PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT
Week 1: Victims and Victimology
Prior to the 1970s, most criminologists devoted their time to the study of criminals and the causes of crime. Crime victims were virtually invisible within the criminal justice system and to the general public; there was little or no focus on the victims of crime. In the 1970s, U.S. funded studies of crime in several major cities revealed that victimization was underestimated and that large numbers of crime victims were being underserved by the criminal justice system. A new branch of criminology emerged that focused on the victims of crimes. This branch is known as victimology.
This week, you begin your exploration of victimology by examining the characteristics and needs of direct and indirect victims of crime.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Identify direct and indirect victims of crime
Analyze the effect of crime on direct and indirect victims
Analyze the difference between the needs of direct and indirect victims of crime
PLEASE READ ALL REQUIRED ASSIGNMENTS FOR THIS LESSON FROM TOP TO THE BOTTOM I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ALL THE INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED. MAKE SURE YOU DO THIS PAPER IN 150 TO 200 WORD COUNT WITH REFERENCE. I HAVE ALSO ADDED A SAMPLE PAPER THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT FORM YOUR GUIDE TO HELP YOU TO BUILD YOUR WORK. ALSO, I HAVE ADDED A PIECE OF READING MATERIAL THAT YOU CAN READ OVER TO HELP YOU WITH PUTTING YOUR WORK TOGETHER. PLEASE REACH OUT IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS……THANKS
Discussion: Direct and Indirect Victims of Crime
The term victim has been in use for centuries. In contemporary times, its definition has come to include people who are affected both directly and indirectly by crime, accidents, and disease. Direct and indirect victims suffer differently. After an assault, the assault victim is the direct victim, suffering from injuries and perhaps a loss of property or work. Indirect victims include family, friends, and members of the community. Family and friends may suffer due to economic or emotional hardship that is a byproduct of the crime, while the community may live in fear and may limit activity. In this Discussion, you examine how crime affects both direct and indirect victims in order to effectively address their needs.
Post a response to the following:
Briefly describe one property crime and one violent crime.
Identify the direct and indirect victim(s) of each crime.
Explain the effect of the crime on both direct and indirect victims and how their needs differ. For each crime, address the effects on two of these areas:
Medical
Emotional
Physical
Financial
Readings
Karmen, A. (2020). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Chapter 1, “What is Victimology?” (pp. 1–40)
Chapter 2, “The Rediscovery of Crime Victims” (pp. 41–79)
Week 1 Discussion: Direct and Indirect Victims of Crime
Cyber terrorism has seen a rise as technology advances. When we consider that we, as a society, rely on
computers in particular to keep us safe and assist us in our everyday lives by using them to control travel
(air, train, bus, boat), using them for banking, security (local and national), hospitals/medical practices,
etc. it is especially disconcerting to consider what may happen if those systems do not function properly.
If one small thing is caused to go wrong, it can literally endanger lives. (Nandekar, 2012)
An odd example of cyber terrorism is when a mob-boss survived an assassination attempt and was
hospitalized. His assassins were able to hack the computer system of the hospital where he was being
kept, changed the directions for his medication so he would be given a lethal dose, then changed the
instructions after the fatal dose was administered so the nurse would be blamed for the “accident.”
(Sproles & Byars, 1998) In this example, the mob-boss was the victim of the assassin’s crime and would
be considered the primary victim since he “experience[d] the criminal act and its consequences first
hand.” (Karmen, 2016)
It may be difficult to objectively identify the mob-boss as the victim, as he likely committed an offending
act that caused someone to hire an assassin; however, he was killed and the primary victim of this
particular crime. Unfortunately, the nurse who administered the fatal dose of medication unknowingly
and is an indirect victim of this crime, was probably deeply affected by the death of her patient. She may
have had to face the possibility of losing her license, grief and outrage directed at her by the family and
friends of the primary victim, and probably would need therapy and support to recover from the
incident. The hospital may have suffered a tarnished reputation thereby affected the reputations of
other employees of the hospital negatively as well. (Sproles & Byars, 1998 & Karmen, 2016)
Resources:
Karmen, A. (2016) Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning.
Nandekar, U. P. (2012). Contemporary forms of crimes: Issues and challenges techno crime (cyber-
crimes). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256045103_Contemporary_Forms_of_Crimes_Issues_and_C
hallenges_Techno_Crimes_Cyber-Crimes.
Spoles, J & Byars, W. (1998). Examples of cyber-terrorism. Retrieved from
http://csciwww.etsu.edu/gotterbarn/stdntppr/cases.htm.
This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 02-24-2022 11:25:27 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/33104803/Week-1-Discussion-Victimologydocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uvao20
Victims & Offenders
An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and
Practice
ISSN: 1556-4886 (Print) 1556-4991 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20
The need for protection and punishment in
victims of violent and nonviolent crime in the
Netherlands: The effect of relational distance
Annemarie Ten Boom, Antony Pemberton & Marc S. Groenhuijsen
To cite this article: Annemarie Ten Boom, Antony Pemberton & Marc S. Groenhuijsen
(2019) The need for protection and punishment in victims of violent and nonviolent crime in
the Netherlands: The effect of relational distance, Victims & Offenders, 14:2, 222-238, DOI:
10.1080/15564886.2019.1575300
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1575300
Published online: 17 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 453
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The need for protection and punishment in victims of violent and
nonviolent crime in the Netherlands: The effect of relational
distance
Annemarie Ten Booma, Antony Pembertonb, and Marc S. Groenhuijsenc
aMinistry of Security and Justice, Research and Documentation Centre, The Hague, the Netherlands;
bInternational Victimology Institute, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; cDepartment of Criminal Law,
Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
ABSTRACT
A crime victim’s relationship to the offender is widely recognized as
an important variable in the study of victims and the criminal justice
system. However, studies concerning comparisons of the needs of
victims at various relational distances to the offender are lacking. The
authors studied how the victim’s need for protection and punish-
ment correlated to the victim’s relational distance to the offender.
The authors distinguished more than the usual two victim-offender
relationships (known vs. stranger offender), so that the needs of
victims at intermediate relational distance (offender is known to the
victim, but not an intimate) to the offender might become visible.
A total of 370 victims were interviewed about their reasons for
reporting the crime. Respondents were divided into three groups:
small (intimates), intermediate (nonintimates), and large (strangers)
relational distance. While controlling for gender of the victim and
type of crime, the needs of victims were found to vary with the
relational distance to the offender.
