How does crime impact the victim?

 

[Note: I was not here on Friday and didn't see the law & order episode. As such, I am basing my statements on my personal understanding and sources such as this documentation.]

We all know that crime has a large impact on the victim. What may not be obviously apparent is that a crime will usually have some lasting impact on the victim for the rest of their lives. Immediately, once the initial shock of the crime on the victim wears off, the victim is likely to experience a vast range of emotions. Victims can feel anger, fear, confusion, frustration, guilt, shame, grief, or really any strong emotion. The emotions the victim feels will depend on the type and circumstance of the crime, as well as the type of person the victim is. The victim may feel difficulty getting the help they need to understand and process these emotions, as they may be unsure of who they can trust and rely on. Long term, the victim is likely to suffer from episodes of PTSD and revictimization. The victim may be prone to intrusive thoughts relating to the crime, and may seek to numb these thoughts through substance abuse and other socially deviant behaviour.

Victims are also likely to have a physical reaction to the crime, some short term and some long term. Immediately they will likely have an increase in adrenaline and heart rate. Long term, they may suffer effects such as insomnia, loss of appetite, muscle tension, nausea, lethargy or headaches. Depending on the severity of the crime, and on the victim, these effects may last for a few months or for the rest of the victim's life. Victims may obviously also sustain physical injuries in the event of an assault or attempted murder. In the event of disfigurement or disability, victims may suffer additional prolonged psychological effects.

The physical and psychological effects that crimes have on victims can also easily lead to financial and social issues for the victim. Because victims are likely to suffer from insomnia and emotional outbursts, they will likely need to take time off work, and will lose money as a result of their time spent away from work. Victims may also need to pay for legal, medical, or property fees. The victim's social life is also likely to suffer due to their unstable emotional state.


Tl;dr, crime can affect just about every aspect of a victim's life, sometimes permanently. Short term the victim will suffer mentally, physically, financially and socially. It ultimately depends on the severity of the crime and how the victim responds to it, but the emotional distress and physical damage may last the victim the rest of their life. 



Now let's look at an actual crime and think about how it would have impacted the victim. This article details a woman's struggles with losing her husband to a stabbing weeks before their wedding. Note that while she is not the direct victim of the crime, she is still a victim, as she was negatively impacted by the crime. In her interview she brings up the devastation she felt seeing the casket being carried. These effects also clearly lasted, as they are still mentioned four years later at the perpetrator's sentencing. It should also be mentioned that she had to quit her studies due to her inability to focus, effectively derailing her entire life plan. She states that she hasn't wanted to be alive since his murder, suggesting possible depression and suicidal thoughts. 

This article interestingly also demonstrates the "cycle of violence"; that a victim of a crime is more likely to be a criminal themselves. Apparently, the criminal in this case had also been a survivor of a shooting at age 17, and was acting out of fear due to being reminded of his own victimization. This perfectly demonstrates the long term effects of victimization, as the perpetrator of this case was suffering from PTSD from being shot years ago. His reaction to a crime that happened to him at age 17 was strong enough to cause him to take the life of another human being. Supposedly, he also showed sincere deep remorse for his actions.

This article perfectly highlights the short and long term mental effects on two victims of crime, as well as the cycle of violence that these effects contribute to.

To mitigate these effects, victims need to be able to feel safe. They need a healthy way to express and understand their emotions. They need to be reassured that it wasn't their fault, and to understand what will come next. Victims should be assisted by family and friends in getting the help they need from people such as therapists and doctors to professionally mitigate the psychological and physical effects of the crime on the victim.

Could school be the most dangerous place for youth?

 Having considered the statistics, it seems clear that school is likely the most dangerous place a young person will regularly go. Let's begin by looking at some of these statistics, considering what exactly they mean, and finish up by thinking about why the statistics look the way they do. 

