Recently, on Facebook, I noted a warning issued by Green Bay Police Department (this is in the city in which I reside) about warming up one’s car in the driveway or garage. Car thieves have been taking advantage of the practice, a practice one might understand is desirable given how cold it gets in Northeast Wisconsin.
A frequent commenter to my Facebook posts wrote, “I don’t condone theft, but who is stupid enough to leave a running car unlocked? They’re basically asking for it to be stolen. Use some common sense, people.” To the snark about those “stupid enough” to leave a running car unlocked, I retorted, “People who live in safe neighborhoods.” When I was growing up in the 1960s-70s, we never used bike locks, locked car doors, or even barred the front door. At the same time, there was a 12 gauge pump action shotgun in the house just in case there was an intruder.
As readers might expect, I had more to say to the commenter. In a follow up comment, I wrote, “Saying somebody is asking for their car to be stolen because they’re warming it up is a lot like saying a woman is asking to be raped because she’s dressed provocatively or that a businessman is asking to be robbed because he’s dressed nice. People aren’t suppose to steal, rape, and rob. Let’s start there.”
But does that mean people should not practice situational awareness and engage in safety measures to protect their property from theft? Maybe I was too harsh; there’s a fine line between preparing people to avoid victimization and victim blaming. The commenter’s remarks stray into the second category. But there’s a way to talk about this that doesn’t. Perhaps people should heed the police warning about this tactic of car thievery. Indeed, they should. In this essay, I leverage my professional bona fides to talk about victimology and hope to show readers how they can promote public safety without engaging in victim blaming. It’s not stupidity. They aren’t asking for their cary to be stolen. But the practice is unwise, and the result unwelcome.
In the realm of criminology, victimology is one subfield, shedding light on the dynamics surrounding criminal behavior, providing knowledge that allows citizens to better defend themselves from those who wish to harm them or separate them from their property. The population of the United States in 1970, when I was eight years old, was 203 million people. In 2020, it had grown to 330 million, becoming more diverse, more unequal, with rising material deprivation. This is associated with a drastic rise in crime over the 1970s-early 90s, quelled by a massive expansion of the criminal justice system.
Open borders and the entrenchment of ghetto culture, a demoralizing force that increases the likelihood that some of our fellow citizens, as well as the new arrivals who lack the moral sensibilities that made America free and safe, an increase in the proportion of the population that works from definitions favorable to the violation of law and transgression of safeguarding norms, in conjunction with leniency in law enforcement, explain the change. But it took more than the expanding the criminal justice apparatus to accomplish crime reduction after the early 1990s; it also took situational awareness among the citizenry. This came with a downside: among other things, children became less free to enjoy the childhood I enjoyed, replaced by virtual activities. Even now, the current crime wave notwithstanding, our freedoms are constrained as much by fear of predation.
However, the threat of crime remains real, and being prepared to avoid victimization may help relieve the fear, reasonable and unreasonable, people may have about being victimized—at least it promises to shake us out of the naiveté that it could never happen to us. This is where victimology studies become useful. Victimologists study the attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of crime victims, generating insights into the motives and patterns of criminal perpetration, as well as identifying the preventative measures that can be taken to minimize the risks of victimization. Done properly, this can have the effect of increasing our safety while minimizing the impact of fear of crime on personal freedom.
In my interactions with others, I encounter critics of victimology who say the subfield shifts responsibility for crime onto the victim, implying that it blames victims for their own victimization. This can occur in several ways, I’ve been told: focusing excessively on the behavior or characteristics of the victim rather than the actions of the perpetrator; emphasizing factors like victim behavior or vulnerability that may have contributed to the case of victimization. Critics who view victimology this way point out that focusing on victims detract from addressing the root causes of crime and victimization, perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and undermines empathy for victims.
Assuming victimology does these things, the complaints are valid. There is indeed a desire to avoid addressing the root causes of crime and victimization. Anybody with a sufficient grasp of the demographic realities of crime I the context of the politics of our era can also grasp the desire to avoid acknowledging the situation. As I have shown on Freedom and Reason, leveraging the corpus of crime statistics, black Americans, especially males, are drastically overrepresented in serious crime. On a per capita, according to the 2021 NIBRS data, black Americans were approximately 8.8 times more likely to be reported as homicide offenders compared to white Americans. Based on the 2021 NIBRS data, per capita, black Americans were approximately 7.6 times more likely to be reported as robbery offenders compared to white Americans. I will address the other two criticisms over the balance of this essay (and return to the first again).
