Armed Robbery in Montreal, and Its Victims

• NCJ Number: 88914
• Journal: Victimology Volume: 6 Issue: 1-4 Dated: (1981) Pages: 306-317
• Author(s): A Normandeau
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 12 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Interviews with 100 Montreal robbery victims in 1979 focus upon the development of the robbery, the impact of armed robbery, armed robbery as a social phenomenon, and protection measures.

Abstract

The victims interviewed were selected at random from the statistical files on armed robbery. A quarter of the victims were bank employees; two-thirds were the owners or employees of other businesses; and nearly 10 percent were robbed on the street or in a public place. There were as many females interviewed as males. Regarding the development of the robbery event, many of the victims noted suspicious signs prior to the robbery event, but not so as to make preventive action possible. Typically, the robbers worked in pairs and used weapons to intimidate the victims. Instinctively, the victims obeyed the robbers' commands and called the police immediately afterward. The impact of the armed robbery involved physical molestation for less than 5 percent of the victims, and the financial impact was greatest for small businessmen, although most carried insurance to cover the loss. The small storekeepers also experienced the greatest psychological impact, as close contact with the perpetrators and longer periods of interaction tended to increase the psychological effects. Most victims viewed the causes of robberies as the results of socioeconomic deterioration. All of the victims were anxious about security to deter or thwart robberies in the future. No one security measure was viewed as generally effective, but keeping as little money as possible vulnerable to theft was deemed the most effective way to minimize losses and perhaps discourage the same perpetrators from repeating the offense. The victims were generally angry about the failure of the justice system to maintain contact with them after the reporting of the offense and the lenient treatment received by offenders. Twenty-six references are provided.