This article re-analyses official 2004 criminal incidence rates in Canada. Currently, official incidence rates are calculated using a technique known as capping, meaning that any respondent can represent a maximum of three incidents per crime type, regardless of how many incidents the individual reports. Given that research on other victimization surveys has cast doubt on the practice of capping, this research assesses the effects of capping in the Canadian Victimization Survey. Findings illustrate that there is significant cause to question the way in which official incidence rates are calculated. Specifically, this research shows that violent crime increases by 87% and household crime increases by 36% when all reported incidents are included. This pattern not only underscores the importance of understanding how incidence rates are produced but also suggests that capping may ignore genuine incidents because individuals who are victims of violent crimes are the most likely to be repeatedly victimized. These findings indicate numerous rates should be published, and more research needs to be conducted to understand recall in victimization surveys and determine the most accurate methods for incidence rate estimation.

Background Since Braithwaite advanced reintegrative shaming theory about 25 years ago, the theory has almost invariably been retested only in relation to predatory offending. Few studies have tested the relevance of the theory for non‐predatory offending. Aim This study aims to explore the utility of reintegrative shaming theory in explaining non‐predatory crimes. Our main research question was: is acknowledgement of shame apportioned by others associated with reduction in non‐predatory offending? Methods We used zero‐inflated negative binomial modelling to analyse data from a national, longitudinal, population‐based study of 1,726 adolescents. Results Overall, peer shame acknowledgement at age 18–21 was a significant predictor of no non‐predatory offending at ages 21–27. Contrary to our expectation, however, similar recognition and incorporation of parental shame was not related to absence of such offending. Implications Our findings add further weight to the validity of reintegrative shaming theory, showing its broader value explaining criminal behaviour—and desistance from it—beyond the original model.

No abstract

This paper simultaneously explores the relationship between social status, routine activity theory, and repeat victimization. This study compares the effects of lifestyle with key social status variables like gender, race, and sexuality, on varying degrees of victimization to answer the question: do routine activities or social status predict repeat victimization? This research is a secondary data analysis using two waves of the Canadian Victimization Survey from 2004 and 2009. Both a logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression are used to analyze the possible causes of repeat victimization. Overall, social status is influenced by lifestyle when predicting victimization; however, key social status variables predict high levels of victimization such as identifying as gay or lesbian or being an Aboriginal Canadian. The most powerful indicator of victimization was if a victim had been previously arrested themselves. The results of this study suggest that, while lifestyle is a strong predictor of victimization, minority groups are still at risk of being victimized at higher levels.

LGBTQ offenders are an at‐risk group while they are imprisoned. They suffer from higher levels of victimization, higher levels of mental health problems, and often do not have their LGBTQ‐related medical issues acknowledged. The role of disproportionate contact with the police is also analyzed as a factor leading to overrepresentation of LGBTQ people in correctional settings.