KEYWORDS
relational distance;
victim-offender relationship;
victim needs; protection;
punishment
A substantial part of all crimes regarding human victims is committed by an offender who is
known, often well known, to the victim. This is the case not only for the majority of violent
crimes (e.g., Durose et al., 2005; Van Dijk, Van Kesteren & Smit, 2007; Wittebrood, 2006),
but also for a substantial amount of property crimes (e.g., Catalano, 2010; Shover, 1991;
Wittebrood, 2006). For instance, Shover (1991) calculated that 42% of victims who encoun-
ter a burglar in their home may discover that the burglar is not a stranger.
Therefore, it is important to recognize the crime victim’s relationship to the offender as
a variable in the study of victims of (violent) crime and their needs regarding the criminal justice
system (CJS). Whether the offender is, for example, a partner, family member, neighbor or
complete stranger, is highly relevant to the victim’s perceptions and behavior in their response to
the crime. First, the victim-offender relationship affects the extent to which the victim labels
certain behavior as criminal (e.g., Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Ménard, 2005) and—partly as
a consequence of this labeling—reports incidents to the police (e.g., Avakame, Fyfe, & McCoy,
1999; Felson, Messner, & Hoskin, 1999; Kang & Lynch, 2014). Moreover, when victims in
different victim-offender relationships file a report of the incident, they appear to do so for
different reasons (Felson, Messner, Hoskin, & Deane, 2002). Subsequently, research suggests
CONTACT Annemarie Ten Boom a.ten.boom@minvenj.nl WODC, PO Box 20301, 2500 EH, The Hague, the
Netherlands.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS
2019, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 222–238
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1575300
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
that relational distance correlates with variation in victims’ expectations, needs and assessments
of the CJS response. In particular, we know that victims of domestic violence display different
response patterns compared with other types of victims (e.g., Byrne, Kilpatrick, Howley, &
Beatty, 1999; Erez & Tontodonato, 1992; Felson & Paré, 2008). However, the evidence base for
assessing the interaction of relational distance with various features of the victim’s experience is
small: Research rarely includes relational distance as a separate variable.
Understanding variation in victims’ perspectives on justice responses can serve to
enhance experiences of different groups of victims, as “the” victim does not exist (e.g.,
Pemberton, 2010). A review of Ten Boom and Kuijpers (2012) revealed that the needs of
victims of known and stranger offenders vary substantially. Understanding the differences
can contribute to improving the victim’s position in the traditionally offender-oriented
judicial system, thereby potentially preventing disappointment or even secondary victimi-
zation (e.g., Orth, 2002). Since the CJS has encouraged victims of domestic violence to
report their victimization, the CJS should also pay attention to their needs and the possible
ways in which their needs differ from those of victims of crimes by strangers. Negative
experiences of victims with the CJS affect not only victims, but also their social networks.
If the judicial response does not meet the expectations of victims, negative feelings may
result and victim’s confidence in the legal system and trust in authorities may decline
(Macmillan, 2001). This decline in trust can adversely affect people’s subsequent will-
ingness to report crimes to the police.
Not many previous studies allow for a direct examination of the relationship between
relational distance to the offender and the victim experience in the CJS. Instead, inferences
need to be drawn from two largely separate bodies of literature. The first concerns victims of
domestic violence and predominantly intimate partner violence (e.g., Ganapathy, 2006; Hare,
2006; Johnson, 2007; Lewis, Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 2000; Murdaugh, Hunt, Sowell, &
Santana, 2004). This body of literature reveals that, for domestic violence victims, protection is
an important need. In this literature, hardly any attention has been paid to victims of property
crimes by intimate partners, or to victims of known offenders at a somewhat larger relational
distance, such as neighbors and people known from the work place (e.g., colleagues, clients).
The second body of literature queries victims of predatory and property crimes committed
mostly by strangers (e.g., Baurmann & Schädler, 1991; Kilchling, 1991; Maguire, 1985;
Maguire & Kynch, 2000). These studies reveal that punishment of the offender is an important
reason for reporting the offense to the police. For victims of property crime, it are only the
requirements of insurance that are mentioned more often as an important reason for
reporting (e.g., Baurmann & Schädler, 1991). In this literature, scant attention has been paid
to the question whether part of the predatory and property crimes is committed by known
offenders.
Although these results in terms of a need for protection and a need for punishment are
intuitively plausible, variation in methodology restricts the extent to which studies from
the separate bodies of literature allow for a valid comparison. The small number of studies
that do offer opportunities for comparison have additional issues. First they solely relate to
violent crime, leaving open the question whether findings also apply to property crimes.
Moreover, these studies solely compare victims of domestic violence (i.e., at the smallest
relational distance to the offender) to victims of violence by strangers (i.e., at the largest
relational distance to the offender). Thus, we found that the intermediate relational
distance between victim and offender, at which the offender is known to the victim, but
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 223
not intimately so, is largely ignored. For instance the intermediate relational distance
comprises neighbors, people from work and other acquaintances of the victim.
The purpose of the present article is to contribute to filling this gap in the victimolo-
gical literature. Our data form a solid basis to directly relate the victim’s need for
protection (usually related to victims of intimate partner violence) and punishment
(usually related to victims of stranger crimes) to the victim’s relational distance (cf.
Black, 1976; Horwitz, 1990) to the offender.
In addition, not only did we look into the area of violent crime, but we also included
property crimes and vandalism or public order crimes in this study. Next to that, the
experience of victims at the intermediate relational distance of the offender was also
examined. Finally, we were able to control for possible confounding variables—gender
of the victim and type of crime—when modelling the correlation of the victim-offender
relationship with the dependent variables.
We continue by discussing the theoretical and empirical literature concerning the need
of the victim for protection and punishment at varying relational distance to the offender.
Subsequently, we present and test two hypotheses concerning the relationship between
relational distance and these victim needs.
Relational distance and the need for protection
Relational distance is the degree of intimacy between people as indicated by factors such as
the number and type of interactions between them, the intensity and length of their relation-
ship, and the nature of their ties (Horwitz, 1990). A correlation of the relational distance to
the offender with the victim’s need for protection may be expected because of four reasons.
The first is that decreasing relational distance between individuals implies more
frequent and intimate contact, as well as more accessibility to each other’s personal
spaces (Apel, Dugan, & Powers, 2013). This increases vulnerability and decreases the
successful execution of avoidance strategies (Felson et al., 1999). Second, smaller rela-
tional distance is associated with an increased probability of repeat victimization.
