CHAPTER 4

VIOLENT CRIMES:
MURDERS AND ROBBERIES

(OUTLINE)

ADDRESSING SOME TROUBLING QUESTION
Focusing on Murders
Who Gets Killed by Whom? How, Where and Why?
Changes over Time in Murder Rates
Changes over Time in Aggravated Assault rates
Uncovering Patterns and Recognizing Differential Risks
Who Faces the Gravest Threats of being Murdered?

Focusing on Robberies

Robberies and the People They Prey Upon
Robberies: Who, How often, how, where, when
Changes over time in Robbery Rates
Checking out whether more robberies are turning into murders
Differential risks: Who gets robbed the most and the least

PREDICTING THE CHANCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM SOMEDAY: Projecting Cumulative Risks

Theorizing about risk Factors: Figuring out why certain groups suffer more
Explaining why various groups experience Differential risks: routine activities and lifestyles
Reducing risks: How safe is safe enough

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
To use official statistics to spot national trends in murders aggravated assaults and robberies in
recent decades;
To be able to discuss the meaning of differential risks and cumulative risks;

To discover the profile of the typical victim in order to determine which demographic groups
face the highest and lowest chances of getting murdered and also of being robbed;

To appreciate the strengths and weakness of statistical projections about the risk any given
individual faces of being on the receiving end of violence;

To grasp the difference between crime prevention and victimization prevention;

To debate the appropriate role of risk management and risk reduction strategies in everyday
life.

ADDRESSING SOME TROUBLING QUESTIONS
Victimologists gather and interpret data to answer the following disturbing question:
How many people are robbed, wounded and even murdered by criminals each year?
How rapidly are the ranks of people who have suffered misfortunes growing?
Which group are targeted the most and the least often?
Where and when the majority of crimes occur?
Does predator on the prowl intimidate and subjugate their prey with their bare hands or use weapons
and if so what kind?

FOCUSING ON MURDERS
The following are unsettling questions that can be answered by the data from UCR and the NCVS.
What are the odds of being attacked during any given year? Incidence rates measure the number of new
victims per 1,000 or per 100,000 person annually and thereby reveal the risks people face.
Is violence a growing problem in American society or it is subsiding? Trend analysis provides the answer
by focusing on changes over time. What are the chances that a person will be harmed by a criminal at
least once during his or her entire life (not just in a single year)? Cumulative risks estimate these lifetime
likelihood by projecting current situations into the future.
Does violent crime burden all communities and groups equally, or are some types of people more likely
than others to be held up, physically injured and killed? Differential risks indicate the odds of an
unwanted event taking place for members of a social group.
WHO GETS KILLED BY WHOM? HOW,WHERE AND WHY?
Murder is the most terrible crime of all because it inflicts the ultimate harm, the damage cannot be
undone. The loss suffered by the departed persons survivors is total and irreparable. But the social
reaction to the taking of a persons life varies dramatically. It is determined by a number of factors,
among them the states law, the offender sate of mind, the deceaseds possible contribution to the
escalation of hostilities, the social standing of each party, where the crime is committed, how the person
was dispatched, and whether the slaying attracted media coverage. Some killings lead to the execution
of the perpetrator; others ruled to be justifiable homicide result in no penalty and possibly even
widespread approval.
Murder
First-degree Murder
Second-degree Murder
Homicide:
Voluntary Manslaughter (First-degree)
Involuntary Manslaughter (Second-degree)

Infanticide killing of a newborn by a parent
Filicide Killing of a child by a parent or stepparent
Eldercide killing of an old person
Intimate partner Homicide Killing of a spouse or a lover
Serial Killing Killing several or more victims dispatched one at a time over an extended period
Mass Murder killing several people slaughtered at the same time and place
Felony Murder Killing committed during another serious crime like robbery, kidnapping or rape.
Contract Killing professional hit for an agreed upon fee

A victim-centered analysis of murder addresses issues such as what groups of people suffered the
greatest casualties; how did they perish? What caused the confrontations that led to their untimely
deaths? And Did the departed share many common characteristics with their killers? In other words, it is
necessary to derive a profile or statistic portrait of the typical murder, killer and victim.
NCVS interviewers ask no questions about murders of household members, so the USR and the record
coroners ( medical examiner in some jurisdiction) are the two official sources of information. UCR
guidelines urge Police officials to fill out a Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) about the killing in
their jurisdiction. The resulting SHR database provides information about the age, sex, race of the victim
and if detectives solved the case and made an arrest the accused persons age, sex and race, weapon,
motive and relationship to the deceased.
The following are questions that can be answered by the data from Supplementary Homicide Report
(SHR)
How many murders involved just a single killer and a lone victim?
How were the victims killed?
By whom? Did the victim know the killer?
Why? What were all these violent outbursts all about?

