The Relationship Between Age, Crime & Victimisation
Age, crime and victimisation are all interrelated. This essay will explore and discuss the forms of crimes offenders are more likely to commit and at what age, as well as, the age of the victims of the said crimes. Crime is the conduct of an individual which by law is prohibited. Such behaviour is determined by society, based on their beliefs. Before an individual can be held liable for an offence, they first must be of legal age to have criminal responsibility, which in the U.K is 10 years old, if raised would eradicate a significant portion of offenders. Offending can be explained and is theorised to be caused by social, hormonal, biological and psychological factors which have an impact and effect on an individual. Data regarding the above is collected and provided by agencies such as the police, Home Office, Crime Survey England and Wales, Victim Surveys etc.
Statistically, crimes are predominantly committed by youth offenders, who by legal entity are individuals between 10-18 year olds. This is proven and illustrated by the ‘age crime curve’ which has had a consistent pattern since the 1830’s, and was first recognised by Adolphe Quetelet (1831). Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983) had developed and elaborated that the crime curve is universal, meaning data can be extrapolated and applied to various different offences, including demographic and socio-economic classes. Based on the ‘age crime curve’ of recent years crime committed by the male population peaks at the age of 18 whereas female crime activity peaks slightly earlier at the age of 16. This then steadily declines. Additionally, a critique of the crime curve is that reaching the legal age of adulthood may be factoring result in police and judge digression becoming less lenient. Younger individuals are more likely to be cautioned/warned, providing an opportunity to change their behaviour and attitude, using the situation as a teaching moment in maturity.
Specific offences would have a different curve.
Vandalism: Committed by 13/14 year olds
Fraud: Committed at 20+
Sex Offences: Committed at 16+
This shows: the crime curve unknowingly conceals more data than it reveals.
This portrays the findings of the Home Office Survey (2000). The survey was conducted by Charles Clarke, who sampled approximately 5000 participants which indicated that half the population of England and Wales recorded offences were committed by young people aged 13-21. It found that young males begin committing crimes a few months prior to young females who tend to begin offending at the age of 14. Moreover, at age 12/13, a similar figure of young males and females commit offences such as drug use and drinking frequently. Additionally, the rate of offending begins to rapidly increase for young males by the age of 14. The survey shows that 10% of juvenile offenders are reportedly accountable for almost half the recorded offences for the age group of 12-30 year olds. Young females below the age of 16 commit offences e.g. criminal damage, shop lifting, purchasing stolen goods and fighting. However, once above 14, gradually resort to fraud and purchasing stolen goods offences. Equivalently, young males are generally convicted of offences such as criminal damage, purchasing stolen goods and fighting. The above studies portray the relation between age and crime as the younger an individual is, the more likely they are to commit an offence and the older an offender becomes, the fewer offences they commit.
In contrast, a more well dated study by Fagan and Western (2005) institutes the idea that the crime peak of a specific age is dependent and varies based upon an individual’s conditions e.g. social, income, environment, and characteristics e.g. hormone levels (testosterone), body size, impulsivity, including and causing a variance amongst the types of offences committed. This implies that the crime peak rapidly increases due to young people being more impressionable and care free, and have a more opportunistic attitude, for example if they see a chance to steal or damage property. In doing so they are gaining approval and forming friendships with their peers. With maturity, young people gradually are much less likely to commit serious crimes. Liu, Francis and Soothill (2011) had demonstrated the effects of maturity in comparison to the correlating number of convictions. Both factors are constructively related to age, however, could cancel out one another in terms of population. The researchers critiqued the crime curve and prior findings to have combined the effects of the aforementioned factors. In spite of this, control over the number of convictions causes succeeding outcome in the effects of maturation, countering the relation between the severity of an offence and the significance of offences which progressively diminish once an individual reaches early adulthood – the next stage of their life. Similarly, under the conditions of controlling age, quantity of convictions are confidently related to the severity of the types of offences.
Historically, there was a high availability of employment opportunities once an individual left school, thus, gaining ‘adult responsibilities’; transitioning into the next stage of their life (gaining maturity), and discarding their criminal involvement and activity. Now, there are significantly less opportunities for younger generations due to population, economic and social changes. Consequently, causing an earlier crime peak due to the level of stress they face also, our cultural emphasis on hedonism and consumer consumptions resorts to an increase on crimes i.e. fraud, instead of diminishing with age. Moffitt’s taxonomy of offending (1993), as the age crime curve implies that a small number of the England and Wales population begin offending at an early age and continue to do so until they’re too old, bringing forward the concept of “career criminals” who are also referred to as “life course persistent” offenders. The presence of such offenders tends to be those who began offending at a young age and re more likely to commit indicatable offences such as robbery, theft, burglary, and fraud and trafficking of drugs.