Victimization is more likely to have preceded the current instance of victimhood, and
is more likely to be repeated in the future when the relational distance is the smaller
(Felson et al., 2002). This is particularly true for violent crime (e.g., Felson & Cares,
2005; Myhill & Allen, 2002). Third, the gender balance in the victim population changes
as relational distance decreases (Felson et al., 2002). Women are relatively more likely to
become victims of someone they know, whereas men are relatively more prone to be
victimized by strangers. As men are on average bigger and physically stronger than
women, meaning that the latter are more likely to need protection from third parties,
this can also explain a more prevalent need for protection at smaller relational distances.
Fourth, crimes by known offenders are often conflict-related crimes, while crimes by
strangers are predominantly predatory (e.g., Cooney & Phillips, 2002; Felson, 1993). In
the former instance, the offender targets a particular person or object, rather than
choose a victim from a wider set of potential targets or completely at random, as is
mostly the case in the latter instance. The ongoing conflict can leave an ongoing feeling
of threat in the victim, even if these crimes do not reoccur.
Each of these reasons suggests that the victim’s need for protection is expected to be
negatively correlated with relational distance: the larger the relational distance, the smaller
224 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
the need for protection. The need for protection at intermediate relational distance to the
offender, would be less than that in cases of crimes committed by intimates, but more than
in crimes committed by strangers.
The need for protection in victims of intimate partner violence has been well docu-
mented. Lewis et al. (2000) interviewed female victims of domestic violence concerning
their reasons for involving the CJS. The respondents frequently spoke about their struggle
to protect themselves and their children. Lewis et al. observed that the women only rarely
referred to punishment or retribution—their main concerns were to achieve short-term
protection from harm and long-term prevention of recurrence. Similar research concern-
ing research of victims of offenders at intermediate relational distance is scarce. An
exception is the study of Felson et al. (2002) on reasons for reporting violent crime to
the police. In a survey of victims of assault or threat, victims of partners and other family
members were more likely to call the police to protect themselves from further attacks
than victims of strangers. However, this effect was not found for victims of other known
offenders. This partly corroborates our hypothesis of the relationship between relational
distance and the need for protection, and confirms the importance of including victims at
intermediate relational distance in the analysis.
Relational distance and the need for punishment
The retributive focus of people in general and victims of crime in particular is assumed to
originate from the natural human emotions that people experience when someone is
intentionally harmed; the desire to punish the offender seems to be part of the emotional
makeup of human beings (e.g., Gromet & Darley, 2009; Whiteley, 1998). Empirical
evidence demonstrates that punishment of the offender is indeed an important need for
crime victims. For instance, in an early study on the needs of victims of several types of
crime Baurmann and Schädler (1991) found that approximately 77% of the victims
expressed an interest in punishment of the offender.
With regard to the relationship between relational distance and the need for punishment,
we draw on justice restoration theory (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008, 2010) and
social control theory (Black, 1976; Horwitz, 1990). Wenzel et al. (2008) argued that people’s
notion of justice following a norm transgression depends on how they construe their
relationship to the offender and interpret the incident. Crimes—as archetypical norm trans-
gressions (e.g., Duff, 2001)—can symbolically be regarded as threats to status or power or as
threats to shared values. When victims primarily perceive the crime committed against them
as a threat to power, they feel that the offender usurps status or power from the victim. The
offender places him- or herself above the victim and takes a position of superiority, while
profoundly disrespecting the victim. Consequently, the victim’s response will be an attempt to
restore the power relationship by taking power away from the offender. This is achieved by
punishing the offender, proportional to the severity of the transgression of the offender.
Besides the power or status implications, crime also poses a threat to shared values or the
victim’s sense of communion (cf. Pemberton, Aarten, & Mulder, 2017). Crime calls into
question whether the community to which victim and offender belong actually shares the
values underlying the norms that are enshrined by criminal law. In absence of a reaction to
the norm transgression, the norm itself is endangered. As the relational distance between
victim and offender decreases, this violation of values is a more prevalent symbolic implication
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 225
of the crime for the victim. This diminishes the need for punishment of the offender. The
smaller the relational distance is, the larger the preference for a reaction that confirms the
importance of the shared value is (expected to be). This particularly conveys renewed
allegiance of the offender to this value. Conversely, larger distances are associated with greater
emphasis on retributive punishment (Wenzel et al., 2008). This assumption is in line with
Horwitz’s theory (building on Black, 1976) on the logic of social control. However, Horwitz
(1990) draws on neither the personal symbolic meaning of the crime nor what people’s needs
are to be able to experience justice. His theory is founded on the structural characteristics of
social life. In relationships that can be characterized by significant relational distance, hardly or
no “crosscutting ties” exist. The latter term refers to people who have social relationships with
both parties in a “dispute” (Horwitz, 1990). These ties link the victim and the offender and
their social networks to each other. At the largest relational distance, people are not part of the
same social network. According to Horwitz, conflicts between people with overlapping group
memberships rarely lead to punishment of the offender, or in his terms: a penal style of social
control, aiming to inflict pain. Moreover, “harm that occurs among intimates is considered to
be less deserving of punishment than harm arising between parties at a larger relational
distance” (Horwitz, 1990, p. 28). Disputants that have no ties (for instance by kin, marriage, or
residence) have neither the interest in nor the means to make other arrangements than having
the offender punished. Crosscutting ties are absent in such situations.
To our knowledge, there are no empirical studies in which the desire for punishment in
victims at different relational distances of the offender has directly been compared.
However, studies on domestic violence suggest that these victims often do not want the
offender arrested and incarcerated; they would rather have their partners and family
members stop being abusive and do not desire retribution or a criminal justice process
(e.g., Johnson, 2007; Lewis et al., 2000; Ten Boom & Kuijpers, 2012). Other studies
indicated a widespread need for punishment among victims of nondomestic crimes
(e.g., Baurmann & Schädler, 1991). Consequently, our hypothesis is that with increasing
relational distance between the victim and the offender, the victim’s need for punishment
will be a more prevalent reason for reporting to the police.
Method
Data
To test the hypotheses, we used data collected in a comprehensive survey among a sample
of 508 crime victims 12 years old and older (for the full report of the original study, see
Timmermans, Van Den Tillaart, & Homburg, 2013). The survey was conducted in
2012–2013 in the Netherlands. The data were not collected for this particular study. The
data were originally collected to learn about the experiences with the CJS of victims whose
cases were treated by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Male and female victims of
violent crimes, property crimes and vandalism or public order crimes, whose cases were
treated by the PPS in the Netherlands, were interviewed about their experiences with the
CJS and their reasons for filing a report. The fieldwork was conducted online and by
telephone. The survey had a response rate of 23%. This rate is not unusual in studies
among crime victims. For instance, Erez and Belknap (1998) reported 10%, Laxminarayan
(2013) reported 20% and Erez and Tontodonato (1992) reported 28%.
