Get Involved!

If you are interested in submitting a piece of work to be published on this blog, please email
Views are strictly those of the individual author.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Hate Crimes; What is the real number?

Hate Crimes; What is the real number?

Date of publication: 23th October 2012

A hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by hostility towards someone based on disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

According to the BBC NEWS UK more than 2000 such offences were recorded in 2011, up one third from 2010. Police have said this was partly due to an increased willingness to report crimes. Overall hate crimes linked to race religion sexual orientation and disability fell by 3600 to 44,500. Hate crime monitoring began in 2008 to raise awareness of the problem. In 2011 a total of 44,519 hate crimes were recorded compared with 48,127 in 2010.

According to the home office website I have found  there were 43,748 hate crimes recorded by police in 2011/2012. These figures are related to the five monitored strands of the hate crime classifications used by the criminal justice system and is not a count of crimes as more than one form of hate crime can be assigned to an offence. Indicative data suggest that less than 5% of hate crime offences have more than one monitored strand assigned ( this ranged between 1% and 7% of offences for the 17 forces whose data was reviewed).
Of the 43,748 hate crimes recorded by police:

  • *35,816 (82%) were race hate crimes
  • *1621 (4%) were religion hate crimes
  • *4252 (10%) were sexual orientation hate crimes
  • *1744 (4%) were disability hate crimes
  • *315 (1%) were transgender hate crimes.

There is a  discrepancy in numbers by 751 hate crimes. I’m not sure what database the BBC NEWS got there information from;  maybe different from the home office?  Is that why there is a slight difference in numbers? What I have noticed is the home office seems to have broken down the statistics so we as a public get an actual over view of what a hate crime is and how the statistics are going down slightly. If anyone has any information regarding this discrepancy in numbers, please comment below.

Year 1 Student – Crime & Investigative Studies
University Centre Peterborough
Supervisor: A. Smith; B.A. (Hons) Criminology Course Leader


Media Reports of Police Opinions

Media Reports of Police Opinions

I am a student at University Centre Peterborough and I wanted to ask a question regarding the validity of research discussed by the media. I looked into an article that discussed police opinions with regards to being armed on duty and it seems the article published by the BBC is misrepresenting information.

According to an article on a 2006 survey of 47,328 police federation members found that 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty. However, upon further investigation I found the information was not a yes or no question but a multiple choice response. I am wondering where the 82% came from, as this is the information I found on - POLICE FEDERATION OF ENGLAND AND WALES SURVEY OF MEMBERS 2006 – TOP-LINE REPORT.

Year 1 Student – Crime & Investigative Studies
University Centre Peterborough
Supervisor: A. Smith; B.A. (Hons) Criminology Course Leader

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Proving Domestic Violence - Free Guest Lecture

"Proving Domestic Violence"

University Centre Peterborough is hosting a FREE public lecture on December 3rd to discuss the difficulties of prosecuting Domestic Violence cases. Guests will start to arrive around 6:30pm with the lecture scheduled to begin at 7:00pm. Refreshments will be provided. Please ring the number below and book your place! 

This talk is from the perspective of a practising Crown Prosecutor about the complex challenges posed by Domestic Violence related prosecutions. What is it like to prosecute cases of this type? What happens if the victim does not support the prosecution? Can a case progress without the support of the victim? If so; how? And importantly; why?

Friday, October 26, 2012

Evil Exists Only in the Eye of the Beholder. Scott Bonn, Ph.D.

Evil Exists Only in the Eye of the Beholder.

                        Scott Bonn, Ph.D.

Evil is not a universal truth.  It is a socially constructed concept and it only exists in a particular time and place.  This perspective on evil, known as social constructionism, is rooted in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant.  According to Kant, matter does not exist in its own right.  Instead, all matter is a product of the mind.  Because all objects are constructed of matter, all objects are thus mental creations. 

Social constructionism emerged over the past forty years as a sociological theory of knowledge that considers how social phenomena develop in particular social contexts.  According to this perspective, all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday life, is actually constructed and reinforced through social interaction.  Social constructionists see reality as a dynamic and constantly contested process—that is, reality is reproduced by people acting on their knowledge and their socially constructed interpretations of it.       