This article states "According to a survey conducted by Mission Research for CBC News, more than one-third of students between the ages of 14 and 21 say they were physically assaulted at least once before reaching high school." Over one third BEFORE high school. Considering that high school (arguably) has the most intense social pressure a young student will face in their school life, it's particularly surprising that so many assaults are happening before high school. The same article also says "In high school, one in five boys surveyed say they were threatened with a weapon." One fifth of the male high school population has apparently had their life seriously threatened. I'm not certain on the statistics, but I'd suspect that the number of boys threatened inside of school is much, much higher than the number threatened outside of school. 

While boys are mostly facing issues with assault in school, the girls get to deal with sexual assault. This article here says that 15% of female students have been sexually assaulted. 15%. While these statistics will vary from school to school, for the sake of consideration let's take that 15% as the average and look at how many people worldwide may have been sexually assaulted. According to this website here, there are ~1,008,023 females between the ages of 15-19. 15% of that number is 151,203. Now obviously statistics will vary, and not all people in this age demographic will even be attending school, but that number is still going to be very high considering that we're only looking at sexual assaults by school peers.

So we know now that statistically, a lot of crime is taking place between school peers. Let's think about why these crimes are happening in schools. Firstly, students spend lot of their time at school. I believe it's fair to suggest that school is one of the only places where a student is likely to have any kind of "social power" that they care about, and so youths who are already likely to commit crimes are willing to commit those crimes for some sort of benefit in their school lives. In addition, it is well known that crimes like assault and sexual assault are way more likely to happen between two people that already know each other. Because young people spend so much of their time at school, it's where they get to know most of the new people they meet. Because students are more likely to know other students, they are probably more likely to commit the aforementioned crimes towards other students than towards strangers or other acquaintances. 

In conclusion, school is dangerous for young people because they spend so much of their time there, and it is arguably the most prevalent social structure in their minds. Because of this, students are more likely to commit crimes against one another for a perceived benefit in their school lives. 

My theory on crime

 My personal theory is that almost every crime can be sorted into three categories. The criminal may have wanted material gain, such as money, food, or shelter. They may not want somebody else to have something, be it out of fear, jealousy, or any other reason. Lastly, they may be committing the crime for some form of satisfaction, such as attention or pleasure. Ultimately what these categories have in common is some form of unmet need or desire.

Clearly this is very general and crime can be much more complicated than it seems, but these 3 categories should be able to encompass most crimes. I believe that every choice that humans make are out of some form of need or want, and crime is no different. A crime will occur when the criminal feels some unmet need, weighs the benefits against the potential penalties, and consider their other options to be either harder or less likely to succeed. Thus, because I believe crime to be a product of thought and choice, difference in brain structure will obviously have an effect on the likelihood of an individual choosing to commit a crime. Because everybody processes information differently, a set of circumstances which would lead one person to commit a crime may not lead another to commit a crime. 

If we are to believe that crime is a product of unmet needs and desires, it stands to reason that crime could be reduced by providing easier alternatives for would-be criminals. Helping to provide people with the materials they need to survive and feel fulfilled should reduce the likelihood that they deem it necessary to commit a crime in order to obtain these things. Ultimately there will still be people who want more and are willing to commit crime to gain more, but the aforementioned measures should see a decrease in crime.

Let's look at an actual crime as an example to see how it fits this theory and how it could have been avoided. This article actually already does a great job of explaining what happened, why they think it happened, and how it could have been avoided. A 13 year old boy shot and killed a 15 year old boy the day after stealing from a drugstore. This set of crimes would seem to fit into the satisfaction and material gain parts of my theory. The boy robbed the store for the material gain of the things he was stealing, and likely also to build a reputation for himself. His actions were driven by a sense of need for what he was stealing and the attention it would bring him. This could likely have been avoided if  the boy's family had been in a more stable financial position, and if the boy had received more positive attention from his peers. A more stable financial position would have made him less desperate for what he was stealing, and a better social life would have made him less desperate for the reputation it would provide him with, and with both the big factors taken care of he wouldn't have felt the need to commit the crime.

Tl;dr - Crime is a product of circumstances and how those circumstances are processed. Somebody will commit a crime when an outside influence causes them to feel an unmet need, and the criminal deems that crime will be the best or easiest option. Providing resources to would-be criminals to ensure their survival and fulfillment should reduce the likelihood that they feel the need to commit crime.