CHANGES OVER TIME IN MURDER RATES

Graphs are particularly useful for spotting at a glance. Trends in homicide rates can be traced further
back than changes over time for the other crimes. The UCR has been monitoring murder since the
beginning of the 1930s. But another source of data, drawn from death certificates ( maintained by
coroners offices and medical examiners who determined the cause of death) and compiled by the
National Center for Health Statistics, can be tapped to reconstruct what had happened during the earlier
decades of the 20
th
Century.

Figure 4.1 indicates homicide rates appeared to rise as states joined the statistical reporting system
based on records from coroners offices initiated at the outset of the 1900s. From 1903 to 1933, the
murder rate soared from less that 1 person killed out of every 100,000 each year to nearly 10 per
100,000 annually. The number of violent deaths plummeted after Prohibition ended in 1993, even
though the economic hardship of the Great Depression persisted throughout the 1930s. Only five slaying
took place for every 100,000 inhabitants during the years of World War II.
A brief surge in killings broke out after most of the soldiers returned home from the war, but then
interpersonal violence continued to decline during the 1950s, reaching a low of about 4.5 slayings for
every 100,000 people by 1958.
From the early 1960s to the late 1970s, the number of killings shot up again, doubling the
homicide rate. This crime wave reflected the demographic impact of the usually large baby-boom
generation passing through its most crime-prone teenage and young adult years, as well as the social
turbulence that arose during the 1960s and lasted well into the 1970s.
An all time high was recorded in 1980, when the homicide rate hit 10.2 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.
After reaching that peak, murder rates dropped for several years until the second half of 1980s, when
the crack epidemic touched off another escalation of bloodshed. By the start of the 1990s, murder rates
once again close to their highest levels for the century. But as that decade progressed, the fad of
smoking crack, selling drugs and toting guns waned; the economy improved; the proportion of the male
population between 18 to 24 years old dwindled; and subsequently the murder rate tumbled.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
The death toll has continued to drift downward. The impressive improvement in public safety became
strikingly evident in 2010, when the body count declined to about 14, 750, nearly 10,000 fewer victims
than in 1991, when the death toll had reached an all time record of close to 24,700. Taking population
growth into account, the US murder rate in 2010 stood at 4.8 killings per 100,000 inhabitants, an overall
crash of nearly 50 percent since 1991, and the decline of 15 percent since the beginning of the twenty-
first century. The murder rate fell further during the first 6 months of 2011.

CHANGES OVER TIME IN AGGRAVATED ASSAULT RATES
Aggravated assault results in serious wounds, or involves attacks (or threats or harm) with a deadly
weapon. Therefore some aggravated assaults are attempted to murders in which the injured parties
barely survived. To put it differently, homicides are aggravated assaults that inflict mortal wound. With
some bad luck or poor medical care, an aggravated assault easily could wind up as a murder.
Whether a victim of an aggravated assault lives or dies depends on several factors, including the
weapon used, the severity of the wound, the injured partys pre-existing health condition, and qualifies
of medical care received.
According to a nationwide study that analysed the calibre of various countries trauma care systems, a
continuous drop in the lethality of assaults since 1960 can be primarily attributed to advances in
emergency medicine. The policy implication is the most important way to keep the murder rate down is
to help critically wounded people stay alive by having competent ER doctor, nurses, and EMTs on call,
ready to spring into action.
Both the UCR and the NCVS keep records of the annual number of aggravated assaults. Because two
sources of official data can be tapped, a graph depicting changes over time in assaults with a deadly
weapon can have two trend lines; one according to the UCR and the other according to the NCVS