As a logical extension, social constructionism contends that social problems do not exist objectively like a mountain or a river.  Rather, they are constructed by the human mind, socially created or constituted by the definitional process.  Therefore, the objective existence of a harmful condition such as a disease does not, in and of itself, constitute a social problem.  From the social constructionist perspective, an objective condition does not constitute a social problem unless it is defined as such by the members of a society in a particular context.  Moreover, an objective condition does not even have to exist to be defined as a problem.  That is, if something is thought to exist and it elicits fear, then it is real despite the fact that it does not exist objectively.  The witch hunts in colonial New England are an example of a non-objective, socially constructed crisis.  From a constructionist perspective, what makes a condition a social problem is the degree of felt concern by a society about that condition, regardless of whether it actually exists or whether it is objectively harmful. 

            Significantly, an analysis of the social construction of evil provides an understanding of the processes and mechanisms by which those in power and authority in society can demonize a particular group and establish an evil identity for it in the public consciousness.  The word evil itself has a long linguistic history.  The Oxford English Dictionary attributes the original derivation of the word evil to the Goths of the 4th century A.D. who defined it as “exceeding due measure” or “overstepping proper limits.”  Webster’s College Dictionary defines evil as “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful or injurious; due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character; evil quality, intention or conduct.”  I contend that the definitions of evil are all socially constructed and socially defined in particular contexts.  In other words, behaving evilly, producing evil and being evil are radically social processes which are defined in a given social context or time and place. 

The definitions of evil are also tautological—that is, the definitions involve circular reasoning.  One may be labeled as evil because one does evil things, and if one does evil things, then one is evil.  This tautology is problematic because a circular argument cannot be tested or falsified.  As a result, the tautological definition of evil can be exploited by those who apply the label of evil to an individual or group.  How?  If the labelers’ arguments cannot be falsified, then their claims are not subject to meaningful debate or critique by skeptics.  Once a disvalued individual or group is socially defined as evil, those in power have the moral authority and even obligation to eliminate the evildoer(s) regardless of whether or not there is an objective threat to society. Therein lies the danger in the social construction of evil.  It certainly didn’t matter that those who were convicted of witchcraft in colonial New England were not actually witches at all.  They were sentenced to death and executed, nonetheless.  It is important to remember this powerful historical lesson.  When we apply the label of evil to a disvalued individual or group without proper inquiry, the consequences can be dire.  

Dr. Scott Bonn is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Drew University and a media expert.  He is the author of the critically acclaimed book “Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq” and is currently writing a book about finding hope and redemption behind prison walls.  Follow him @DocBonn on Twitter and visit



Sunday, October 21, 2012

The 'NEW' Crime Survey of England and Wales A.Smith

Changes in the Publication of Crime Statistics in England and Wales 


For researchers, students, and members of the public, it use to be the case that you rely on the British Crime Survey produced by the Home Office to find out current trends and issues relating to Crime in England and Wales. As of April 1st, 2012, this has changed and a separation between the Home Office and Criminal Statistics has been established; the collation and publication of crime statistics has moved to the Office for National Statistics.

In December 2010 the Home Secretary announced that the publication of Crime Statistics covering England and Wales would be moved out of the Home Office to promote greater public trust and demonstrate their independence. The Home secretary invited the National Statistician to conduct an independent Review of Crime Statistics for England and Wales to:
  •           Consider gaps, discrepancies and discontinuities within crime statistics;
  •           Recommend the best future location for the publication of crime statistics, and their associated data collection systems; and
  •           Produce an action plan for the implementations of recommendations from the UK Statistics Authority’s report Overcoming Barriers to Trust in Crime Statistics: England and Wales published in May 2010.

National Statistician, Jil Matheson, led the independent review of official crime statistics for England and Wales. The National Statistician – a statutory office holder – is also the Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority Board and the Board’s principal adviser. She is also the Head of the Government Statistical Services (GSS) which is a network of professional statisticians and their staff operating both within the Office for National Statistics and across more than 30 other government department and agencies.

 As indicated in a News Release (June 2011) from the Government Statistical Service, key findings of Ms. Matheson’s review are that:
  •         The Office for National Statistics (ONS) should assume responsibility for the independent reporting and publication of crime statistics;
  •         The presentation of crime statistics needs further improvement to provide clarity about the coverage of the two sources of crime statistics – the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime – and to maximise the benefits of complementary sources to provide a fuller picture of crime; and
  •       There should be transparent decision-making on changes that affect the published crime statistics.

Ms. Matheson reported that the recommendations of the independent review are designed around improving the public’s understanding of crime statistics and their confidence in them.

