What Ideas of Victimization and Vulnerability Mean for Criminological Theory

Christopher J. Schreck, M. Berg
{"title":"What Ideas of Victimization and Vulnerability Mean for Criminological Theory","authors":"Christopher J. Schreck, M. Berg","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/6w8v7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines an intellectual orthodoxy among criminological theories, namely their preoccupation with the offender and the exclusion of any mention of the victim. We show that any theory of crime in fact can define two related ideas about the victim, here called ideas of victimization and vulnerability, fixing their meaning and producing a constellation of testable predictions about their empirical properties. We then conduct a theoretical exercise contrasting how the internal logic of substantive positivist theories and choice theories would specify these ideas. We found that substantive positivism is not only the probable source of the aforementioned intellectual orthodoxy, but it also generates predictions about victimization and vulnerability that are inconsistent with the known facts. Choice theories, in contrast, incentivize scholars to attend to the victim and are able to make predictions that not only are consistent with known facts but that also suggest rich possibilities for the future growth of theory and research. Consideration of these ideas have important implications for falsifying longstanding criminological perspectives, by casting doubt on any crime theory that is unable to make believable empirical predictions about victimization and vulnerability.","PeriodicalId":333117,"journal":{"name":"Revitalizing Victimization Theory","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revitalizing Victimization Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6w8v7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This paper examines an intellectual orthodoxy among criminological theories, namely their preoccupation with the offender and the exclusion of any mention of the victim. We show that any theory of crime in fact can define two related ideas about the victim, here called ideas of victimization and vulnerability, fixing their meaning and producing a constellation of testable predictions about their empirical properties. We then conduct a theoretical exercise contrasting how the internal logic of substantive positivist theories and choice theories would specify these ideas. We found that substantive positivism is not only the probable source of the aforementioned intellectual orthodoxy, but it also generates predictions about victimization and vulnerability that are inconsistent with the known facts. Choice theories, in contrast, incentivize scholars to attend to the victim and are able to make predictions that not only are consistent with known facts but that also suggest rich possibilities for the future growth of theory and research. Consideration of these ideas have important implications for falsifying longstanding criminological perspectives, by casting doubt on any crime theory that is unable to make believable empirical predictions about victimization and vulnerability.
受害和脆弱性的概念对犯罪学理论意味着什么
本文考察了犯罪学理论中的一种知识正统,即他们对罪犯的关注和对受害者的任何提及的排除。我们表明,任何犯罪理论实际上都可以定义关于受害者的两个相关概念,这里称为受害概念和脆弱性概念,确定它们的含义,并对它们的经验属性产生一系列可测试的预测。然后,我们进行了一项理论练习,对比实体实证主义理论和选择理论的内在逻辑如何具体说明这些观点。我们发现实质性实证主义不仅是上述知识正统的可能来源,而且它还产生了与已知事实不一致的受害和脆弱性预测。相比之下,选择理论激励学者关注受害者,并能够做出预测,这些预测不仅与已知事实一致,而且还为理论和研究的未来发展提供了丰富的可能性。考虑这些观点对伪造长期存在的犯罪学观点具有重要意义,因为它对任何无法对受害和脆弱性做出可信的经验预测的犯罪理论都提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信