The NCVS trend line shows that close calls and near-death experience of people shot or stabbed
declined slightly in frequency from the early 1970s until the early 1990s. Then the NCVS was redesigned;
the rate of aggravated assaults jumped in part because of the new measurement methods. However, by
the end of the 1990s and for several years into the new century, a dramatic improvement in the level of
serious interpersonal violence became evident from NCVS estimates. Between 1993 and 2009,
aggravated assaults disclosed to NCVS interviewers plummeted about 60 percent
The takeaway message in the graphs depicted in Figure 4.1 and 4.2 confirm that these two violent crime
rates have fallen dramatically, even crashed from their historically high levels. In general, Americans
have been getting along better with each other since the early 1990s and continued to do so even
during the hard times of the Great Recession that became evident during 2008. However, specific
communities may rocked sporadically by spikes in lawlessness and bloodshed.
The dramatic downward trends in murders, aggravated assaults and robberies through 2010 indicate
that even the meanest streets have become substantially safer. But to conclude from these very positive
developments that began during the early 1990s that the worst is over might be overly optimistic.
Another crime wave could break out or the unanticipated but much welcomed improvement in
Americas crime problem might continue for an additional number of years.
UNCOVERING PATTERNS AND RECOGNIZING DIFFERENTIAL RISKS
Victimization rates for the entire population indicate how frequently murders, rapes, robberies and
assault are committed against average Americans and how often typical households suffer burglaries,
larcenies, and motor vehicle thefts. It is reasonable to suspect that the chance of becoming a victim is
not uniform to everyone but is more likely for some and less likely for others.
0
5
10
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
9
N
C
V
S

r
a
t
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)

DATE
FIGURE 4.2 TRENDS IN AGGRAVATED
ASSAULTS, UNITED STATES
U
C
R

r
a
t
e

(
p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

Victimologist must disaggregate or breakdown victimization rates to reveal the differential risks faced by
particular categories of people.
A pattern within a victimization rate is recognizable when one category suffers significantly
more than another. The most obvious example is the incidence of rape. Females are much more likely to
be sexually violated than are males.
Searching of patterns means looking for regularities within a seemingly chaotic mass of
information and finding predictability in apparently random events.
To unearth patterns in homicide, victimologists must scrutinize data contained in the UCRs SHRs. To
discover pattern in robberies, researchers must sort through data collected each year about various
groupings of people and households that participated in the NCVS survey. Patterns can emerge when
rates are calculated separately for each variable that forms the basis of a group, especially sex, age, race,
marital status, income class, and area of residence. Once a pattern has been established over the years,
then the groups differential risks can be projected into the future.
WHO FACES THE GRAVEST THREATS OF BEING MURDERED?
The 2010 US murder rate of 4.8 means that out of every collection of 100,000 people, just about
5 people were killed and 99,995 survived. The statistics captures the odds of being slain which is useful
social construct for certain purpose.
Patterns derived from police files assembled in the UCR shed light on the tragedies. SHRs
statistics indicate that a persons sex is a crucial determinant of risks. Men die violently much more
frequently than women. Year after year, at least three-quarters of the corpses are boys and men (77
percent in 2010)
Expressed as rate, boys and men are killed at least three and sometimes four times as often as girls and
women. Also, about 9 out of 10 of the known offenders were teenage boys or men.
Therefore most murders can be categorized as male-on-male. When females get killed, the
murderers usually turn out to be males. On the infrequent occasions when females kill, they tend to slay
their own small children or the men in their lives, rather than other women.
As for the race of those whose lives were snuffed out prematurely, the UCR recognizes only these
categories, white, black and other (Asians) plus undetermined or unknown. (Most Hispanics were
counted as whites on the SHRs).
During 2010, exactly half of all those who perished were back, a little less than half were white
(47%) and the small remainder (3%) were of other races.
Because half of all those who were killed were black, but only about 13% of the population identified
them as Black on the 2010 US Census survey, violent crime clearly is a disproportionally serious
problem in African-American communities. Most murders turn out to be intra racial not interracial, a
longstanding pattern according to the decades of record keeping.
Focusing solely upon lone-offender/ single victim killings carried out during 2010, the UCRs
SHRs documented that 92% of black victims were slain by black offenders and 85% percent of white
victims were killed by white perpetrators.
Murders vary dramatically by age (Akiyanan, 1981). Ten-years-olds are the least likely group to be slain.
The risks of being murdered rise during the teenage years and peak during the early twenties, but then
drop substantially as a person grows older.
The typical victims were in their late teens, twenties and thirties when they were killed. Almost
two-thirds (62% in 2010) of those who died way before their time were between the ages 17 and 39. An
even higher proportion of perpetrators falls into this age ranged. As a result, most murders can be
characterized as young adults slaying other relatively young persons.
Statistically, race turns out to be the most important demographic factor associated with differential
risks, and has been for many years (Wood, 1990) African-Americans confront much graver dangers of
dying violently, and Asian-Americans much lower risks.
Because about 13% of Americans identified themselves as people of African descent on the
2010 Census, these UCR calculations confirm that black communities across the country suffer from
disproportionately high rates of lethal violence.
Black males made up only a little more than 6% of the population, they sustained 42% of all violent
deaths nationwide during 2010. Black females constituted roughly 7% of all Americans and about 7% of
all victims, so those proportions were not all out of line. About 33% of those slain were white males and
roughly 14% were white females. The remainder were males and females of Asian descent.
So far this listing of differential risk has been based on the 2010 UCR. The picture that emerged
from this comprehensive analysis of the FBIs SHRs show that the differential risk detected in 2010 are
consistent with the patterns that prevailed over almost three decades.
A number of geographic factors strongly influence differential risks. As for the four sections of the
country: for many years, the highest homicide rates have been found in the South (with 5.6 per 100,000
in 2010): the lowest have been in the Northeast (at 4.2 per 100,000) and out West (also 4.2); and the
rates in the Midwest have fallen in between (at 4.4.). Residents of metropolitan areas (urban centers
rather than suburbs) face higher risks of violent death than do inhabitants of rural countries or of small
cities beyond the fringe of metropolitan areas. A closer look at the FBIs data from municipal police
departments confirms that some cities were much more dangerous places to live in than others.