(For detailed information regarding the recommendations set by the National Statistician see HERE 

The Crime Statistics Advisory Committee

This is a non-statutory body established by the National Statistician following a recommendation from the review. The committee functions as a strategic, high level advisory body offering independent advice to the Home Secretary, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) on matters related to the measurement of crime and the collection and presentation of crime data for England and Wales. It advises on how best to ensure that official statistics on crime are accurate, clearly presented, comprehensive, transparent and trustworthy taking account of the needs of users and providers. The current chair of the committee is Professor Stephen Shute – Head of the School of Law, Politics and Sociology and Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Sussex.

What is ‘The Crime Survey for England and Wales’?

The British Crime Survey and police recorded crime measure different but overlapping issues of crime in England and Wales. They measure people’s experience of crime, and crimes report to, and recorded by the police. The new crime statistics report will now be called The Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly British Crime Survey) asks people aged 16 and over living in households in England and Wales about their experiences of crime in the last 12 months. These experiences are used to estimate levels of crime in England and Wales. Until recently, the survey did not cover crimes against those aged under 16, but since January 2009 the interviews included children aged 10 to 15.
The Crime Survey also asks respondents about their attitudes to crime-related issues such as:
  •           The Police
  •           The Criminal Justice System
  •           Their perceptions of crime and anti-social behavior.
The results of the survey play an important role in informing government policy.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales provides a better reflection of the extent of household and personal crime than police recorded statistics because the survey includes crimes that are not reported to, or recorded by the police. The survey is also a better indicator of long-term trends because it is unaffected by changes in levels of reporting to the police or police recording practices.

It is important to remember that there are limitations within the Crime Survey and that it does not provide an absolute count of crime.

Information has been taken from the following government websites.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Institutional Youth Victimization pt. 1 A. Smith

Institutional Youth Victimization: Canadian Context pt.1
A. Smith

 The purpose of this entry is to highlight the attention given by academics and government responses to interfamilial abuse and to contrast these findings with the information focused on institutional youth victimization. To accomplish this task, this entry will discuss case studies to give some dimension to the frequency or intensity of government and academic attention to interfamilial child victimization, and then will shift to examine the frequency of academic research and government attention to cases of child victimization within detention facilities. This entry will also highlight some of the major problems that have been identified with government responses to institutional youth victimization as discussed by various authors, with an emphasis on the works of British scholars Sheila Brown (1998, 2005) and Corby, Doig, and Roberts, (2001) who have completed extensive research in the area of government and public responses to institutional youth victimization. In addition to the problems that have been offered and discussed by these authors, this entry will also identify inconsistencies within their discussions and provide a modification to their conclusions regarding government responses to institutional youth victimization.

A Discussion about Youth Victimization

It is important to keep in mind that youth victimization does not differentiate regardless if it is an incident within the family, or within an institution; the same criminal acts are being carried out. Thus, equal attention and significance should be granted to both family victimizations and those that occur within youth detention facilities. A vast majority of research that has discussed youth victimization refers to occurrences happening outside of an institution and within the family unit. Nevertheless the following definitions and explanations are applicable to all youth who have experienced victimization. As discussed by many authors and agencies, (Allen and Hay, 1997; The Department of Canada, 2008; Trocmé et al, 2001; Brozowski, 2007; Corby et al, 2001, Health Canada, 2008) youth victimization can occur in both a sexual and physical nature. Allen and Hay (1997) who are members of the Public Health Agency of Canada define sexual abuse as an instance that occurs when an adult uses a child for sexual purposes and involves exposing a child to any sexual activity or behavior (p.1). In addition to this definition, sexual victimization can include fondling, inviting a child to touch or to be touched sexually, intercourse, or rape (Allen & Hay, 1997; Department of Justice Canada, 2008; Brozowski, 2007).
 The Department of Justice Canada (2008) defines child abuse as the mistreatment or neglect that a child or adolescent may experience while in the care of someone he or she either trusts or depends on and is in a position of authority. With regards to physical victimization, the Department of Justice Canada (2008) defines it as an instance involving an adult deliberately using force against a child in such a way that a child is injured. These acts include things such as; beating, hitting, spanking, pushing, choking, biting, burning, kicking, or assaulting a child with a weapon (p.1).

Those who discuss youth victimization specifically within youth detention facilities (Corby et al, 2001; Law Commission of Canada (LCC), 2000; Bell, 2007) suggest institutional youth victimization is a matter of vulnerable children being exposed to sexual, physical, and emotional ill-treatment at the hands of adults. Furthermore, as discussed by the LCC (2000), instances of youth victimization in Canadian detention facilities include both boys and girls as targets of victimization, including acts ranging from physical abuse including corporal punishment to sexual abuse including sexual touching, penetration, and intercourse (p.35 – 39). In addition, the LCC’s discussion about youth victimization within Canadian detention facilities summarizes incidents of victimization which refer to actions such as being subjected to violent rapes, being bribed to perform sexual favors for a reward or privileges, or the young person was given the option to perform sexual favors for a promise of withholding physical abuse (p.40). In addition to knowing what acts take place, the frequency of occurrences is also important.