Supposing victimology shifts responsibility, the problem identified in my response to the Facebook commenter, how do we explain criminal events while at the same time empower individuals to mitigate risk without veering into victim blaming? First and foremost, as stated, it’s imperative to affirm unequivocally the standpoint that the fault of criminal acts resides solely with the criminal. Regardless of actions, attire, or circumstance, the responsibility for any crime lies squarely on the shoulders of those who perpetrate it. Victim blaming, in any form, is not only morally reprehensible but also counterproductive in the endeavor to strengthen public safety. It undermines the fundamental principle of justice and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that exacerbate the trauma experienced by victims.
At any rate, within the field of victimology, there lies a pragmatic approach to crime prevention—one that recognizes the importance of risk mitigation strategies, situational awareness, and understanding the factors that may increase one’s susceptibility and vulnerability to crime. This approach is not about assigning blame to the victim but rather about empowering individuals with the knowledge and tools to safeguard themselves against potential harm.
Consider, for instance, the simple act of locking one’s doors before leaving home. Again, many of us did not do this in 1970, but we should have. (It is still wise to obtain a firearm and learn how to use it.) This basic precautionary measure does not absolve the burglar of responsibility for his actions. He will if determined break and enter whether the door is locked. But locking the door undeniably reduces the likelihood of a break-in, thereby minimizing the risk of victimization. On purely instrumental grounds, burglars seek the path of least resistance.
Similarly, advising women not to enter vehicles with strange men or to avoid secluded areas at night does not imply fault on the part of the assault victim. Men should not assault women or other men. At the same time, women need to be aware that certain environs pose higher risks. They will benefit from the awareness to navigate those environments safely. Hitchhiking was common in my youth. Today, it would be unwise to pick up a hitchhiker—or to be one; that one sees so few hitchhikers anymore is evidence that people are much more reluctant to invite strangers into their cars or to seek rides from strangers.
Victimology illuminates the role of routine activities in shaping vulnerability to crime. While emphasizing that no one should be targeted based on their appearance or actions, an awareness of behavioral characteristics that increase the risk of becoming a crime victim acknowledges that certain attire may inadvertently attract unwanted attention. A conspicuous display of wealth may make an individual a target for theft, not because he deserves it, but because he presents an opportunity for exploitation.
Slain United Health CEO Brian Thompson was not responsible for Luigi Mangione’s action. Those defending the assassin’s actions are engaged in blatant victim blaming. But those working in health insurance are today thinking about where they are and who is present in the wake of an action that anarchists call “propaganda of the deed.” Similarly, individuals who openly display cultural or religious symbols may become targets of hate crimes perpetrated by bigots. The bigots are responsible, but understanding that there are bigots who may harm those they loathe and taking precautionary measures can protect one from harm.
Understanding these dynamics allows for proactive measures to minimize risk, such as avoiding conspicuous displays of wealth or considering alternative routes in high-risk areas—or, if one can afford it, hiring personal security.
Victimology underscores the importance of self-defense training and empowerment initiatives, not as a means of encouraging violence or victim-blaming, but as tools for fostering confidence, resilience, and situational awareness. By equipping individuals with the skills to protect themselves, such as martial arts or self-defense classes, victimology empowers individuals to assert agency over their personal safety and resist victimization. Understanding victim characteristics that attract perpetrators and increase vulnerability to crime is thus crucial in developing effective crime prevention strategies and reducing one’s risk of victimization. Exploring these factors helps to inform risk mitigation efforts and empower individuals to protect themselves more effectively.
Perpetrators often target individuals they perceive as vulnerable or easy targets. This perception may be influenced by various factors, including age, perceived lack of assertiveness, or physical stature. For example, perpetrators may target elderly individuals or those with physical disabilities, assuming they are less likely to resist or defend themselves. Individuals who find themselves in isolated or secluded environments are more vulnerable to certain types of crimes, such as assault, rape, or robbery. Perpetrators are more likely to strike when their victims are alone and unlikely to receive immediate assistance. This underscores the importance of avoiding isolated areas, especially at night, and seeking safety in numbers whenever possible. Individuals who are unfamiliar with their surroundings or are perceived as strangers may be at higher risk of victimization. Perpetrators may exploit their lack of local knowledge to target them for scams, pickpocketing, or other crimes. This highlights the importance of remaining vigilant and seeking guidance when navigating unfamiliar environments.