The map in Figure 4.3 indicates that among the largest cities in the country, St. Louis had the
dubious distinction of being the homicide capital of the country in 2010. The most well known medium
sized city with some of the countrys toughest neighbourhood in New Orleans (which became even
more dangerous after the flood caused by Hurricane Katrina but then improved substantially, as its
murder rate tumbled from a sky-high level of 95 per 100,000 residents in 2007 down to 49 in 2010). In
fact, as far as trends go, outbursts of lethal violence diminished in nearly all big US cities from 1990s to
2010. Despite these nationwide decline in murder rates, the risks facing residents remain much higher in
Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Atlanta and Miami than in Denver, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
New York and San Antonio.
The nations safest big cities, from 2007 right up through 2010, were big cities, from 2007 right
up through 2010, were Seattle, San Jose, and San Diego.
According to researchers, the disparities are not a function of size but seem to be
determined by conditions such as population density, the local economy (poverty and unemployed
rates, wage scales, and the gap between the rich and the poor), special problems (the easy availability of
illegal handgun, the extent of drug trafficking, and the effectiveness of Police strategies), traditions and
customs (including the persistence of a subculture that condones violence), and demographic factors
(especially divorce rates and the proportion of the population that is poor, male, young and of a
marginalized minority group.
Murder rates vary dramatically within the confines of a citys limits. Some upscale urban areas
are rarely scenes of a slaying while the mean streets on the wrong side of the tracks are virtual
battlefields between rival street gangs, drug dealing crews or hostile factions of organized crime. Also
neighborhood homicide rates can flare u or die down substantially from year to year as local conditions
deteriorate or improve.
From this review of the demographic factors that are correlated with murder rates, a
profile can be drawn of groups of people who run the greatest risks of suddenly dying from an act of
violence. They are Southerners, urban residents, males, teenagers and young adults between 18 and 24,
and African-Americas.
Those who fall into the opposite groups face the lowest risks of all; north-easterners, residents
of small towns in rural areas, females, children and the elderly, whites and Asians.
One additional factor profoundly influences the dangers of becoming embroiled in lethal
showdowns: financial status. Lower income people fall into the high-risk group while affluent persons
enjoy life in the low risk group. But this pattern cannot be unearthed from the SHRs because Police files
and FBI compilations do not collect information about the social class of the deceased.
However, an analysis of New York city murders determined from death certificates that
the overwhelming majority of the victims had never been to college, and that the zip code of their last
known address often indicated they had resided in low income neighborhood.
Furthermore, of the persons arrested for these homicides, about 85 percent qualified as
indigent in court and were provided with an Attorney at no cost by the government. Furthermore, the
majority of the crime scenes were located in precincts in poverty stricken neighbors. These findings
underscore the connection between violence and economic standing; being poor is a major risk factor
for getting killed as well as for committing murder. Many murders can be characterized as poor on
poor.
FOCUSING ON ROBBERIES
Robbers are usually complete strangers on the prowl for suitable prey; they are among the most
feared and hated of all street criminals. The offense combines stealing with extortion or outright
violence (often including the use of weapons), so it carries some of the stiffest prison sentences
permissible under law.
ROBBERS AND THE PEOPLE THEY PREY UPON
Completed robberies are face-to-face confrontations in which perpetrators take something of
value directly from victims against their will, either by force or by threats of violence. Whether the
holdup or completed or just attempted, the law considers armed robberies more serious than unarmed
