Advertisement

Stronger Than We Think: More Capable Than We Know

  • James F. KennyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Criminal victimization has been widely described by the actions and motivations of the offender in committing the crime. This limited understanding can lead to many viewing criminal victimization as random, senseless, and unmanageable events where targets have very little input and control. While the criminal is a key player in the criminal event, the targets, third parties, the situation, and the physical setting play significant roles in influencing the criminal’s decision to proceed with the attack. Criminals have many advantages including the use of deception, but they are far from invincible. Many targets possess considerable abilities and resources to manage or prevent criminal victimization. In addition, many individuals and professional guardians are willing to help them and are capable of doing so (Fig. 1.1).

References

  1. ASIS International. (2005). Workplace violence prevention and response guideline. Alexandria, VA: ASIS International.Google Scholar
  2. Borum, R., Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., & Berglund, J. (1999). Threat assessment: Defining an approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Center for Conflict Management. (1996). Conflict management skills. Washington, DC: Internal Revenue Service.Google Scholar
  4. De Becker, G. (2002). Fear less: Real truth about risk, safety, and security in a time of terrorism. Boston, MA, Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  5. Dimitrius, J., & Mazzarella, W. (2008). Reading people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  6. Drysdale, D., Modzeleski, W., & Simons, A. (2010). Campus attacks: Targeted violence affecting institutions of higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Education, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
  7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, VA: Critical Incident Response Group.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Famous cases: The unabomber. Retrieved on 4/10/19 from https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber
  9. Fein, R., Voddekuil, B., & Holden, G. (1995). Threat assessment: An approach to preventing targeted violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  10. Fein, R., & Vossekuil, B. (1999). Assassinations in the United States: An operational study of recent assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approachers. Forensic Science, 44(2), 321–333.Google Scholar
  11. Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Goman, C. (2011). The silent language of leaders: How body language can help or hurt. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Government Training Institute. (1998). National symposium on workplace violence. Washington, DC: Government Training Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Grayson, B., & Stein, M. (2006). Attracting assault: Victims’ nonverbal clues. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinman, D., & Cook, P. (2001). A multi-disciplinary team approach to threat assessment. Journal of Threat Assessment, 1(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karmen, A. (2013). Crime victims. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  17. Luckenbill, D. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musu-Gilletto, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., Kemp, J., Diliberto, M., et al. (2018). Indicators of school crime and safety 2017. US Department of Education, US Justice Department. Retrieved March 14, 2019 from https://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018036.pdf
  19. Mustaine, E., & Tewksbery, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyles measures. Criminology, 36, 829–858.Google Scholar
  20. National Threat Assessment Center. (2018). Enhancing school safety using a threat assessment model: An operational guide for preventing targeted school violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service.Google Scholar
  21. O’Toole, M., & Bowman, A. (2012). Dangerous instincts: Use an FBI profilers tactics to avoid unsafe situations. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  22. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2004). Guidelines for preventing workplace violence for health and social service workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Office of Victims of Crime. (2012). OVC help series for crime victims. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of justice.Google Scholar
  24. Planty, M. (2002). Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993–1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  25. Savage, D. (1990, November 14). Insane killer’s death sentence set aside. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 14, 2019 from https://www.articles.latimes.com/1990-11-14/news/mn-4169_1_death_sentence
  26. Simon, G. (1996). In sheep’s clothing: Understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Little Rock, AR: A. J. Christopher & Company.Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, R., & Harrell, A. (1996). Physical environment and crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2018). U.S. Department of Homeland Security soft targets and crowded places security plan. Washington, DC: DHS.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). The bush assassination attempt. Retrieved March 14, 2019 from https://www.oig.justice.gov/special/9704a/05bush2.htm
  30. Wijn, R., van der Kleij, R., Kallen, V., Stekkinger, M., & de Vries, P. (2017). Telling friend from foe: Environmental cues improve detection accuracy of individuals with hostile intentions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 378–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneckUSA

Personalised recommendations