For example, predators are known to use tactics such as placing sticky substances on car hoods, leaving money, flyers, or other items under windshield wipers to distract or delay a person—often targeting women—while he or she is entering or preparing to drive away in their vehicle. These actions aim to lure the person into diverting their attention, prolonging their vulnerability, or stepping out of the car into danger. To mitigate this risk, it’s crucial to remain alert and prioritize safety over addressing distractions. If you notice an unusual item on or near your car, avoid removing it immediately, especially if you’re alone or in an unfamiliar area. Instead, enter your car, lock the doors, and drive to a safe location before inspecting the item. Maintaining situational awareness, parking in well-lit and populated areas, and trusting your instincts reduces the likelihood of falling victim to such strategies.
Substance use, including alcohol and drugs, can impair judgment and decision-making, making individuals more vulnerable to exploitation or victimization. Perpetrators may take advantage of intoxicated individuals, rendering them less capable of defending themselves or recognizing potential dangers. Never leave a drink at a bar unintended. If somebody buys you a drink, watch his hands. If somebody offers you drugs, make sure you know the person well and the type and the effect of the drugs you are taking. Educating yourself about the risks associated with substance use and promoting responsible consumption can help mitigate vulnerabilities. I am not preaching the anti-drug message. What you decide to do with your body is your business. But if you are going to use drugs, do so safely and with those you trust. This won’t completely eliminate the risks surrounding drug use, but it will decrease the likelihood that you will fall victim to somebody who means you ill and other problems associated with drug use.
In recent years, subway riders have increasingly been opting to lean against the walls while waiting for trains, a behavior driven by safety concerns. As incidents of people being pushed onto the tracks have become more frequent, passengers are seeking safer alternatives to the edge of the platform. For example, in New York City, commuters at stations like Times Square and Grand Central are now more likely to position themselves along the wall, where they feel less vulnerable to sudden pushes or accidental falls. This shift in behavior highlights growing fears about personal safety and the desire to avoid the risk of tragic accidents, prompting some transit systems to reconsider platform designs and security measures to ensure rider safety. A person standing on the edge of the platform is not blameworthy if somebody shoves them on to the tracks. However, leading against the wall while waiting for the train minimizes the risk.
Unfortunately, individuals belonging to visible minority groups may face an increased risk of victimization due to prejudice or hate-motivated violence. Perpetrators may target individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, seeking to intimidate or harm them based on their perceived identity. Being openly gay does not justify the actions of anti-gay bigots. When I was growing up, I would hear males talking about what they would do if a gay man ever propositioned them. I always spoke up in those situations, condemning the sentiment. I don’t want to make meeting people any more difficult than it already is, but whether you’re homosexual or heterosexual, making advances to strangers comes with risks. It is not your fault if another person victimizes you, but there are ways to avoid victimization.
Given the statistics I cited earlier, and in light of the anti-white bigotry that plagues American society, the rule of decades of blaming “white privilege” for the situation of black Americans, there is a much greater likelihood that a white person will be the victim of a black person than the other way around. While it should be that white people can feel safe walking in black-majority neighborhoods, the statistical reality indicates that it is not. For example, blacks are approximately 13 times more likely to murder a white person than are whites to much a black person. Blacks are overrepresented not only in robbery, but also in burglary and theft. Therefore, whites should consider avoiding certain neighbors and situations. For those who say this is unfair to the majority of blacks who don’t engage in crime, Heather Mac Donald put it well in an interview with Glenn Loury, observing this particular typification is a tax imposed by some on others given the overrepresentation of blacks in crime commission.
I confess that I struggle with victimization studies because I understand how it can sound like victim blaming. As I type these words, I review them carefully for the potential to cross that line. I moreover understand that raising awareness of danger promotes fear of situations and strangers. This is probably an unavoidable problem, one perhaps best captured by considering type I and type II errors, which in this case reflect the balance between identifying threats and avoiding false alarms.