ones (strong-arm robberies, muggings, or yokings). Successful robbers, armed or unarmed, are skilled at
target manipulation or victim management (Letkemann, 1973).
From a close-up, symbolic-interractionist perspective within sociology, victim-offender moves
and responses can be analyzed as a set of complementary roles. Robbers are the initiators and
aggressors; the people they are preparing to pounce upon are usually passive, at least at the start. But
the individuals who discover that they are under attack can refuse to play their assigned role, reject the
script and struggle against the scenario imposed on them. The intended prey might even gain the upper
hand, switch roles and disrupt the final act, or end it in a way dreaded by the aggressors.
the people they are preparing to pounce upon are usually passive. But the individuals who
discover that they are under attack can refuse to play their assigned role, reject the script; and struggle
against the scenario imposed on them.
Interviewers for the BJSs NCVS discovered that in 2010, only a little more than half (58%) of the
people they questioned who disclosed that they had been robbed during that year had also told the
Police about harrowing experiences. Victims were more likely to inform law enforcement agencies
about incidents that involved physical injuries and substantial losses. Most of the confrontation took
place near the victims homes or within one mile of them and most occurred at night (6pm 6 am.)
The primary motive of robbery is theft. But offenders did not always get what they want. About
one quarter (27%) of robberies ended up as unsuccessful attempts to steal cash and valuables. Most
often, they relieved of personal effects such as portable electronic or photographic gear, and jewelry,
followed by purses and wallets containing credit card and cash. Most robbery victims in 2008 never
recovered any of these valuables on their own or after an investigation by the Police.
The men who were robbed did not recognize their assailants in most cases (72%). However,
females told survey interviewers that the assailants were complete strangers in about half (53%) of all
cases; the rest were known to them, either as former intimates, friends, acquaintances, or even
relatives. The overwhelming majority of robbers were males.
In about two-fifths (41%) of all the robberies that took place in 2010, the assailant was unarmed.
Of the attackers (usually strangers) who brandished some kind of weapon, nearly 3 out 30 (29%) had a
firearm (almost always a handgun). In the remainder of the armed robberies, offenders most often used
knives (10%) followed by other sharp and blunt instruments, and then other assorted weapons to
intimidate and subdue targets.
Robbers armed or not, hurt their victims for a number of reasons. They may do so initially to
intimidate the target into submission. They may become violent during the holdup in reaction to
resistance, lack of cooperation, or stalling. Offenders may relish taking advantage of a helpless person or
may seize the opportunity to show off to accomplices. Injuring their targets may be a sign of panic,
disappointment in the haul, anger, scorn, contempt, sadism, or loss of self control. Unleashing violence
may also be instrumental; wounding individuals can render them incapable of later identifying the
robbers, pursuing them, or even calling for help.
Explosive outburst at the end of transaction may be intended to shock, stun, or preoccupy
victims, their associates and any bystander so that they will hesitate to summon the Police.
Despite all these possible motives of inflicting injuries, most robbers didnt wound their
victims. Only a little more than one-third (37%) of those who suffered either completed or attempted
robberies were wounded. A small proportion suffered serious injuries such as a broken bones, lost
teeth, loss of consciousness or gunshot wounds that required medical care in a hospital emergency
room. About 8% of robbery victims in 2008 incurred medical expenses, usually from visiting hospital
emergency room (BJS, 2011.).
CHANGES OVER TIME IN ROBBERYRATES
Robbery is often cited as the offense most people worry about when they express their fears
about street crime. Robbery is a confrontational crime in which force is used, or violence is threatened.

