Editors' Introduction: Why Repeat Victimization Matters

The basic facts of repeat victimization are well known. Substantial proportions of differences in rates of crime are attributable to differences in their concentration on particular targets, whether those targets are defined in terms of people, organizations or households. Four of the chapters in this collection detail the extent and correlates of such rates in continental Europe and worldwide (by Farrell and Bouloukos, van Dijk, Kleemans, and Mawby). As is evident from these chapters and from other publications, establishing precise levels of repeats is by no means easy. While problems with police data on recorded crime are well-recognized, victimization surveys also have attendant difficulties. Once this is acknowledged and set aside, whether a level of repeats is high or low depends upon the prevalence of crime. Low levels of repeats will be important in countries or regions of low crime prevalence. High levels of repetition will always be important, but less remarkable where high crime-prevalence is found. The extent of repeat victimization necessarily means that a substantial reduction in rates of crime is potentially achievable by reductions in the extent of repetition. Some successes in this regard have been achieved, for example, concerning burglary and domestic violence (Hanmer et al., 1998; Forrester et al., 1988). Success has come by preventing repeats. The Morgan contribution to this volume offers an elegant analysis of area differences in the reasons for repeat victimization. His use of survival analysis is original, and certainly represents an advance.