226 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
The dataset was found to be suitable for testing the hypotheses under investigation, as it
contained variables on victim’s reasons for reporting the crime to the police and it also
contained characteristics of the victim-offender relationship in some detail. Respondents
who indicated that they personally reported the crime to the police were provided with
a checklist of possible reasons they had for turning to the police. More than one reason
could be chosen. Victims who did not personally report their case to the police were
excluded from the present study. Complete data on the variables of interest for 370
respondents were available. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.
Dependent variables
Two dependent variables were examined in the present study. The first is “protection as
a reason for reporting the incident to the police.” For this dependent variable, further
named protection, we combined the reasons “I was afraid that the crime would be
repeated” and “I wanted the police to protect me.” The second dependent variable is
“the offender(s) had to be punished as a reason for reporting the incident to the police.”
This variable is further named punishment. The two dependent variables are dichoto-
mous, coded 0 for “reason not checked” and 1 for “reason checked.”
Independent variables
The key independent variable is the relational distance between the victim and the offender.
Respondents were asked whether they knew the offender and if so, who he or she was: their
partner, former partner, relative, neighbor, someone from work, or another acquaintance. We
classified these offenders according to their relational distance to the victim (cf. Black, 1976;
Horwitz, 1990). Horwitz (1990) stated that relational distance ranges from the most intimate
ties among family, kin, and close friends to ties among acquaintances and colleagues to
transactions between strangers. We divided the respondents in three relational distance groups:
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (N = 370).
Variable Value n % M (SD) Range
Protection reporting reason Yes 130 35.1
No 240 64.9
Punishment reporting reason Yes 241 65.1
No 129 34.9
Relational distance Small 62 16.8
Intermediate 127 34.3
Large 181 48.9
Gender of victim Man 186 50.3
Woman 184 49.7
Type of crime Property 131 35.4
Violent 208 56.2
Vandalism/public order 31 8.4
Age of victim (years) 47.2 (16.7) 14–87
Country of birth of victim The Netherlands 335 90.5
Other country 35 9.5
Seriousness of offense (years of imprisonment) < 4 100 27.0
4–8 245 66.2
≥ 8 25 6.8
Fieldwork mode Online 239 64.6
Telephone 131 35.4
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 227
(a) small relational distance (intimates): offenders are partners, ex-partners, (other) family
members; (b) intermediate relational distance (nonintimates): offenders are neighbors, people
from work, other acquaintances; and (c) large relational distance: offenders are strangers.
Previous research identified two variables that are confounded with the relational distance
between victim and offender: type of crime and gender of the victim. Small relational distance is
associated with victimization by violent crimes rather than property crimes and vandalism or
public order crimes (e.g., Wittebrood, 2006), while women are overrepresented among the
victims of crimes by offenders at small relational distance (Black et al., 2011; Feehan, Nada-Raja,
Martin, & Langley, 2001; Greenfeld et al., 1998; Sampson, 1987; Truman & Morgan, 2014;
Walby & Allen, 2004). Consequently, in the analysis we controlled for the distinct effects of
gender of the victim (man or woman) and type of crime. Type of crime was measured with
a checklist of possible crimes and categorized in (a) property crimes (theft, burglary, scamming,
fraud), (b) violent crimes (assault, threat, robbery, stalking, sexual offenses, attempted murder),
and (c) vandalism or public order crimes (demolition, nuisance).
Other independent variables that were taken into account are the age, country of birth of
the victim (the Netherlands or another country), the seriousness of the offense in legal
terms, and fieldwork mode (online or telephone). Seriousness of the offense in legal terms is
a variable that is based on the maximum penalty according to the penal law in the
Netherlands. Crimes were categorized in (a) less than four years imprisonment (demolition,
threat, and stalking), (b) 4–8 years imprisonment (theft, assault, and burglary), and (c) eight
years or more imprisonment (robbery, rape, and attempted murder).
Analytical strategy
First, the bivariate association between the reporting reasons protection and punishment and
the relational distance between victim and offender was examined. Second, if the bivariate
relationship reached significance at the .05 level, a stepwise multivariate logistic regression
analysis was conducted. By definition, relational distance and the confounding variables
victim-gender and type of crime were included in the final model. To avoid issues with
multicollinearity, other independent variables were entered into the analysis only if there was
a significant bivariate relationship with the dependent variable. As a result, for protection, no
other independent variables were included in addition to gender of the victim, type of crime
and relational distance. Model 1 included only gender of the victim. Model 2 added type of
crime, and Model 3 incorporated relational distance as well. For punishment, Model 1
included only fieldwork mode as an independent variable; Model 2 added the demographics
gender, country of birth, and age of the victim; Model 3 added type of crime; and Model 4
incorporated relational distance. Chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and, for the relationship
with age, an analysis of variance were conducted to examine the bivariate relationships
between the independent variables and the reporting reasons.
Results
Protection
Our main hypothesis is that as relational distance between the victim and the offender
increases, the victim’s need for protection becomes a less prevalent reason for filing
228 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
a report. First, we consider the bivariate association between protection as a reporting
reason and the relational distance between the victim and the offender. As can be seen in
Table 2, the proportion of victims that mention protection as a reporting reason clearly
displays an inverse correlation with relational distance to the offender. A total of 61.3% of
the victims at small relational distance, 38.6% of the victims at intermediate relational
distance, and 23.8% of the victims at large relational distance name protection as one of
their reasons for reporting the crime, χ2(370, 2) = 29.6, p = .000. Hence, the need for
protection is roughly relevant for six of 10 victims of intimates (partners, ex-partners,
family members), four of 10 victims of nonintimate but known offenders (neighbors,
people from work, other acquaintances), and two of 10 victims of crime by a stranger.
Second, we consider the stepwise multivariate logistic regression. Age, country of birth,
seriousness of the offense, and fieldwork mode were not significantly related to protection
as a reason for filing a report. Therefore, these are not included in the models.
Model 1 includes only gender of the victim (see Table 3). Females are more likely than
males to name protection as a reporting reason, as indicated by the odds ratio (OR) of 2.20.