The UCR trend line shows that robberies soared after 1977, peaked in 1981, plunged until 1985,
and then shot up again to record levels in the early 1990s. After that, reports of muggings and holdups
plummeted impressively until 2001. Known cases of robberies largely continued to drift downward
during the first decade of the twenty-first century (except for 2006), ending up in 2010 at their lowest
level in nearly 40 years (FBI 2011).
The NCVS trend line tells a very similar, but not identical story. It indicates that the robbery rate
fell between 1974 and 1978, rebounded until 1981 when it hit all time high, dropped sharply during the
early 1980s, but them climbed back up from 1985 to 1994. The robbery rate then tumbled an impressive
65% between 1993 and 2002 before creeping back up a little. By 2010, disclosures to interviewers about
robberies had reached their lowest levels since the NCVS surveys began.
CHECKING OUT WHETHER MORE ROBBERIES ARE TURNING INTO MURDERS

Because robbery is such a potentially devastating crime, the question arises, how often do
robberies escalate into murders? In other words, what are the chances of being killed by a robber?
Robbers may wound their victims (and perhaps inadvertently kill them) to quell resistance or to prevent
them from reporting the crime, pressing charges and testifying in court.
Some people have the impression that robbers kill more readily these days than in past. It is the
part of a gloomy perception that American society is falling apart, that civilization is collapsing and that
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
9
N
C
V
S

r
a
t
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)

YEAR
FIGURE 4.4 TRENDS IN ROBBERIES,
UNITED STATES, 1973 - 2010
U
C
R

r
a
t
e

(
p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

predators today are more depraved than ever before. In the aftermath of a vicious slaying, journalist
sometimes play up this theme.
Some people suspect that more and robbers are escalating into murders (Cook 1985 and
1987) Victimologist can combine UCR Statistics on murders and NCVS findings about robberies to shed
some light on this question. (Data in Table 4.2 inside box 4.1).
B O X 4.1 YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE
The number of people killed by robbers each year can be estimated from UCR figures of
the numbers of murders and the motives of the killers, as established by the detectives who solved the
cases. The number of robberies committed annually can be estimated from NCVS figures. UCR figures
are smaller because they represent only the robberies known to the Police. Because the NCVS excludes
robberies of establishments like convenience store and banks, it also underestimates the actual but
unknown combined total of personal and commercial robberies.
during 1983 revealed serious problems in the way deaths are classified. In a
considerable proportion of all murders, detectives cannot determine the motives for the slaying. And in
some robbery-murders, the killer might have robbed the deceased persons corpse as an afterthought
(Loftin 1986).
Acknowledging the problems of uncertainty and incompatibility cited above, rough
calculations can be performed to derive ballpark estimates of how often targeted individuals whether
they are cooperating or resisting are murdered by robbers.
Several tentative conclusions can be reached from this statistical evidence drawn from
official sources; in declining proportion of all murders (11% in 1980; 7% in 2000 and 2006), the
offenders motive was to use deadly force to take something of value and then escape. The nationwide
annual death toll is disturbing. Nearly 2,500 people died at the hand of robbers in 1980, and 780
perished in 2010. But, thankfully, slaying committed during the course of holdups are rare, considering
the huge numbers of confrontations (well over a million in 1980) nearly half of a million in 2010 in which
a life could have been taken along with money or possession.
Hence, people who were killed constitute a tragic but tiny proportion about one-fifth
to one-sixth of 1% of all who were accosted. That means that about 99.8 percent survived the ordeal.
Furthermore, there is no consistent and pronounced upward trend, so no solid evidence supports the
contention that as time passes, robbers are becoming more inclined to snuff out the lives of their
targets.
A detailed study of more than 100 solved homicides that occurred in Chicago during
1983 concluded that when confronted by an armed offender who growls, Your money or your life!