Victimisation and crime are interrelated. Although some offences such as drug use are victimless, the majority of committed offences have victims, i.e. assault, violent behaviour, sexual assaults, burglary, theft, robbery, homicide etc. Depending on the severity of an offence, and whether it has affected an individual mentally/physically influences if they report the crime to the appropriate authorities, affects crime statistics as it means that offenders are not always convicted. As crime is committed by both young people and adults, victims are similarly of different age groups. Typically, victims tend to be female, ill, vulnerable elderly or very young. Younger people are viewed to being “ideal” victims for offences such as abuse, sexual offences and assault – (Nils Christie,1984). Moreover, there is also the concept that young victims are likely to become offenders themselves. For example, sexually abused children are more likely to abuse others when they are older. Institute of Child Health, London, 2003 found that out of 224 victims, 26 of them at the average age of 14, later went onto committing sexual offences. The majority of these were against children of no relation to them. Similar offences are known as predatory crimes, and commonly lead to the victim reciprocating
The lack of parental guidance leads to young people becoming involved in illegal behaviour which influences some to place themselves in ‘dangerous situations’, for instance, in the presence of known and willing offenders. Thus, they are much more vulnerable to victimisation. According to Black (1983), this is consequent to being victimised in the past and such actions are in retaliation or deterrence from social control. This suggests that a lack of support, trust and guidance of victims is what leads to further victimisation and causes them to become offenders.
Offenders typically victimise individuals either of their own peer group or younger. Research and studies show that there are significantly more victims compared to the number of convicted offenders. Anderson et al (1994) held a survey in Edinburgh of 1,159 participants of 11-15 year olds. Over the course of 9 months, half the participants were victimised and subjected to assault, threatening behaviour and theft. the findings showed that 52% females and 36% males were harassed by an adult. Moreover, 26% of females and 9% of males were sexually harassed: young males/females touched or asked to touch them, indecent exposure or trying to get them to go somewhere by an adult male. The prospect of victimisation drastically increases by 30% once females are 14/15 years old. According to Anderson, they were faced with either being inappropriately touched or flashed.
Deakin (2006), revealed data by surveying 2,420 school children aged 9-16, which outlined the severity and form of victimisation they faced. Based on the table below, the most common victimisation is harassment which almost 80-4/5ths of the children had faced. Deakin also explored how victimisation made the children feel where most of them described feeling frightened when being harassed. Psychologically this may have induced the fight or flight response which in turn leads to a child to ‘harass’ the individual harassing them.
Furthermore, crime and victimisation are related in terms of an individual having a ‘fear of crime’. This is where they perceive an imminent risk of exposure and being victimisation, and have calculated the quantity of potential loss or harm. Fear of crime is viewed as a product of victimisation as past victimisation and risk of crime were vital in to order to comprehend why some individuals do and do not report anxiousness regarding crime. Bennett, (1990: 14), explained ‘fear of crime’ to being: “The victimisation perspective is based on the principle that fear of crime within a community is caused by the level of criminal activity or by what people hear about activity – either from conversations with others or from the mass media.” Tyler & Rasinski (1984) observed that past experiences and knowledge of crime causing individuals to become sensitive and aware of crime leading to perception of risk/worry and likelihood of repeat victimisation, including methods of protection.
Similar to the relation of crime and age, victimisation is most likely to affect young males aged 16-30. Strangely, despite being victimised the most, they fear crime the least, which as said before could be due to levels of majority, hormonal levels or their impulsivity to commit crime amongst their peer group.
Killias (1990), established vulnerability in the fear of crime by outlining 3 key factors: exposure to risk, the anticipation of serious consequences, and the loss of control – all expected to sufficiently affect levels of fear. Conflation of the factors leads to complex effects, each is linked to physical, social and situational points of vulnerability. E.g. women, elderly, and individuals of poor health can anticipate potential serious crime, when in areas lacking help and availability of social support.
In conclusion, age crime and victimisation have an evident and apparent relation. Although a minority of victims go on to offending, they contribute to and impact the relation between age and crime, as well as the relation between crime and victimisation. Offenders and victims statistically correlate which age group is most likely to commit what crime and against which victim pool. Availability to support services and guidance, or lack there of, could assist in reducing the relation between crime and victimisation as it would prevent the theory of Black (1983), where victims commit crime in retaliation to their own victimisation. The relation between age and crime is purely based on impulsivity and opportunistic behaviour, which is caused by lack of majority. Moreover, seeing ones offender also induces the psychological response of fight or flight, therefore, a victim may retaliate or react to their victimisation by committing an offence which relates crime and victimisation. Moreover, the relation of victimisation, more specifically fear of crime may potentially contribute to more offences. For example, hurting an individual in fear of them hurting you.