The model has a weak explanatory power, as indicated by the Nagelkerke R2 of .05. Model 2
adds type of crime. Type of crime (violent) has a separate effect on this reporting reason, as
indicated by the OR of 3.97. It follows that victims of violent crime state more frequently
that protection is a reason for reporting than victims of property crime. The R2 increases
from .05 to .15, indicating an increase in the explained variance after including type of
crime. Still, female victims—of any type of crime—appear to mention protection as a reason
for reporting more often than male victims. Model 3 incorporates relational distance as well.
The final regression model (see details in Table 4) shows that the relational distance to the
offender has a distinct impact on protection as a reporting reason for the victim, besides
gender of the victim and type of crime. The need for protection is a more prevalent reason
for reporting to the police for victims at small relational distance than for victims at the
largest relational distance from the offender, with an OR of 2.64. Additionally, victims in the
intermediate relational distance group also differ significantly from victims at the largest
Table 2. Reporting reasons at different relational distance (N = 370).
Protection (n = 130) Punishment (n = 241) n
Small 38 (61.3%) 31 (50.0%) 62
Intermediate 49 (38.6%) 83 (65.4%) 127
Large 43 (23.8%) 127 (70.2%) 181
Note. Relational distance totals do not add up to 100% because more reporting reasons could be mentioned.
Table 3. Stepwise logistic regression for protection (N = 370).
Model 1
OR
Model 2
OR
Model 3
OR
Female victim (male = ref.) 2.20* 2.51* 2.08*
Type of crime
Vandalism/PO (property = ref.) 1.56 1.31
Violent (property = ref.) 3.97* 3.05*
Relational distance
Small (large = ref.) 2.64*
Intermediate (large = ref.) 1.71*
Nagelkerke R2 .05 .15 .18
Note. OR = odds ratio; PO = public order.
*p < .05.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 229
relational distance of the offender, as indicated by the OR of 1.71. However, victims at the
smallest relational distance to the offender do not differ significantly from victims at the
intermediate relational distance.
To conclude, the victim-offender relationship has a distinct impact on protection as
a reporting reason. The R2 of .18 of Model 3 indicates a further increase in the
explained variance after including relational distance. Multicollinearity is not
a problem, with tolerance values of 0.88–0.94 and variance inflation factor values of
1.07–1.14. With ORs of 1.71–2.64, the effect of relational distance definitely can be
considered relevant, though not extremely strong. Additionally, the model does still
does not have a strong explanatory power, as indicated by the Nagelkerke R2 of .18. It
can be assumed that other predictors are relevant too. We will return to this in the
Discussion section.
Punishment
Our second hypothesis is that as the relational distance between the victim and the
offender increases, the victim’s need for punishment of the offender becomes a more
prevalent reason for reporting. Although the relationship does not appear to be as strong
as it was with protection, still the proportion of victims citing punishment of the offender
as a reporting reason rises with increasing relational distance to the offender. As can be
seen in Table 2, 50.0% of the victims at small relational distance, 65.4% of the victims at
intermediate relational distance, and 70.2% of the victims at the largest relational distance
named punishment as one of their reporting reasons, χ2(370, 2) = 8.3, p = .016. Hence, the
need for punishment is relevant for five of 10 victims of intimates and approximately
seven of 10 victims of nonintimate and stranger offenders.
We now consider the stepwise multivariate logistic regression. The independent vari-
ables age, country of birth, and fieldwork mode were significantly related to punishment as
a reason for reporting. Therefore, these variables are integrated in the regressions, in
addition to relational distance, gender of the victim and type of crime. Surprisingly, the
seriousness of the offense in legal terms was not significantly related to punishment as
a reporting reason. Therefore, this variable is not included in the multivariate analysis.
Model 1 includes only fieldwork mode as an independent variable (see Table 5).
Fieldwork by telephone, compared with online data collection, appears to diminish the
Table 4. Details of the final model for protection (N = 370).
B SE p OR 95% CI
Female victim (male = ref.) 0.73 0.26 .004 2.08 [1.26, 3.42]
Type of crime .000
Vandalism/PO (property = ref.) 0.27 0.47 .572 1.31 [0.52, 3.30]
Violent (property = ref.) 1.12 0.28 .000 3.05 [1.75, 5.31]
Relational distance .012
Small (large = ref.) 0.97 0.35 .005 2.64 [1.33, 5.22]
Intermediate (large = ref.) 0.54 0.27 .044 1.71 [1.01, 2.88]
Constant −2.07 0.29 .000
Note. Nagelkerke R2 = .18. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; PO = public order.
230 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
likelihood that victims mention punishment as a reason for reporting. Model 2 adds the
demographics gender, country of birth, and age of the victim. Country of birth and age
of the victim have separate effects on punishment as a reporting reason; gender does not.
With increasing age, the odds of mentioning punishment as a reporting reason
decreases. Being born in the Netherlands increases the odds of mentioning this reason.
The R2 increases from .08 for Model 1 to .14 for Model 2, indicating an increase in the
explained variance after including these variables. Model 3 adds type of crime. Similar to
gender of the victim, type of crime does not have a separate effect on the need for
punishment. The explained variance does not increase. However, the explained variance
does increase to .17 in Model 4, after including relational distance in the regression. In
the final model, the need for punishment is a less prevalent reason for reporting the
crime to the police for victims at the smallest relational distance from the offender, than
for victims at the largest relational distance (see details of the model in Table 6). This is
indicated by the OR of 0.38. Also, the need for punishment is a less prevalent reason for
reporting for victims at the smallest relational distance than for victims at the inter-
mediate relational distance. This is indicated by the OR of 0.45 (p = .025; result not in
Table 6). However, victims at the intermediate relational distance do not differ signifi-
cantly from victims at the largest relational distance of the offender.
To conclude, the victim-offender relationship has a distinct impact on both protection
and punishment as reasons for reporting. Type of crime and gender of the victim do not
Table 5. Stepwise logistic regression for punishment (N = 370).
Model 1
OR
Model 2
OR
Model 3
OR
Model 4
OR
Telephone (online = ref.) 0.34* 0.37* 0.37* 0.36*
Female victim (male = ref.) 0.74 0.74 0.93
Country of birth: the Netherlands (other country = ref.) 2.50* 2.50* 2.52*
Age 0.98* 0.98* 0.98*
Type of crime
Vandalism/PO (property = ref.) 0.88 0.96
Violent (property = ref.) 0.95 1.20
Relational distance
Small (large = ref.) 0.38*
Intermediate (large = ref.) 0.85
Nagelkerke R2 .08 .14 .14 .17
Note. PO = public order.