DIFFERENTIAL RISKS: WHO GETS ROBBED THE MOST AND THE LEAST?
According to the NCVS for 2010, the robbery rate was 1.9 per 1,000. That means jest about 2
individuals out of every 1,000. That means just about 2 individuals out of every 1,000 residents over the
age of 11 got robbed that year. But, just as with murder rates, sharp differences in robbery risks become
evident when the odds facing the average American are disaggregated or deconstructed. Breaking
down the NCVS sample into subcategories, certain demographic groupings were robbed much more
often than others as Table 4.3 demonstrates.
Some people have much more to fear than others. Starting with sex, the first pattern that stands
out is that robbers target males more often than females. Males are held up nearly twice as often as
females.
With regard to race and ethnicity, the rates suffered by blacks and Hispanics were
several times higher than the rates for whites.
As for age, the analysis of the surveys findings revealed that younger people (12-34)
were accosted much more often than older people. Individuals in their late teens and early 20s faced
the gravest risks of all in 2010.
After those peak years, risks decline steadily with advancing age. Contrary to the impression
that robbers prey primarily upon the elderly and frail, senior citizens are singled out the least often any
age group.
Family income appeared to be negatively correlated with victimization rate. As income
increased the chances of being robbed generally decreased, with just one exception. Ironically, the
desperately poor were robbed of their meager possessions much more often than others todays
robbers are no Robin Hoods.
Residents of urban areas were targeted more often than suburbanites and inhabitants of
smaller towns and rural areas (not shown in the table; Catalano 2005)
In addition to sex, age, race/ethnicity, income and area of residence, marital status
made a big difference; individuals who had never been married or who were separated or divorced
endured much higher robbery rates than either married or widowed people, who generally were older
and tended to be female.
To sum up the patterns gleaned from Table 4.3, higher risks were faced by men than women,
minorities than whites, younger people than middle-aged or elderly people, single individuals than
married couples, poor people than those who are better off financially and city residents than those
living suburbs or small towns. Combining this factors, the profile of the person facing the gravest
dangers of all is an impoverished, young, black or Hispanic man living in an inner city neighborhood.
Affluent, elderly white ladies living in rural areas lead the safest lives.
The survey findings indicated that black teenage boys between the ages of 16 and 19 were
robbed at a frighteningly high rate of 25 out of every 1,000 (for 2008; comparable figures for 2010 are
not available). If this black teenager boys also live in low-income families that reside in big cities
(thereby falling into all five high-risk categories), then they probably suffer a robbery victimization rate
that is off the charts compared with people from other backgrounds.
One additional variable is worthy of consideration is occupation. Robbery rates differ
substantially depending on the nature of a persons work. Statistics from the NCVS indicated that people
holding the following jobs were much more likely to be robbed:
Taxi driver
Gardeners
Busboys
Dishwasher
Carnival and amusement park workers
Car wash attendants
Messenger
Newspaper carriers
Peddlers
Construction workers

Least likely to be accosted were:
Inspectors
Line workers
Bank teller
Opticians
Farmers
Professional athletes
Elementary school teacher
Engineers
Psychologist

Another study determined that retail sales worker especially clerks at convenience
stores and liquor stores were robbed the most along with cab drivers.

PREDICTING THE CHANCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM SOMEDAY
PROJECTING CUMULATIVE RISKS

Yearly victimization rates might lull some people into false sense of security. Annual rates give
the impression that crime is a rare event. Only a handfull of people out of every thousand fall prey to
offenders; most people get through a year unscathed.

Lifetime likelihoods are estimates of the cumulative risks of victimization, viewed over a
span of 60 or more years (from age 12 into the 70s, the average life expectancy in the United States
today)
Over a span of about 60 years, nearly everybody will experience at least one theft, and the most
people may eventually suffer three or more thefts, according to the projections made on the basis of the
relatively high rates of reported crimes that prevailed during the 1970s and 1980s. Although the chance
that a girl or woman will be forcibly raped in a given year is minuscule, it rises to a lifetime threat of 80
per 1,000, or 8%. For black females, the risk is somewhat greater (11% or nearly 1 out of 9) over a
lifetime.