A type I error, or false positive, occurs when a person perceives an individual or a situation as a threat when it’s not, potentially leading to unnecessary fear or avoidance. When a woman assumes that someone following her in a parking lot is a predator when the stranger is simply walking to his car, a type I error has occurred. A type II error, or false negative, occurs when an actual threat is dismissed or overlooked, such as ignoring someone’s suspicious behavior that later escalates into victimization. Both errors have consequences: type I errors may lead to unwarranted stress or false accusations; type II errors have implications for safety. Situational awareness and trusting one’s instincts may help mitigate these errors. My view is that it is better to overreact than be too trusting.
* * *
Before leaving this essay, I want to note the problem of cultures that blame the victims of violence for the perpetrator’s actions. Islam’s concept of “purdah,” which means to “avoid temptation of society,” is one of those cultural items. In the concrete, this is manifest in the practice of requiring women to stay behind a curtain, live in a separate room, or dress in all-enveloping clothes, for the purpose of keeping out of the sight of men. Purdah is used by Muslims and their apologists to blame European women for rape by Muslim men.
One may remember a few years ago when Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, faced backlash after he blamed victims of rape for wearing “very few clothes.” When Khan was questioned by the Axios journalist Jonathan Swan about the ongoing “rape epidemic” in Pakistan, the then-prime minister responded by saying: “If a woman is wearing very few clothes it will have an impact on the man unless they are robots. It’s common sense.” This common sense has been imported to the West, where rape has skyrocketed with the mass migration of Muslim men into European countries. It is not women going uncovered that is to blame. But Muslim men use purdah to justify raping “kafir,” i.e., those ungrateful to Allah—a denier, disbeliever, infidel, or pagan.
However, not all gender segregated spaces are oppressive to women. Gender ideology, originating in the West itself, is establishing a culture where men can enter women’s spaces by claiming they themselves are women. As bizarre as that sounds, by repurposing the synonym for sex, namely gender, queer praxis holds that men are entitled to the gender identity of women and therefore to women-only spaces and activities. Women-only spaces exist in the West not for religious reasons, but because of a recognition of the inherent difference between men and women and the risk men pose to women. Spaces free of men foster provide a sanctuary where women are not only freely express themselves, address shared experiences, and build community without fear of harassment or intimidation often present in mixed-gender settings, but also enjoy safe spaces. Indeed, safety is the primary justification for women-only spaces, particularly in contexts like bathrooms and domestic violence shelters, where privacy and security are paramount.
Nonetheless, in both cases, in the presence of purdah or the absence of safe spaces for women, women are blamed for the things that happen to them. In the Islamic worldview, a woman who is not properly covered is blamed for having tempted the man with her body. The analogy given by clerics is that of the apex predator snatching his prey. The shepherd must therefore guard his flock. From the standpoint of gender ideology, women who defend their right to spaces free of men are smeared as TERFs, lose opportunities and reputations, and even subjected to violence. Both of these cultures blame the victims of violence for the abuse and violence perpetrated on them.
There has been growing concern in some European countries, for example in Sweden, about harassment and victimization faced by women, particularly in urban areas with significant Muslim populations. Muslim men are harassing women for not adhering to certain cultural norms, such as the principle of purdah. This issue has extended to other aspects of public life, such as the perception of harassment towards Europeans walking their dogs in certain areas. Dogs are considered dirty in Islamic culture. Additionally, there have been reports of “no-go zones” in cities and towns, where non-Muslim Europeans are cautioned or even discouraged from entering due to safety concerns or tensions between different cultural groups. These developments have fueled debates over assimilation and integration, as well as the practice of cultural pluralism, typically framed as the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with respect for local norms and safety.
For my purposes in this essay about victimology, women and those taking their dogs for a walk must consider the risks of doing so when around Muslims. To be sure, it is not their fault if they are harassed or victimized, but they have to exercise caution for their sake and the sake of their pets. However, the authorities who have not acted to return communities to the level of public safety they once enjoyed are to blame. In this sense, those who continue to support those authorities shoulder some of the blame themselves. This is not blaming the victim, but rather observing the paramount importance of electing to office representatives who grasp the problem of public safety and work to solve it by restricting immigration, deporting those who have no legitimate asylum claim (which should be very narrowly defined and verified), deporting any alien who commits a serious crime, and integrating new arrivals permitted to enter or remain into the national culture to which they have chosen to migrate.
As for gender ideology in the West, this needs to be removed from the nations of Europe and North America root and branch—as should those ideologies that blame white people generally for the problems of black people (critical race theory) and the global North for the problems of the global South (ideas disseminated by postcolonial studies).
freedom and reason 