Defining and Identifying Repeat Victimisation

All crimes have some points of similarity. Some crimes are obviously repeats e.g. the same house being burgled twice within a two week period. However, what about two different, but identical cars being stolen from the same multi-storey car park? This could be seen as a ‘virtual repeat.’ Repeat racial attack could also be seen (from the perpetrator’s viewpoint) as a virtual repeat, since the ethnic identity of the victim is perceived by the perpetrator as his or her only relevant attribute (Home Office 1999).  

Repeat victimisation could be defined in terms of:

• Place

• Time

• Offence

• Victim

• Property

• Offender

Generally, the definition of repeat victimisation used should flow from the purposes the data is likely to be used for. Therefore data should be collected on all aspects of a repeat because all might, in different circumstances, provide opportunities for preventative strategies to be implemented. For example:

"A motorist parks her car in a safe area, but leaves the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition. She has her car stolen three times. The preventive scope for the victim’s changed behaviour in such a case seems particularly great. By contrast, another car is left secure and immobilised, but is nonetheless broken into three times. In this case, the scope for place change seems to come to the fore." (Home Office 1999)  

The Home Office (1999) have outlined a number of tactical problems of repeat victimisation measurement and their suggested solutions. Some of these are as follows:

• Does a repeat necessarily involve the same people, place, or both?

Only offences of the same type should be sought when an officer questions someone about prior victimisation. Ideally, however, a supplementary question should be asked of the kind ‘Have you suffered any other type of crime during the last year that you think might be connected to this one?’ This version at least asserts the centrality of understanding any relationship that might underpin repeat victimisation. The major limitation of this approach is to exclude as repeats events capable of different interpretations (notably criminal damage and attempted burglary).

• What is the period over which a repeat counts as such?

The period over which information about prior victimisation is sought should be six months or one year, and should coincide as closely as possible with the recall period of one year used in the British Crime Survey.

• Over what range of offences would a repeat be counted, i.e. would an assault and a motor theft against the same person be counted as a repeat?

Reduction of repeat victimisation should not be aggregated across crime types, since that would equate offences like shop theft, where many repeats can be prevented with relative ease, with other offences of which that is not true.

• When a shop or factory is burgled, offences against whom count as repetitions? Should an employee be asked about offences that occurred outside the work context? Should the proprietor?

People should be asked about their own prior victimisation when they are representatives of households, but not when they are agents of others. For business crime, the unit of analysis should be the branch not the owner. Thus two branches of the same store, victimised once each, would not constitute a repeat victim. For the purposes of repeat measurement, the person responsible for a car at the time of an offence should be asked about prior victimisation.

• Should attempts be included along with completions?

If they are included, instances will be defined as repeats where completed offences are thwarted. If they are excluded, the attempt as a marker will be overlooked.

Attempts should contribute towards counts of repetition because they can predict the possibility of repeats.

Back to Repeat victimisation

Back to Patterns of victimisation