David is a high school senior and, after telling his parents he was going to his room to study and then go to bed, snuck out of the house to meet his friends instead. On the way home from hanging out with his friends, he was attacked by two strangers who beat him up and stole his wallet and cell phone.
What theory of victimization would you apply to David and this situation? Explain specifically how the theory you have chosen connects to the situation. In your opinion, who is to blame for this situation; David or his attackers? Explain your answer.
Full Answer Section
Routine activities theory does not blame the victim for being victimized. It simply states that certain factors make people more likely to be victims of crime. In David's case, he was a suitable target because he was young, vulnerable, and alone. However, the blame for the attack lies with the two strangers who committed the crime.
It is important to note that routine activities theory is just one of many theories of victimization. Other theories, such as lifestyle theory and victim precipitation theory, also attempt to explain why people become victims of crime. However, routine activities theory is one of the most widely accepted theories, and it is a useful tool for understanding why crime occurs.
In my opinion, David is not to blame for being attacked. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The blame for the attack lies with the two strangers who committed the crime. However, it is important for David to take steps to protect himself from future victimization. He should avoid walking alone at night, and he should be aware of his surroundings. He should also tell his parents where he is going and when he expects to be home.
Sample Answer
The theory of victimization that I would apply to David's situation is routine activities theory. This theory states that crime is more likely to occur when three things are present: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians.
In David's case, the motivated offenders were the two strangers who attacked him. The suitable target was David himself. He was young and vulnerable, and he was alone on the street at night. The absence of capable guardians was also a factor. There were no witnesses to the attack, and no one was there to help David.