Frequency of Youth Victimization

Exact numbers and statistics on youth victimization in Canada are very difficult to obtain. The majority of research about youth victimization in Canada has focused on youth victimization that occurs outside of institutional settings (within the family, school, and public setting). Alternatively, statistics and information regarding the frequency of youth victimization that has occurred within Canadian detention facilities does not exist. Nevertheless, a discussion about the frequency of youth victimization within the Canadian family and public sphere will serve to be beneficial to demonstrate the intensity of research conducted on this area of interest and will consequently highlight the lack of attention and research conducted about Canadian institutional youth victimization. In addition, a discussion will follow that demonstrates how other countries have conducted more in depth research enabling them to compile statistical information about institutional youth victimization, emphasizing more specifically the lack of Canadian research on youth victimization within Canadian detention facilities.

Many authors and agencies (Allen & Hay, 1997; Education Wife Assault Association, 2001; The Department of Justice Canada, 2008; Brozowski, 2007) have reported that obtaining accurate and reliable information about youth victimization in Canada is largely difficult because it remains a hidden crime. Allen & Hay (1997) suggest that because sexual abuse within Canada is largely a hidden crime, it makes it difficult to estimate the number of people who were sexually abused at some time during their childhood (p.2). Regardless of the challenges, information was gathered by the Department of Justice (2008) in an attempt to illustrate or estimate the frequency of youth victimization in Canada. The Canadian Incident Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS) (2003), estimate the extent of child abuse in Canada, but is solely based on data from child welfare authorities and does not discuss abuse that happened within youth detention facilities. Regardless, the CIS (2003) estimates that there were 135,573 child maltreatment investigations in Canada in 1998 and almost half (45%) of these cases were substantiated. Furthermore, of these substantiated cases of youth victimization, 31% involved physical abuse and 10% involved sexual abuse (Department of Justice, 2008:3).

 The Canadian Center for Justice Statistics (2007) provides a substantial amount of information regarding family violence and youth victimizations within the family, but does not provide any information about youth victimizations that have taken place within detention facilities. Nevertheless, their statistical profile in 2007 created by Brozowski (2007) agreed that acquiring information about the frequency of child physical and sexual youth victimization is extremely difficult. Moreover, Brozowski (2007) found that youth victimization happens more frequently than estimated because in many instances children often suffer violence without ever reporting it either because they are unable to do so or because they are afraid to report incidents to authorities (p.20). Furthermore, her overall findings suggest that youth victimization rates were five times higher than that suffered by adults and more attention needs to be focused on addressing and preventing violence against children (p.20).
With regards to youth victimization that has taken place within youth detention facilities, The Department of Justice Canada (2008) maintains that children who experienced abuse while living in youth detention facilities are only now, as adults, reporting the abuse. This contributes to the lack of information on this specific area of victimization (p.2). It is questionable as to whether or not this is a valid reason for the lack of information about youth victimization within Canadian detention facilities considering that US research into this type of victimization is considerable and dates back as far as the 1970s. Bartollas (2000) explains that as far back as 1973, U.S. courts found instances of physical brutality and abuse within youth detention facilities that involved hazing by correctional staff, staff-administered beatings and tear gassing, sexual attacks, and extensive use of solitary confinement (p.545). Bartollas also reports that in 1977, U.S. courts found youth confined in padded cells with no windows or furnishings and only flush holes for toilets. In 1978, the courts confirmed that youth had been locked up in solitary confinement, beaten, kicked, slapped, and sprayed with Mace by staff members, required to scrub floors with a tooth brush, and were subjected to punitive practices such as standing and sitting for prolonged periods without changing positions (p.545). Regardless of the evidence and information that was discovered and confirmed, institutional youth victimization was still not a topic that was publically discussed. Nonetheless, information in the US is available as far back as the 1970s thereby rejecting the Canadian notion that information about youth victimization within Canadian detention facilities is not available because adults are only now reporting their victimizations. Thus, further discussion is needed to foster an understanding about why there is a lack of information.