*p < .05.
Table 6. Details of the final model for punishment (N = 370).
B SE p OR 95% CI
Telephone (online = ref.) −1.02 0.24 .000 0.36 [0.23, 0.58]
Female victim (male = ref.) −0.08 0.25 .757 0.93 [0.57, 1.51]
Country of birth: Netherlands (other country = ref.) 0.92 0.39 .018 2.52 [1.17, 5.41]
Age −0.02 0.01 .003 0.98 [0.96, 0.99]
Type of crime .755
Vandalism/PO (property = ref.) −0.04 0.46 .923 0.96 [0.39, 2.33]
Violent (property = ref.) 0.18 0.27 .506 1.20 [0.70, 2.04]
Relational distance .023
Small (large = ref.) −0.97 0.36 .006 0.38 [0.19, 0.76]
Intermediate (large = ref.) −0.16 0.27 .552 0.85 [0.50, 1.45]
Constant 1.43 0.56 .010
Note. Nagelkerke R2 = .17. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; PO = public order.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 231
have separate effects on the need for punishment. However, the variables age, country of
birth, and fieldwork mode appear to be relevant. Multicollinearity is not a problem, with
tolerance values of 0.87–0.99 and variance inflation factor values of 1.02–1.15. Again,
these effects are not extremely strong. Additionally, the model does not have a strong
explanatory power, as indicated by the Nagelkerke R2 of .17. It can be assumed that other
predictors are relevant too. We will return to this in the discussion section.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to expand the knowledge about the relationship of
a crime victim’s relational distance to the offender and the needs of crime victims with
regard to the response of the Criminal Justice System. Both the need for protection and
the need for punishment were examined. In the empirical literature, the need for protec-
tion is often related to victims at small relational distance of the offender—though without
direct comparison of this group to those at larger relational distance. In the theoretical
literature, the need for punishment is related to victims in general and is supposed to be
stronger for victims as their relational distance to the offender increases.
In this study, we explicitly added victims at the intermediate relational distance of the
offender to the comparison. At this relational distance, victim and offender know one
another, but they are not ex-partners, current partners, or family members. That is, they
are neither strangers nor intimates. They are, for instance neighbors, people from work
(e.g., colleagues, clients), or other acquaintances. This group of nonintimates has rarely
been compared with strangers and intimates in studies regarding victim needs. We
examined the effect of relational distance on the needs of victims of different types of
crime, whereas previous research almost without exception focused on victims of violent
crimes only. Indeed, a substantial part of all violent crimes is committed by an offender
that is known, often well known, to the victim. However, research suggests that this is also
the case for a substantial amount of property crimes (e.g., Catalano, 2010; Shover, 1991). If
the absolute number of property crimes is taken into account, it becomes clear that this
type of crime should not be overlooked. We also controlled for the gender of the victim.
Relational distance was found to be associated with victim’s needs, regardless of the
type of crime and the gender of the victim. More so than victims of crimes by strangers,
victims of crimes by intimates and—though to a smaller degree—nonintimate acquain-
tances expressed the need for protection as a reason for reporting the crime. They did so
irrespective of the type of crime (property crime, vandalism or public order crime, or
violent crime). This finding confirms our hypothesis that with increasing relational
distance between the victim and the offender, the victim’s need for protection will be
a decreasingly pressing reason for reporting to the police. It is important to acknowledge
that the group of victims at intermediate relational distance of the offender feels the need
for protection more often than the group of strangers, as does the group of victims of
intimates. In addition, it is noteworthy that not only violent crime by known offenders can
be threatening. Victims of intimate and nonintimate known offenders of every type of
crime distinguished in this study report a heightened need for protection. Perhaps
nonviolent crimes could be a forewarning for violence or a signal of other problems. It
is worth mentioning that it is not just the female victims who appear to feel vulnerable.
Although the need for protection is certainly great among this group, male victims of
232 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
crimes committed by intimates and nonintimates seek contact with the police with a view
to protection as well, more so than male victims of stranger crime.
Concerning the need for punishment, victims of crimes by nonintimates and strangers more
than victims of intimates expressed the need for punishment of the offender as a reason for
reporting the crime to the police. They did so irrespective of the type of crime. This finding
confirms our hypothesis that with increasing relational distance between the victim and the
offender, the victim’s need for punishment will be an increasingly prevalent reason for reporting.
When it comes to punishment, the group of victims at intermediate relational distance of the
offender seems to differ more from the group at small relational distance than when it comes to
protection. The more prevalent need for punishment or retribution in victims at larger relational
distance of the offender supports the justice restoration theory (Wenzel et al., 2008) and the
“logic of social control” theory (Horwitz, 1990). Respectively, these theories predict that
retribution (a) best addresses the personal justice need of the victim in situations in which the
symbolic implication of the crime for the victim primarily is a degradation of the victim (more
so than a violation of shared values) and (b) is, from a social point of view, more often
considered an appropriate reaction to crimes between parties at a larger relational distance.
Moreover, in situations in which the parties share hardly any or no ties at all, victims neither
have the interest nor the means to make other than punitive arrangements.
This study showed that the frequently applied dichotomy between victims of known
and stranger offenders (merely two victim-offender relationships) does not do justice to
the empirical truth. Within the group of victims of nonstranger crime (committed by
intimate and nonintimate offenders), the needs of victims differ as the relational distance
varies. Hence, victims of crime by offenders at the intermediate relational distance cannot
be equated with either victims of crimes by intimates or victims of crimes by strangers.
With respect to the need for punishment of the offender, the nonintimates have more in
common with victims of crime committed by strangers than with victims of crimes by
intimates. With respect to the need for protection, the group at intermediate relational
distance seems to have more in common with victims of intimates.
By analyzing the needs of victims from the perspective of relational distance to their
offender, the group of victims at intermediate relational distance has become clearly distinct.
This is a group of victims that is to a large extent overlooked by both victimologists and
legal policymakers. Victims of domestic violence have had a prominent position on the
agenda of policy and research in recent decades. However, victims of crimes committed by
nonstrangers at a larger relational distance, such as neighbors and acquaintances, have been
more or less ignored. The attitudes of these victims do neither coincide with those of the
victims of crime by intimates nor with those of the victims of crime committed by strangers.
They are probably less vulnerable to repeat victimization than the group of victims of crime
by intimates, but more so than victims of crime committed by strangers; they can be
expected to struggle far more with the problem that the offender and his or her network
are difficult to avoid. It would be quite an improvement if more victimological studies would
make a distinction between at least three groups: strangers, nonintimates and intimates.
