" (Andresen, 2006). Another interpretation holds that the three necessary elements are: the offender, a target (which does not have to be a person but must present an opportunity), and the absence of a "suitable guardian" — which can be anything from a responsible friend to law enforcement officials (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). The intersection of these three elements creates the ideal opportunity for a crime to occur, provided there is enough time to complete the action and the location remains viable.

To address whether this theory is useful for guiding research on the victim-offender overlap, it is first necessary to understand what that overlap means. Regoeczi (2000) defines it as the phenomenon whereby "those adolescents who are at greatest risk of being victimized are individuals who engage in delinquent activities themselves, and, consequently, that adolescent victims and offenders cannot be classified solely in terms of membership in one group or the other." Simply stated, people who commit crimes are more likely to have crimes committed against them — suggesting there is no honor among thieves. In a doctoral thesis, Shaffer (2003) notes that "offenders are 1.5 to 7 times more likely than non-offenders to be victims, and victims are 2 to 7 times more likely than non-victims to be offenders," depending on the study used to determine an actual figure. This overlap suggests several elements that make routine activity theory a useful guide for further research.

Criminals generally occupy the same space — not literally, but in the sense that they tend to act together rather than alone, which means they are frequently around others who are also committing criminal acts. Since the three elements of routine activity theory must converge for a crime to occur, it follows that in spaces where groups of criminals gather, there will likely be few or no authority figures capable of deterring activity. This means that opportunity, potential victims, and multiple offenders are all simultaneously present.

Applying Routine Activity Theory to the Victim-Offender Overlap

A clear example of this is the drive-by shooting planned and executed by gang members. Although stray bullets often involve non-criminal casualties, drive-by shootings are typically targeted at members of rival gangs — people who are themselves offenders. The perpetrators choose a specific time when they know their targets will occupy a particular location. They use a vehicle to reduce the likelihood of immediate intervention by any guardian. All of the elements of routine activity theory are present, and because the intended victim is generally also an offender, this scenario exemplifies the victim-offender overlap.

Because it is known that criminals are among the most likely victims of crime, it should be possible to research both criminal activity and victimization within the same environment. Routine activity theory can be used to predict how criminals will act toward one another given specific time and space conditions — whether among members of the same group or between rival criminal organizations. The theory can anticipate what is likely to happen when the right circumstances converge. This provides a research guide: identify the conditions outlined in routine activity theory, locate those specific circumstances, and then assess how accurately the victim-offender overlap characterizes the people involved, both as victims and perpetrators.

The victim-offender overlap is not fully explained by routine activity theory alone. Examining the phenomenon through additional theoretical lenses can help uncover what remains unknown. It seems intuitive that people outside the law might have some respect for others who also defy it — yet it may equally be true that a fellow criminal is an attractive target precisely because he or she may possess stolen goods or illicit proceeds. The lawless also tend to share space, which itself creates greater opportunity. With this in mind, several other theories are worth considering.

Understanding Victims' Rights and Secondary Victimization

Other useful theories focus less on individual criminal decisions and more on how groups of people interact. Social Capital Theory emphasizes the needs that drive people to participate in groups and the benefits they derive from those affiliations (Bouchard, Wang & Beauregard, 2012). This theory is especially useful when examining criminal enterprises — specifically, why individuals remain part of these groups despite the dangers involved. It suggests that people are willing to become both criminals and victims because of group membership and the perceived rewards of belonging. Social Capital Theory is particularly applicable to gang organization and organized crime families, where it can illuminate the structural incentives that draw individuals in even when victimization is a likely consequence. Like crime opportunity theory, this is fundamentally a risk/reward framework, demonstrating that people will accept victimization as a cost of group membership.

Victims' rights refers to the special protections afforded to crime victims in recognition of the trauma they have experienced. These rights include elements such as the right to some form of restitution for what was lost, freedom from prosecution for any reasonable effort to protect oneself or one's family, and the right to confront the perpetrator in a court of law (Stanbridge & Kenney, 2009). These rights function as a partial acknowledgment of the harm suffered during the commission of the crime.

Such laws were enacted in part because victims were often treated the same as — or in some cases worse than — the individuals who had committed the crime against them. Stanbridge and Kenney (2009) report that many of those who were actually able to access victims' rights protections tended to be of a particular profile: at least middle class and White. As a result, numerous victims' rights advocacy groups have emerged with the explicit purpose of ensuring that all crime victims, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, can access the same protections. In some cases, the pendulum has swung to the point where individuals who are themselves criminals may claim victims' rights when heinous crimes are committed against them — whether by other criminals or by their own victims — particularly in the context of incarceration (Van den Wyngaert, 2011).

Studies have examined victims' rights from the perspective of the victim as the accused is processed through the criminal courts. This secondary victimization is described as a situation in which "victims of atrocity crimes were victimized for a second time as a result of a judicial process in which they could not fully participate" (Van den Wyngaert, 2011). Many courts are not structured to allow victims to be present during proceedings, and this is especially evident when certain categories of victims are involved or when cases are adjudicated in particular jurisdictions around the world.

Over the last decade, international courts — specifically the International Criminal Court — have been convened to address this gap. A primary motivation for their establishment was that many criminal cases were being brought before military tribunals, such as those prosecuting war criminals from Bosnia, where victims were not extended the rights they would have received in a standard criminal trial (Van den Wyngaert, 2011). Procedural reforms have since been introduced to allow victims to have their day in court and to receive some consideration from the accused upon conviction.