 While the majority of past literature on institutional youth victimization is primarily American, the majority of present day literature is also American based, again highlighting the lack of Canadian research and discussion (Alder, 1994; Parent et al, 1994; Bartollas, 2000). A study conducted by Alder (1994) focused on US youth detention facilities and found that peer-on-peer bullying is considered by youth a common experience in juvenile detention facilities. More specifically, Alder (1994) found that between 20 to 45 percent of youth in detention centers have reported that they have experienced victimization while they were incarcerated (cited in Doob, 2004:234). Parent et al (1994) conducted an analysis of over 900 detention centers in the US and found that 3.6 incidents of violence per 100 youth happened over a time frame of 20 days (cited in Doob, 2004:234). Furthermore, Bartollas (2000) discusses a 1976 study (Bartollas, Miller and Simon, Cited in Bartollas 2000:541) that examined the culture established by incarcerated youth. This study found that in a maximum-security institution in Ohio, dominant youth exploited submissive ones in every way possible. They found that 90% of the 150 residents were involved in the exploitation; “19 percent were exploiters who were never themselves exploited, 34 percent were exploiters and victims at different times, 21 percent were occasionally victims and never exploiters, 17 percent were chronic victims, and 10 percent were neither victims nor exploiters” (p.541). In sum, research on institutional youth victimization in the US ranges as far back as 1970 and even goes as in depth as to look at the different dynamics of victimization that have occurred within youth detention facilities. None of this information is available in a Canadian context.

Although specific statistics about the number of institutional youth victimization incidents in Canada are not available, Bell (2007) maintains that incidents of such victimizations do exist within Canadian institutions. She reports that youth victimization has taken place at institutions such as Mount Cashel in Newfoundland, Kingsclear in New Brunswick, Grandview in Ontario, and more relevant to this study, one of the largest cases of abuse in Nova Scotia has happened at the Shelburne Youth Center.
The Law Commission of Canada (2000) conducted a Canada wide study of youth victimization within institutions and although it lacks any statistical information about victimizations, it does provide information regarding many of the dynamics of institutional youth victimization and government responses to cases specific to Canadian youth detention facilities. This report was submitted to the Minister of Justice and focuses on processes for addressing institutional youth victimization including an analysis of the social and legal issues involved in such victimizations. This study also includes a discussion about government responses to this type of youth victimization and provides recommendations about appropriate responses to youth victimizations and adequate preventative measures. Before looking at recommendations regarding appropriate responses and other various government commissioned inquiries, it is important to consider two things; first, why youth victimization is taking place within Canadian institutions and second, if we know that it is taking place, why is it not being openly discussed and researched?
To be continued...

*References available upon request.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Youths’ Experience 'Inside' A.Smith

With a link between early childhood victimization and later youth incarceration, it is important to understand the experiences of youth while incarcerated. One problem youth could have from the beginning of their prison term is with adjusting to the new schedule, the new people, and the loss of freedom. Not only is it typical that most young offenders experience adjustment problems to this new environment, it is suggested that youth who have experienced early childhood victimization have an increased difficulty with adjustment in general. For example, as previously mentioned, Straus (1988) cited the study by Galambos and Dixon (1984) who supported the notion that adolescents who experienced childhood abuse also demonstrated several adjustment problems. However, Kashani and Allan (1998) found in that a child’s adjustment problems could be moderated by certain factors like perceived social support while incarcerated; support either from outside family members or correctional staff. This is important to note because if increased familial support or perceived support from correctional workers can improve an abused adolescent’s adjustment to custody and thus decrease their violent behaviours or levels of vulnerability, the cycle of violence and the adolescent’s life-course trajectory may be adjusted.

Another elaborate discussion about adolescent adjustments to incarceration comes from Toch and Adams (2002). Toch and Adams (2002) proposed five group “types” of adjustment and suggested that the type of adjustment the youth manifests will affect their experiences while incarcerated. One group or type of custody adjustment, as identified by Toch and Adams (2002) were those labelled as individuals who functioned based on “gratifying impulses”. Those who are concerned with gratifying impulses are known to be the aggressors because they are more concerned with the short-term objectives, rather than what will happen in the long term (Toch and Adams, 2002). Some of the main reasons these individuals are classified as the aggressors is because they resort to violent behaviour in order to achieve their objects of satisfaction and, if their plans are obstructed, they have violent outbursts. This can be related back to our discussion about the impact of childhood maltreatment on adolescents because one of the effects of maltreatment is modeling. If, while growing up, all a child sees is violence in his family and he gets abused when he gets in the way, then perhaps this will become his immediate reaction when someone gets in his way in custody.