To conclude, the victim-offender relationship affects the needs of victims with regard to the
CJS response. The systematic distinction of the victim-offender relationship from closely
related variables, such as the type of crime and the gender of the victim, has proven to be
relevant. Considering both the need for protection and punishment, differences were found
between the victims of crimes by intimates, nonintimates, and strangers. These results may
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 233
help the criminal justice system in meeting the needs of different victims more effectively—
also the needs of victims that are traditionally not prioritized by criminal justice professionals,
such as victims at intermediate relational distance from the offender and victims of nonviolent
crimes by known offenders (nonintimates). As Johnson (2007) suggested, the criminal justice
system should be concerned with providing effective services in a manner that meets the needs
of the victims they serve; victims are the ones who have the most to gain from effective law
enforcement responses. Victim goals may not always coincide with the goals of CJS. The CJS
can aim to arrest and prosecute whereas the victim primarily wants safety, but at the same time
prefers important relationships to continue. It is advisable to ask victims who know the
offender, in either an intimate or nonintimate manner and regardless of gender, about their
safety concerns. If these prevail, they could be informed about possible protection measures.
Victim perceptions of risk have been found to be a valid predictor for repeat victimization
(Heckert & Gondolf, 2004). Eventually, it can be expected that victims whose expectations are
met by the CJS are more likely to rate the CJS response as positive and, as a consequence, will
be inclined to report criminal incidents to the police in the future again.
The results of this study should be considered along with their limitations. As noticed
previously, our regression models did not have a very strong explanatory power. It can be
assumed that other predictors are relevant as well, such as gender of the offender, anger of the
victim, posttraumatic stress, and seriousness of injury. Also relevant in this respect is the
question whether victim and offender want to continue a relationship or have opportunities to
avoid one another. Our set of data did not contain information about these topics. We
recommend that future researchers include these variables in future studies. Future research-
ers should assess more dimensions of relational distance and examine this concept in more
depth (see the following). The effect of relational distance on other significant victim needs
(e.g., information, “voice,” compensation) could be the object of future studies as well. Ten
Boom (2016) performed preliminary analyses on several victim needs.
We have explored the question whether the explanatory power of the regression models
could benefit significantly from a less diverse sample. We removed the victims with a country
of birth outside of the Netherlands and the victims younger than 21, respectively. If restricted
to the victims that were born in the Netherlands (n = 335), the final model for protection
reached a higher explained variance (.23) and the final model for punishment reached a lower
explained variance (.15). The results concerning the impact of relational distance on the need
for protection and punishment did not differ meaningfully. If the models were restricted to the
victims older than 20 years of age (n = 334), the results concerning the impact of relational
distance on the need for protection and punishment also did not differ meaningfully. The
explanatory power of the models did not change either. This study is about the impact of
relational distance on the victim’s need for protection and punishment. As the leveling of the
group in terms of certain characteristics had no effect on the results on the central topic, we
choose to report the models that reflect the real-world diversity of the group of victims.
The low response rate is a limitation as well. Unfortunately, we could not compare the
370 respondents in this study with the total population of Dutch victims whose cases were
treated by the PPS in the same time period. However, the victims in our sample are as
might be expected based on the literature: most victims of crimes by intimates are women,
whereas most victims of crimes by nonintimate acquaintances and strangers are men.
Also, most victims of crimes by intimates in our sample are victims of violent crime. Thus,
the sample does not seem atypical if compared with our knowledge about average victim
234 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
groups. Further, we have no reason to believe that results would be very different if this
study were conducted in another country. As our hypotheses are built on the international
empirical and theoretical literature, the results may be expected similar around the world.
A further limitation in our study may be that some of the independent variables are
skewed. Although the variables need not be transformed in a logistic regression analysis,
transformation may help produce a better fit in the models.
Another limitation concerns our rather rough operationalization of relational distance. Based
on Horwitz (1990), we ranked relationships from intimates to nonintimates to strangers.
However, we had no additional information about the relationships the surveyed victims had
with their offenders. Relational distance may be considered a concept with many different
dimensions, like for instance spatial proximity, frequency of interaction, intensity of interaction,
shared social network, physical intimacy, a feeling of shared identity, and a shared future. The
relationship with one neighbor may be very different from the relationship with another
neighbor and the relationship people had before the crime took place may be very different
from the relationship people would like to maintain in the future. It would be interesting to assess
more dimensions of relational distance in future studies and examine this concept in more depth.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted among victims
whose cases were dealt with by the PPS. These victims only make up a relatively small part
of all crime victims in the Netherlands, as many (on average less severe) crimes that are
reported to the police, are not sent in for prosecution. Hence, we do not know whether the
results can be considered representative of the entire group of crime reporting victims.
Despite its limitations, this study has contributed to the knowledge on the judicial needs of
crime victims in differing relationships to their offender. The systematic distinction of the
victim-offender relationship from the confounders gender of the victim (see also Felson &
Paré, 2008) and type of crime has definitely proven to be relevant. We have demonstrated that
not just female victims of violent crime by intimates have different needs than the “default”
victims of other crimes. Considering both the need for protection and punishment, differences
were found between the judicial needs of victims of crimes by intimates, nonintimates, and
strangers. Hence, we advise to distinguish between more than the merely two victim-offender
relationships in future research, so that the needs of victims at intermediate relational distance
to the offender will be seriously taken into account in the judicial process.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Apel, R., Dugan, L., & Powers, R. (2013). Gender and injury risk in incidents of assaultive violence.
Justice Quarterly, 30, 561–593. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.619558
Avakame, E. F., Fyfe, J. J., & McCoy, C. (1999). “Did you call the police? What did they do?” An
empirical assessment of Black’s theory of mobilization of law. Justice Quarterly, 16, 765–792.
doi:10.1080/07418829900094361
Baurmann, M. C., Schädler, W., Bundeskriminalamt, & Germany (Unified). (1991). Victims of
reported crime—their expectations, needs and perspectives. An inquiry of crime, 5, 1–57.
Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 235
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., & Stevens,
M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report.
Atlanta, GA. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 19, 39–40.