Robbery is a more common crime, so the projection is that about 30% of the population will be
robbed at least over a 60 year period. Of this group, 5% will be robbed twice and 1% will be robbed
three or more times.
Taking differential risks by sex and race in accounts, males are more likely to be robbed
at least once in their lives (37%) than females (22%) and blacks are more likely to be robbed one or more
times than whites (51% compared to 27%)
When it comes to assault, at least once is probable to most people roughly three out of every
four people. Males face a greater likelihood of becoming embroiled in fights than females (82%
compared to 62%.

THEORIZING ABOUT RISK FACTORS: FIGURING OUT WHY CERTAIN GROUPS SUFFER MORE
One of the founders of victimology (see Von Hentig, 1941,1948) zeroed in on presumed
weakness and special vulnerabilities what today be called risk factors. He was convinced that certain
personal attributes played a part in determining susceptibility to attack. The mentally retarded (because
they were less aware of dangers) newly arrived immigrants (unfamiliar with the language and customs)
minorities (not given the same degree of protection by law enforcement athorities).
Less-educated individuals and very inexperienced people were pictured as attractive targets for
exploitation by offenders employing deception and fraud.
Con artist swindled those who are greedy, heartbroken, depressed, or lonesome with
legendary ease. Physically handicapped people, the elderly and frail, the very young and persons with
impaired judgement and dulled senses due to intoxication were assumed to be easy prey for robbers
and assailants.
Situational factors highlight how people and their possessions are more susceptible at certain
times, periods, or stages than at others. Armed robbers might approach storekeepers at closing time,
similarly, tourists are the preferred targets of robbers, thieves and pickpockets.
EXPLAINING WHY VARIOUS GROUPS EXPERIENCE DIFFERENTIAL RISKS:
ROUTINE ACTIVITIES AND LIFESTYLES

Most Victimologist are not satisfied with explanations that emphasize a single vulnerability
factor that is biological (gender, age or race), psychological (loneliness or greed), social (income or
occupation), or situational (immigration or recreational travel). A number of more elaborate
explanations attempt to account for differential risks.

From offenders standpoint, potential target can be rated along the following dimension:
ATTRACTIVENESS Some people and things appear ripe for the taking while other
presents more of a challenge to the robber or burglar of being thwarted or even captured.
PROXIMITY- describes whether the offender can get within range of the target,
geographically (direct contact) and socially (interaction).
VULNERABILITY- is the dimension that refers to a targets ability to resist and repel an
attack, and ranges from well protected to largely undefended.
ROUTINE ACTIVITES the theory stresses the interactions of three variables, 1) the
existence of motivated criminals, 2) the availability of suitable targets and the 3) presence or absence of
capable guardians (can be people, gadgets, gates and fenses)
-it governs the social ecology of victimization: the kinds of people who will be harmed
and the manner, time and location of incidents.
ROUTINE ACTIVITES
social ecology of victimization: In recent decades, vulnerability to robbery and
burglary increased as routine activities shifted women away from home and toward greater interaction
with nonfamily members. Ex. Those who spend most of their time at home (like the elderly) are in much
danger of being murdered by strangers; if they do meet a violent end, it is likely to be in the hands of
family members or close friends (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Messner and Tardiff, 1985; Maxfield 1987 and
Burke, 2009)
The routine activities explanation for differential risks links several major
themes within victimology and criminology.
1. Social conditions continuously generate criminally inclined individuals;
2. Opportunities for committing thefts and robberies multiply as possessions proliferate;
3. Preventive measures in tandem with unofficial guardianship may be more effective
than stepped-up policing and punishment by the legal system to discourage would-be
offenders from striking. ;
4. Certain activities and circumstances expose people and their possessions to
heightened dangers.

Given the interplay of offender motivation, guardianship and target suitability, lifestyle
can account to some degree for the observed differences in susceptibility to violence and theft. Lifestyle
refers to attitudes and behaviors that govern how people spend their time and money at work and
leisure and the social roles they play .
Lifestyle that place people in jeopardy may appear to be freely chosen but are strongly
influenced by culturally shaped role expectations as well as structural constraints.
Deviant lifestyles generally heightened risks (Prostitutes working the streets seem
particularly prone to hold-ups, rapes, beatings and on rare occasion violent deaths. These young women
are easily targets because they operate in the shadows, are willing to accompany complete strangers to
isolated or desolate locations and often abuse alcohol and other drugs that loosen their inhibitions,
increase their desperation for money and impair their judgement.