Crime witness accounts
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480620918326 |
| Author | Karen G Weiss |
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480620918326
Theoretical Criminology
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362480620918326
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Crime witness accounts
Karen G Weiss
West Virginia University, USA
Abstract
Contrary to the social expectation that good citizens should help others in need, persons
who witness crime do not always intervene to help, or see it as their responsibility to
do so. This study explores the reasons why witnesses choose not to call police or help
in other ways by elucidating the accounts that nonintervening witnesses use to convince
others and themselves that intervention was not necessary or appropriate. Drawing from
open-ended survey responses, five neutralizing accounts are identified, two that deny
the intervenability of crime (by denying harm or blaming victims), and three that deny
responsibility to help (by denying capability, asserting risk, or rejecting a guardianship
role). Identifying the accounts that normalize crime and make it easier for witnesses to
“do nothing” contributes to a more nuanced understanding of witness decision making
and nonintervening responses that, in turn, can contribute to the persistence of crime.
Keywords
Accounts, capable guardianship, crime witnessing, neutralization, reporting to police,
victim blaming
Introduction
Routine activities and other criminology theories highlight the importance of witnesses, or
capable guardians, for deterring crime and helping to bring offenders to justice (Banyard
et al., 2004; Cohen and Felson, 1979; Felson, 1995; Reynald, 2010). The assumption inher-
ent in these theories is that offenders are discouraged by the presence of third parties who
could call police or do something more directly to stop them. Coupled with this assumption
is the social expectation that “good citizens” should help persons-in-need whenever
possible. Yet, despite assumptions of what witnesses could and should do, witnesses do not
Corresponding author:
Karen G Weiss, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia University, PO Box 6326,
Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Email: Karen.weiss@mail.wvu.edu
918326TCR0010.1177/1362480620918326Theoretical CriminologyWeiss
research-article2020
Article
2021, Vol. 25(4) 663–681
always intervene to help crime victims (Casey and Ohler, 2012; Manji et al., 2014; Pugh
et al., 2016; Reynald, 2010; Swan, 2015; Wilkinson, 2007). According to data from the
National Crime Victimization Survey, only 40% of witnesses present at a crime scene help
victims (Hart and Miethe, 2008). Anecdotal cases covered in the media, featuring witnesses
who stand idly by as crimes occur (Filipovic, 2014; Grinberg, 2013), further underscore the
existing gap between what witnesses are expected to do and what they actually do.
This study looks more closely at the reasons why crime witnesses choose not to intervene
by identifying the accounts they use to bridge the gap between expectation and action.
Accounts are the rhetorical strategies used by persons accused of crime and other inappro-
priate or unexpected behavior in an attempt to convince others and themselves that their
actions were not so bad, or at least not unexpected (Benson, 1985; Maruna and Copes, 2005;
Nichols, 1990; Ptacek, 1998; Scully and Marolla, 1984; Scott and Lyman, 1968). By rein-
terpreting situations and responses in the best possible light, accounts manage impressions,
mitigate culpability and allow persons to avoid negative sanctions. In doing so, accounts
may actually encourage bad behavior, or at least fail to discourage it, by neutralizing in
advance the negative connotations of actions, and undermining threats of guilt, shame and
social disapproval that might otherwise compel conformity (see Braithwaite, 2001). For
these reasons, an accounts framework provides a unique glimpse into the interpretive and
deliberative processes of witness decision making and responses. It also shines a light on the
cultural context of such decisions. Accounts are not unique iterations but rather shared
vocabularies that are both durable and appear credible because they are learned and them-
selves expected by certain audiences (Scott and Lyman, 1968). Thus, a study of accounts
provides insight into both the social and cultural forces that shape and delimit response.
Based on open-ended survey responses of persons who witnessed crime but did not
call police or intervene more directly (i.e. by doing or saying something to discourage
offenders or help victims), two categories of witness accounts are delineated: denials of
intervenability, or seriousness of crime (justifications), and denials of responsibility to
help (excuses). The main purpose of this typology is to provide a framework that eluci-
dates the justifications and excuses used by witnesses to explain their nonintervening
decisions. In doing so, it focuses much needed attention on the oft-ignored and under-
theorized role of crime witnesses. Studies suggest that half of all crime is witnessed (Hart
and Miethe, 2008) providing ample opportunities for third parties to act as capable
guardians to deter crime. Yet, many witnesses choose not to help which, instead, can
enable crime by giving offenders the proverbial green light to offend without conse-
quence (Hallsworth and Young, 2008; Manji et al., 2014). An exploration of accounts
that disincentivize guardianship, and make it easier for witnesses to look away and do
nothing, will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of witnesses’ nonintervening
responses that, in turn, can contribute to the persistence of crime.
Background literature
Interpretation and accounts
Interpretive sociologists, such as those working in the social constructionist or symbolic
interactionist traditions (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959; Loseke, 2003; McCall and
664 Theoretical Criminology 25(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial