Youth Violence in Germany

• DOI: 10.1177/0734016818761529
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Date: 01 September 2018
• Author: Jost Reinecke,Anke Erdmann
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence in Germany:

Examining the Victim–Offender

Overlap During the Transition

From Adolescence to Early

Adulthood

Anke Erdmann

1

and Jost Reinecke

1

Abstract

The victim–offender overlap is currently under discussion in criminology. However, the connection

between victimization and offending over the life course still requires further investigation. The

present study examines whether the victim–offender overlap is invariant during the transition from

adolescence to early adulthood using seven consecutive waves of the German Research Founda-

tion–funded self-report study “Crime in the Modern City,” which contain information about

German students from the age of 14 to 20 years. The results indicate that the nature as well as the

strength of the overlap changes over the period from adolescence to early adulthood. The intro-

duced measurement of the relative victim–offender overlap indicates that with growing up, fewer

victims are also offenders whereas the amount of offenders that are also victims remains stable.

Longitudinal analyses based on latent growth and cross-lagged panel models further point out that the

developments of victimization and offending are highly parallel processes that evince similar stability

and mutual influence over the phase of youth and adolescence. However, the association between

both weakens over age. In conclusion, our results suggest variance in the victim–offender overlap

over the life course. This justifies the demand for further research and theory development on this

criminological phenomenon.

Keywords

victimization, victim–offender overlap, violence, transition, adolescence

At first glance, it seems plausible to consider victims and offenders separately and as two different

groups—the active and the passive part of a crime. But for several decades now, criminologists have

consented that both groups show fundamental similarities and have many characteristics in common.

For example, scholars have noted that victims and offenders often feature a similar sociostructural

1

Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Anke Erdmann, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Universita

¨tsstraße 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.

Email: anke.erdmann@uni-bielefeld.de

Criminal Justice Review

2018, Vol. 43(3) 325-344

ª2018 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016818761529

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

profile and are influenced by the same risk factors (Broidy, Daday, Crandall, Sklar, & Jost, 2006;

Cohen & Felson, 2014; Fagan, Piper, & Cheng, 1987; Gottfredson, 1986; Lauritsen, Sampson, &

Laub, 1991). Moreover, victims and offenders are not only similar, but the close connection of

victimization and offending often results in a personal union that is called the victim–offender

overlap (Broidy et al., 2006; DeCamp & Zaykowski, 2015; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo,

1978; Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Klevens, Duque, & Ramı´rez, 2002; Ousey, Wilcox, &

Fisher, 2011). This relationship between victimization and offending can constantly be found across

time, place, groups, data, and even for many various types of delinquency and victimization (Laur-

itsen & Laub, 2007, p. 60, cited in Ousey et al., 2011, p. 54). Regarding theoretical explanations,

different approaches are suitable to explain this victim–offender overlap. Generally speaking, most

theories that are designed to explain delinquency can also be applied to victimization since both

constructs show so many similarities. Therefore, these theories can also be used to understand why

there is a relationship between victimization and delinquency and how this overlap emerges. Prob-

ably the most popular theories that can be applied to both victimiz ation and delinquency, thus

explaining their relationship, are the lifestyle-routine activity approach (Cohen & Felson, 1979;

Hindelang et al., 1978), the general strain theory (Agnew, 1992), the general theory of crime

(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), and subculture of violence (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967).

The works of several authors help us understand the connection between victimization and

offending by not only applying these theories to delinquency or victimization separately but by

putting their focus directly on the connection between victimization and offending (Berg & Loeber,

2011; Berg, Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2012; Cudmore, Cuevas, & Sabina, 2015; Cullen, Unn-

ever, Hartman, Turner, & Agnew, 2008; DeCamp & Newby, 2014; Flexon, Meldrum, & Piquero,

2015; Klevens et al., 2002; Mancini & Pickett, 2015; Posick, 2013; Posick & Zimmerman, 2015;

Pyrooz, Moule, & Decker, 2014; Reid & Sullivan, 2012; Taylor, Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008;

Tillyer & Wright, 2014; Zavala & Spohn, 2013; Zimmerman, Farrell , & Posick, 2017; Zweig,

Yahner, Visher, & Lattimore, 2015; Wiesner & Rab, 2014). Fewer studies examine the victim–

offender overlap from a longitudinal perspective (Barnes & Beaver, 2012; Jennings, Higgins,

Tewksbury, Gover, & Piquero, 2010; Melde & Esbensen, 2009; Muftic´ & Hunt, 2012; Reingle &

Maldonado-Molina, 2012; Schreck, Stewart, & Wayne, 2008; Smith & Ecob, 2007; Turanovic &

Pratt, 2015; van Gelder, Averdijk, Eisner, & Ribaud, 2015; Zweig et al., 2015). Although the victim–

offender overlap is established as a criminological fact, some crucial aspects are still understudied.

This especially concerns the life-course perspective. With regard to the theories mentioned before,

we have every reason to assume that the risk factors that influence the victimization–offending

association change over time. This assumption is plausible for practically each of the theories that

are applicable to the victim–offender overlap. For example, self-control—once developed—is orig-

inally considered a time-stable characteristic. But newer refinements on self-control theory suggest

that it might not be completely stable over age (Burt, Sweeten, & Simons, 2014; Hay & Forrest,

2006). Thus, changes in self-control might cause variation in the victim–offender overlap. Also,

strain theory suggests a change in the association between victimization and offending over the life

course because especially younger persons tend to criminal coping due to lack of legal coping

strategies that adults have: “[ ...] they typically have limited access to non-criminal coping mechan-

isms and also may have less of the conventional social controls that are known to impede criminal

coping” (Ousey et al., 2011, p. 55). This would also justify assuming a transition in causality: While

younger persons tend to cope with victimization by committing crime (i.e., making a victimization

experience the direct cause for delinquency), this causal relationship is less relevant for adults.

Lifestyle-routine activity is also a factor that transforms over the life course. It can be expected

that rather younger persons indulge in risky lifestyles, making themselves vulnerable for victimiza-

tion and putting them at risk of offending while adults rather pract ice a lifestyle that prevents

victimization and offending (e.g., family activities, spending time at work).

326 Criminal Justice Review 43(3)