Advertisement

Deception and the Process Toward Criminal Victimization

  • James F. KennyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The process approach utilized throughout this book views criminal victimization as the final event in a series of purposeful, dynamic, and increasingly dangerous interactions. Deception enables the process to progress by disguising criminal advances, delaying effective responses, and minimizing target resistance. Life stressors can ignite the process by causing a person of concern to become tense, anxious, or angry. Workplace pressures, an unhappy home environment, or financial problems can trigger an act of aggression or fuel the process. Those who engage in targeted acts of violence move along an identifiable pathway of progressively aggressive behaviors. The progression may be rapid or slow and will not follow the same course; it differs from person to person (Fig. 3.1).

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (1999). Warning signs. MTV news and specials: Betsy Forhan, Producer.Google Scholar
  2. Arway, A. (2002). Causal factors of violence in the workplace: A human resource professional’s perspective. In M. Gill, B. Fisher, & V. Bowie (Eds.), Violence at work: Causes, patterns, and prevention. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. ASIS International. (2005). Workplace violence prevention and response guideline. Alexandria, VA: ASIS International.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Braverman, M. (2002). The prevention of violence affecting workers: A systems perspective. In M. Gill, B. Fisher, & V. Bowie (Eds.), Violence at work: Causes, patterns and prevention. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Catalano, S. (2015). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, R., & Hormel, R. (1997). A revised classification of situational crime prevention techniques. In S. Lab (Ed.), Crime prevention at a crossroads (pp. 17–27). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
  8. De Becker, G. (1997). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  9. De Becker, G. (2002). Fear less: Real truth about risk, safety, and security in a time of terrorism. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  10. Dietz, P. (1986). Mass, serial, and sensational homicides. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 62, 477–491.Google Scholar
  11. FBI Behavioral Analysis Group. (2017). Making prevention a reality: Identifying, assessing, and managing the threat of targeted attacks. Quantico, VA: National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.Google Scholar
  12. FBI Critical Incident Response Group. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, VA: National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.Google Scholar
  13. FBI Records: The Vault. (2017). Sandy hook elementary school shooting. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from https://vault.fbi.gov/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting
  14. Fein, R., & Vossekuil, B. (1999). Assassination in the United States: An approach to prevent targeted violence (pp. 1–7). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: Research in Action.Google Scholar
  15. Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., & Holden, G. (1995). Threat assessment: An approach to prevent targeted violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, J., & DeLateur, M. (2014). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence: Reflections on a national epidemic. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  18. Hickey, E. (2013). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  19. Meadows, R. (2014). Understanding violence and victimization. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. Namie, G. (2014). 2014 WBI: U.S. workplace bullying survey. Retrieved May 21, 2018 from https://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/WBI-2014-US-Survey.pdf
  21. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (n.d.). Why women become violent. Retrieved January 7, 2019 from https://ncadv.org/statistics
  22. Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division. (1993). Fear and violence in the workplace. Minneapolis, MN: Northwestern National Life Insurance Company.Google Scholar
  23. Potok, M. (2003). Eric Rudolph, at last. Southern law poverty center, Summer 2003. Retrieved March 31, 2019 from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/eric-rudolph-at-last.
  24. Pynchon, M., & Borum, R. (1999). Assessing threats of targeted group violence: Contributions from social psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, S., Zhang, X., Basile, K., Merrick, M., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., et al. (2018). The National Intimate Partner and sexual violence survey: 1015 data brief – updated release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  26. Southern Law Poverty Center. (2017). Intelligence briefs. In Mark Potok (Ed.), Intelligence report: The year in hate and extremism (Issue 162, pp. 8–9), Montgomery, AL: Southern Law Poverty Center.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Secret Service. (2000). Safe school initiative: An interim report on the prevention of targeted violence in schools. Washington, DC: National Threat Assessment Center and U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Secret Service. (2018). Enhancing school safety using a threat assessment model: An operational guide to preventing targeted school violence. Washington, D.C.: National Threat Assessment Center.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneckUSA

Personalised recommendations