Byrne, C. A., Kilpatrick, D. G., Howley, S. S., & Beatty, D. (1999). Female victims of partner versus
nonpartner violence: Experiences with the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
26, 275–292. doi:10.1177/0093854899026003001
Catalano, S. M. (2010). Victimization during household burglary. Washington DC.: US Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Cooney, M., & Phillips, S. (2002). Typologizing violence: A Blackian perspective. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22, 75–108. doi:10.1108/01443330210790102
Dijk, J. V., Kesteren, J. V., & Smit, P. (2007). Criminal victimisation in international perspective.
Boom Juridische Uitgevers.
Duff, A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. New York, USA: Oxford University
Press.
Durose, M. R., Harlow, C. W., Langan, P. A., Motivans, M., Rantala, R. R., & Smith, E. L. (2005).
Family violence statistics: Including statistics on strangers and acquaintances. Washington, D. C.:
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal
processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251–268. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.13.3.251
Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P. (1992). Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice.
Justice Quarterly, 9, 393–417. doi:10.1080/07418829200091451
Feehan, M., Nada-Raja, S., Martin, J. A., & Langley, J. D. (2001). The prevalence and correlates of
psychological distress following physical and sexual assault in a young adult cohort. Violence and
Victims, 16, 49–63.
Felson, R. B. (1993). Predatory and dispute-related violence: A social interactionist approach.
Routine Activity and Rational Choice, Advances in Criminological Theory, 5, 103–126.
Felson, R. B., & Cares, A. C. (2005). Gender and the seriousness of assaults on intimate partners and
other victims. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1182–1195. doi:10.1111/jomf.2005.67.issue-5
Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., & Hoskin, A. (1999). The victim-offender relationship and calling the
police in assaults. Criminology, 37, 931–947. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00510.x
Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2002). Reasons for reporting and not
reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology, 40, 617–648. doi:10.1111/crim.2002.40.
issue-3
Felson, R. B., & Paré, P. P. (2008). Gender and the victim’s experience with the criminal justice
system. Social Science Research, 37, 202–219. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.06.014
Ganapathy, N. (2006). Between the devil and the deep-blue sea: Conceptualising victims’ experi-
ences of policing in domestic violence in the Singaporean context. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 39, 90–108. doi:10.1375/acri.39.1.90
Greenberg, M. S., & Ruback, R. B. (1992). After the crime: Victim decision making. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., … Fox, J. A.
(1998). Violence by intimates. Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends
and girlfriends. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the
satisfaction of multiple goals. Law & Society Review, 43, 1–38. doi:10.1111/lasr.2009.43.issue-1
Hare, S. C. (2006). What do battered women want? Victims’ opinions on prosecution. Violence and
Victims, 21, 611–628.
Heckert, D. A., & Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Battered women’s perceptions of risk versus risk factors
and instruments in predicting repeat reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 778–800.
doi:10.1177/0886260504265619
Horwitz, A. V. (1990). The logic of social control. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
236 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.
Johnson, I. M. (2007). Victims’ perceptions of police response to domestic violence incidents.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 498–510. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.003
Kang, J. H., & Lynch, J. P. (2014). Calling the police in instances of family violence: Effects of
victim-offender relationship and life stages. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 34–59.
Kilchling, M. (1991). Interests of the victim and public prosecution. First results of a national
survey. In Victims and criminal justice (pp. 29–65). Freiburg, Germany: Max-Planck-Institut.
Laxminarayan, M. (2013). Interactional justice, coping and the legal system: Needs of vulnerable
victims. International Review of Victimology, 19, 145–158. doi:10.1177/0269758012472767
Lewis, R., Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. (2000). Protection, prevention, rehabilita-
tion or justice? Women’s use of the law to challenge domestic violence. International Review of
Victimology, 7, 179–205. doi:10.1177/026975800000700310
Macmillan, R. (2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal
and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1–22. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.1
Maguire, M. (1985). Victims’ needs and victim services; indications from research. Victimology; an
International Journal, 10, 539–559.
Maguire, M., & Kynch, J. (2000). Public perceptions and victims’ experiences of Victim Support:
Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. London, United Kingdom: Home Office Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate.
Ménard, K. S. (2005). Reporting sexual assault: A social ecology perspective. New York, NY: LFB
Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Murdaugh, C., Hunt, S., Sowell, R., & Santana, I. (2004). Domestic violence in Hispanics in the
Southeastern United States: A survey and needs analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 107–115.
doi:10.1023/B:JOFV.0000019841.58748.51
Myhill, A., & Allen, J. (2002). Rape and sexual assault of women: The extent and nature of the
problem. Findings from the British Crime Survey (Research Study 237). London, United Kingdom:
Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Orth, U. (2002). Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Social Justice
Research, 15, 313–325. doi:10.1023/A:1021210323461
Pemberton, A. (2010). The cross-over: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of victims of
crime. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: Maklu.
Pemberton, A., Aarten, P. G. M., & Mulder, E. (2017). Beyond retribution, restoration and
procedural justice: The big two of communion and agency in victims’ perspectives on justice.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(7), 682–698.
Sampson, R. J. (1987). Personal violence by strangers: An extension and test of the opportunity
model of predatory victimization. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 78, 327–356.
doi:10.2307/1143452
Shover, N. (1991). Burglary. Crime and Justice, 14, 73–113. doi:10.1086/449184
Ten Boom, A. (2016). Slachtoffers van misdrijven door intimi, kennissen of vreemden [Victims of
crime by intimates, acquaintances or strangers]. Dissertation Tilburg University. [English sum-
mary is retrievable at https://english.wodc.nl].
Ten Boom, A., & Kuijpers, K. F. (2012). Victims’ needs as basic human needs. International Review
of Criminology, 18, 155–179. doi:10.1177/0269758011432060
Timmermans, M., Van Den Tillaart, J., & Homburg, G. (2013). Eerste meting slachtoffermonitor [First
measurement victim support monitor]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Regioplan beleidsonder-
zoek; Ipsos Synovate. [English summary ‘Victim Support Monitor factsheet. Experiences of victims
receiving judicial victim support (first assessment)’ is retrievable at https://english.wodc.nl].
Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2014). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003-2012. Washington, D. C.:
US Department of Justice.
Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British
Crime Survey (Home office Research Study no 276). London, United Kingdom: Home Office.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative
justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 237
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Justice through consensus:
Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 909–930. doi:10.1002/ejsp.v40:6
Whiteley, D. (1998). The victim and the justification of punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics, 17,
42–54. doi:10.1080/0731129X.1998.9992057
Wittebrood, K. (2006). Slachtoffers van criminaliteit. Feiten en achtergronden [Victims of crime.
Facts and background information]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: SCP.
238 A. TEN BOOM ET AL.