The second type of adjustment groups are those interested with “enhancing esteem” (Toch and Adams, 2002). The authors suggested that these individuals are primarily concerned with the reputation they create for themselves and strive to be seen as the “tough guy”. These individuals are more likely to be the aggressors in prison as they will victimize other peers who either get in their way when they are developing this tough image, or they will victimize others to prove how tough they are. In addition, Toch and Adam (2002) found that individuals in this category “feel easily disparaged and affronted, and [react] violently when [feeling] offended or slighted” (p.130). In addition, Toch and Adams (2002) argued “this person expects to be rejected and reacts with provocation and hostility in anticipation of rejection, thus documenting his assumptions” (p.130). This can be related back to our previous discussion about the many consequences of experiencing childhood victimization. It was mentioned that individuals who experienced victimization as a child become more aggressive and violent and, as a consequence to this aggression, they are continuously rejected by their peers from early childhood throughout adolescence. If they have been dealing with rejection from their peers for multiple years, it is likely this fear of rejection will carry over into prison when they are faced with new individuals and a new environment, thus it may foster even more aggression and violent outbursts.

In addition to these two adjustment groups, Toch and Adams (2002) proposes that there were groups of individuals who adjusted in a way that could increase their vulnerability to victimization in custody. These groups are those who seek autonomy and refuge. Individuals considered to be seeking autonomy alternate between being dependent on others and rebellious against the system. In addition, they often challenge authority and are defiant as they refuse to have others tell them what to do. This could potentially increase their vulnerability to victimization because they may become an outcast and be disliked by staff and others at the institution, thus alienating and further rejecting them. Since we know those who were abused as children are sometimes considered weak and loners, and those who are perceived weak and lonely are at an increased risk of being victimized, this alienation could increased their vulnerability to revictimization.

 In addition to individuals who seek autonomy, those who seek refuge are at an increased risk of being victimized. According to Toch and Adams (2002), individuals who seek refuge are those who have “victim attributes or self-assign victim attributes that place him in situations which inspire retreat into protective settings or the need to be placed into such settings” (p. 132). In addition, Toch and Adams (2002) suggested that a person who seeks refuge experiences a certain degree of anxiety that he cannot cope with, leading him to request protective custody. Since we know that one of the many consequences of childhood maltreatment is an increased level of anxiety, it could be that this anxiety is too much for the individual to handle, so they request protective custody. In addition, because of the nature of a youth detention facility, word travels very quickly amongst the residents and as soon as an individual requests protective custody they are perceived as weak and a coward which could increase the likelihood that they will become a target of victimization.

The fifth group Toch and Adams (2002) identified were those who were “maintaining sanity” (p.133). Toch and Adams (2002) suggested that individuals who were trying to keep it together while incarcerated often withdraw from their surroundings and try to live by themselves in their own world. This type of person can be both an aggressor and a victim because, as Toch and Adam (2002) discussed, “this person for the most part withdraws but on occasion explodes and attacks other people in his environment or attempts self-destructive acts” (p.133). This person can be considered a violent aggressor because their outbursts happen at random and are often unpredicted; however, they are also at an increased risk for victimization because they withdraw themselves from others and at times appear delusional and scared which suggests to other inmates that they are weak and easy to take advantage of.

In accordance with the life-course theory and the cycle of violence hypothesis, early childhood victimization has impacts and consequences that can follow an individual throughout their life and continue to affect them many years later. Their trajectory begins with a victimization that fosters aggression and anxiety during their development into adolescence, which increases rejection from their peers and further perpetuates feelings of self-hate, violent and aggressive behaviour, and loneness. As these behaviours manifest within the individual, they react to their environment in ways that either increase their future vulnerability to later (re)victimization, or at times it will increase the likelihood that this individual will become violent towards others and victimize other individuals. Their behaviour of aggression and anger towards others increases their chances of committing a violent offense or other delinquent behaviours and leads them to incarceration during adolescence. In addition, feelings of self-hate, anxiety, aggression, and loneliness impact their experiences while they are incarcerated; affecting adjustment, seeking refuge, needing to express a “tough guy” image, or displaying vulnerabilities, such as withdrawal, sadness, and weakness. The way they adjust to their new environment can impact whether or not they become the violent aggressors amongst their peers, or they experience (re)victimization while they are incarcerated. If they are left to fend for themselves and adjust to their best ability, the outcomes of incarceration can further the cycle of violence and perpetuate this antisocial life-course trajectory.