Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Multiple Victims and Super Targets

  • Ken Pease
  • Graham Farrell
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_129

Synonyms

Overview

The plight of multiple victims of crime is identified, with the observation that their needs are often ill-served by police and other agencies. Reasons for this are identified. These include the often inadequate information provided to officers attending the homes of such victims, together with their failure to recognize the cumulative effects on victims of crimes which taken individually may not be of great seriousness. The typical failure of victimization surveys to reflect the extent of chronic victimization is bewailed and remedies suggested.

Fundamentals

Let us start with an appeal to your personal experience. Please bring to mind a fellow pupil at school, a fellow student at college, a colleague at work, or someone in your neighborhood who is or was subjected to repeated verbal or physical attack, practical jokes, or theft or damage to their property. Everyone whom the first author has approached with this modest...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Ashton J, Brown I, Senior B, Pease K (1998) Repeat victimisation: offender accounts. Int J Risk Secur Crime Prev 3:269–279Google Scholar
  2. Budd T, Mattinson J (2000) British crime survey training notes. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Fagan TJ, Wennerstrom D, Miller J (1996) Sexual assault of male inmates: prevention, identification, and intervention. J Correct Health Care 3:49–65Google Scholar
  4. Farrell G, Pease K (2007) The sting in the tail of the British Crime Survey: multiple victimisations. In: Hough M, Maxfield M (eds) Surveying crime in the 21st century. Willan, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrell G, Clark K, Ellingworth D, Pease K (2005) Of targets and super-targets: a routine activity theory of high crime rates. Internet J CriminolGoogle Scholar
  6. Lauritsen J, Gatewood Owens J, Planty M, Rand MR, Truman JL (2012) Methods for counting high-frequency repeat victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. McQuade SC, Colt JP, Meyer NBB (2009) Cyber = Bullying. Praeger, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority: an experimental view. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Mukherjee S, Carcach C (1998) Repeat victimisation in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  10. Olweus D (1978) Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipping boys. Hemisphere, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Perry DG, Hodges EVF, Egan SK (2001) Determinants of chronic victimisation by peers: a review and new model of family influence. In: Juvonen J, Graham S (eds) Peer harassment in school: the plight of the vulnerable and victimised. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Rand M, Rennison CM (2005) Bigger is not necessarily better: an analysis of violence against women. Estimates from the National Crime Victimisation Survey. J Quant Criminol 21:267–291Google Scholar
  13. Shaw M (2001) Time heals all wounds? In: Farrell G, Pease K (eds) Repeat victimization. Crime prevention studies. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  14. Shaw M, Chenery S (2007) Kings and castles, cavemen and caves: the impact of crime on male victims. In: Farrell G, Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Townsley M (eds) Imagination in crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, vol 21. Willan, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  15. Shaw M, Pease K (2000) Research on repeat victimisation in Scotland. Scottish Executive, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  16. Strayer FF, Strayer J (1976) An ethological analysis of social agonism and dominance relations among pre-school children. Child Dev 47:980–989Google Scholar
  17. Tseloni A, Pease K (2005) Population inequality: the case of repeat victimisation. Int Rev Victim 12:75–90Google Scholar
  18. Tseloni A, Ntzoufras I, Nicolaou A, Pease K (2010) Concentration of personal and household crimes in England and Wales. Eur J Appl Math 21:326–348Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jill Dando InstituteUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  3. 3.Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies and School of CriminologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada