Chapter 15 Victim Segment

The Victim Segment provides data at the victim-level and includes information about who the victim is and their relationship to offenders. This data tells us what “type” of victim it is with the type meaning if they are a police officer, a civilian (“Individual” and basically any person who is not a police officer), a business, the government, etc. It also includes the standard demographics variables in other segments - age, race, sex, ethnicity - as well as whether the victim is a resident (i.e. do they live there?) of the jurisdiction where they were victimized. We also learn from this data what types of injuries (if any) the victim suffered as a result of the crime. This is limited to physical injuries - excluding important outcomes such as mental duress or PTSD - but allows for a much better measure of harm from crime than simply assuming (or using past studies that tend to be old and only look at the cost of crime) what harm comes from certain offenses. There are seven possible injury types (including no injury at all) and victims can report up to five of these injuries so we have a fairly detailed measure of victim injury.

One highly interesting variable in this segment is the relationship between the victim and the offender (for up to 10 offenders). This includes, for example, if the victim was the offender’s wife, their child, employee, or if the stranger was unknown to them, with 27 total possible relationship categories. You can use this to determine which incidents were crimes by strangers, identify domestic violence, or simply learn who tends to commit crimes against certain types of victims. This variable is only available when the victim is a police officer or an “individual.” This makes some sense though there could actually be cases where non-human victims (e.g. businesses, religious organizations) do have a relationship with the offender such as an employee stealing from a store. Related to the victim-offender relationship, this segment provides a bit of information about the motive for the crime. For aggravated assaults and homicides, there is a variable with the “circumstance” of the offense which is essentially the reason why the crime occurred. For example, possible circumstances are arguments between people, hunting accidents, child playing with weapon, and domestic violence.

It also has a “victim sequence number” which is a number identifying the victim in an incident since some incidents have multiple victims.

15.1 Crime category

The first variable we will look at is the crime the victim experienced. This is a bit different than the offenses in the Offense Segment as not all victims in an incident are victimized by all of the crimes involved. For example, if a couple is assaulted and the woman is raped, the woman would experience rape and assault while the man only experiences assault. NIBRS allows for up to 10 offenses per victim and these are supposed to be ranked in order of seriousness. So the first variable has the most serious offense, the second has the second most serious offense, and so on. This is true is most cases but some have more minor crimes presented before more serious crimes. This seems to just be a data entry issue and nothing systematic but you should still check all offense variables if you are interested in finding the most serious crime per victim.

There are 52 possible offenses included in this segment and Table 15.1 shows how frequent each offense is. Though there are 10 possible offenses per victim, this table only looks at the first offense. The most common offense is simple assault, affecting 12.7% of victims or 944k people. This is followed by damage, vandalism, or destruction of property for 11% of victims. About 9.6% of victims experience drugs/narcotic violations, and these victims are likely also the offenders in the case (all incidents must have a victim recorded so in drug crimes the victims are also the offenders in most cases). Theft crimes, broken into some subcategories like “all other larceny” and “theft from motor vehicle” make up the three of the top six crimes (ranks 3, 5, and 6) people are victimized by. And the only remaining crime that accounts for 5% or more of offenses is burglary at 6.4%.

Table 15.1: The number and percent of crimes committed against each victim, counting all victims and then separately law enforcement officer victims, 2022. For victims with multiple crimes committed against them, this shows the first crime reported.
Crime Category First Year # of Victims % of Victims # of Officer Victims
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault 1991 1,963,108 15.51% 47,190
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny 1991 1,349,448 10.67% 0
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property 1991 1,204,569 9.52% 0
Drug/Narcotic Offenses - Drug/Narcotic Violations 1991 993,317 7.85%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle 1991 959,554 7.58% 0
Burglary/Breaking And Entering 1991 757,933 5.99% 0
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting 1991 747,655 5.91% 0
Motor Vehicle Theft 1991 703,215 5.56% 0
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault 1991 669,067 5.29% 17,616
Assault Offenses - Intimidation 1991 537,389 4.25% 8,584
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 1991 387,566 3.06% 0
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game 1991 333,517 2.64% 0
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building 1991 276,139 2.18% 0
Weapon Law Violations - Weapon Law Violations 1991 240,037 1.90%
Robbery 1991 194,500 1.54%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft 2015 177,323 1.40%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud 1991 159,970 1.26%
Drug/Narcotic Offenses - Drug Equipment Violations 1991 159,409 1.26%
Counterfeiting/Forgery 1991 143,052 1.13% 0
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) 1991 111,630 0.88% 0
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) 1991 87,715 0.69% 0
Sex Offenses - Rape 1991 76,759 0.61%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation 1991 75,089 0.59% 0
Kidnapping/Abduction 1991 43,094 0.34% 8
Pornography/Obscene Material 1991 39,629 0.31%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud 1991 36,975 0.29%
Arson 1991 35,241 0.28% 0
Embezzlement 1991 32,065 0.25%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking 1991 21,080 0.17% 0
Animal Cruelty 2015 20,100 0.16%
Extortion/Blackmail 1991 19,953 0.16%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy 1991 17,447 0.14%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter 1991 16,414 0.13% 55
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching 1991 11,048 0.09%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape 1991 7,984 0.06%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object 1991 7,425 0.06%
Prostitution Offenses - Prostitution 1991 7,113 0.06%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion 2015 6,380 0.05%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device 1991 5,630 0.04%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud 1991 4,415 0.03%
Prostitution Offenses - Assisting Or Promoting Prostitution 1991 2,378 0.02%
Prostitution Offenses - Purchasing Prostitution 2013 2,184 0.02%
Negligent Manslaughter 1991 1,750 0.01%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts 2013 1,749 0.01%
Sex Offenses - Incest 1991 1,277 0.01%
Gambling Offenses - Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling 1991 822 0.01%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime 1991 634 0.01%
Gambling Offenses - Betting/Wagering 1991 600 0.00%
Bribery 1991 567 0.00% 0
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude 2014 506 0.00%
Gambling Offenses - Gambling Equipment Violations 1991 313 0.00%
Commerce Violations - Federal Liquor Offenses 2020 145 0.00%
Fugitive Offenses - Flight To Avoid Prosecution 2021 66 0.00%
Sex Offenses - Failure To Register As A Sex Offender 2021 27 0.00%
Fraud Offenses - Money Laundering 2022 7 0.00%
Weapon Law Violations - Explosives 2021 4 0.00%
Fugitive Offenses - Harboring Escappee/Concealing From Arrest 2021 3 0.00%
Immigration Violations - Illegal Entry Into The United States 2020 3 0.00%
Gambling Offenses - Sports Tampering 1994 2 0.00%
Fugitive Offenses - Flight To Avoid Deportation 2021 1 0.00%
Weapon Law Violations - Violation of National Firearm Act of 1934 2021 1 0.00%
Total
12,652,993 100%
The share of victims when considering only the 1st offense reported compared to using all offenses, for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, sex offenses, motor vehicle theft, and destruction of property/vandalism, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.1: The share of victims when considering only the 1st offense reported compared to using all offenses, for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, sex offenses, motor vehicle theft, and destruction of property/vandalism, 1991-2022.

15.2 Victim type

I spoke above as if all victims are people who are victimized. This is not entirely true. Some victims may be organizations, businesses, or other inanimate objects. NIBRS has nine different types of victims (including “unknown” type and “other” type) in the data and it tells us which type each victim is.

Table 15.2 shows each of the victim types and how commonly they appear in the data. Two key ones are “individual” at 69.4% of victims and law enforcement officer at 0.5% of victims. Law enforcement officers who are victimized are only classified as law enforcement officers when they are the victims of murder, aggravated or simple assault, or intimidation. Otherwise they are labeled as “individual” victims. So an individual is a person who is either not a law enforcement officer or who is an officer but is not victimized by one of the approved crimes. These two are special types of victims as all other variables in this segment apply only to them. This is because non-humans cannot have demographic information, injuries (injury to property would be detailed in the Property Segment in Chapter 17), or relationships.96

The next most common type is business at 15.6% of victims, “society/public” at 12.9% of victims, and the government in 1% of victims. When the victim is society/public that means that the offense is a “victimless crime” or one where there is no specific victim. This includes drug offenses, animal cruelty (animals cannon be victims in this data), prostitution-related offenses (purchasing, promoting, and being a prostitute), pornography/obscene materials, and weapon offenses. The remaining categories - financial institution, other victim type, unknown victim type, and religion organization - are each under 0.25% of victims.

Table 15.2: The distribution of the type of victim, 2022. Victim types are mutually exclusive.
Type of Victim First Year # of Victims % of Victims
Individual 1991 8,983,510 71.00%
Business 1991 1,897,966 15.00%
Society/Public 1991 1,466,005 11.59%
Government 1991 139,194 1.10%
Law Enforcement Officer 2002 73,453 0.58%
Other 1991 36,800 0.29%
Financial Institution 1991 21,144 0.17%
Unknown 1991 17,953 0.14%
Religious Organization 1991 16,968 0.13%
Total
12,652,993 100%
Percent of victimizations whose victim type of 'law enforcement officer,' 'business,' or 'invidual,' 1991-2022.

Figure 15.2: Percent of victimizations whose victim type of ‘law enforcement officer,’ ‘business,’ or ‘invidual,’ 1991-2022.

15.3 Injury

An important variable that is completely missing in UCR data is how injured the victim was. NIBRS has eight different categories of victim injuries ranging from no injury to serious injuries such as “possible internal injury” or “apparent broken bones”. NIBRS includes five variables for victim injuries so up to five of the seven injury types (if there is no injury, that will take up the first variable and no others will be recorded) per victim. These injuries should be thought of as suspected injuries based on observations by the officer or what the victim says. These do not need to be confirmed by a doctor. Therefore there is some imprecision on the exact victim injury. For example, “possible internal injury” means only the possibility, even if the victim does not turn out to have internal injuries.

However, it is still a useful measure of victim injury and is highly necessary given that UCR data does not provide any indication about injury. As academics continue to argue about which crimes are serious, this variable can provide information as to exactly how injured victims are from the crime. Not all crimes have this information. The FBI only includes this info for what they consider violent crimes which are listed below (since victims may have up to 10 offenses recorded, only one offense has to be among the below list for injury to be recorded).

  • Aggravated assault
  • Extortion/blackmail
  • Fondling
  • Human trafficking - commercial sex acts
  • Human trafficking - involuntary servitude
  • Kidnapping/abduction
  • Rape
  • Robbery
  • Sexual assault with an object
  • Simple assault
  • Sodomy

Even though there are up to five victim injuries recorded, for the below graphs I am just looking at the first variable. Injuries are sorted by seriousness with the first recorded injury more serious than the second, and so on, so this will look at the most serious injuries victims received. As with most variables in this data, only “individual” and law enforcement officer victims have this info.

Figure 15.3 shows the eight injury categories and how common they are for all victims with this information reported. The most common type is “none” at 52.6% of injuries which means the victim did not suffer any injuries at all. This is followed by 42.0% of victims suffering “apparent minor injuries.” The six serious injuries are far lesson common and given that nearly a third of victims suffer none or minor injuries are hard to see on the graph. To make it easier to see, Figure 15.4 shows the breakdown in victim injury excluding those who did not suffer an injury or those who suffered a minor injury.

The distribution of the injury sustained by the victim, 2022. Only individual and law enforcement officer victims have this variable available.

Figure 15.3: The distribution of the injury sustained by the victim, 2022. Only individual and law enforcement officer victims have this variable available.

For the group who suffered one of the six more serious injury types, 32.1% suffered an “other major injury” which is a serious injury other than one of the other categories. This is followed by 25.8% having a serious laceration (a laceration is a cut), 21.6% having a possible internal injury, and 12.5% having an apparent broken bone. About 6.5% of these victims became unconscious at some point in the incident, and 1.5% lost at least one tooth.

Trends for law enforcement officer victims (not shown) are nearly identical for those with an injury but have more victims reporting no injury at all relative to non-law enforcement officer victims.

Table 15.3: The number and percent of victim injury by offense, 2022. This breakdown is only available for a subset of offenses. There can be up to five injuries per victim; in this table we only use the first injury reported. There can be up to 10 offenses per victim; in this table we only use the first offense reported.
Crime Injury # of Offenses % of Offenses
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault None 343,460 51.33%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Apparent Minor Injuries 166,056 24.82%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Other Major Injury 62,432 9.33%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Severe Laceration 38,791 5.80%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Possible Internal Injury 30,879 4.62%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Apparent Broken Bones 16,887 2.52%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Unconsciousness 8,366 1.25%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Loss of Teeth 2,196 0.33%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Total 669,067 100%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault None 983,042 50.08%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Apparent Minor Injuries 980,065 49.92%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Severe Laceration 1 0.00%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Total 1,963,108 100%
Extortion/Blackmail None 19,570 98.08%
Extortion/Blackmail Unknown 289 1.45%
Extortion/Blackmail Apparent Minor Injuries 67 0.34%
Extortion/Blackmail Other Major Injury 11 0.06%
Extortion/Blackmail Apparent Broken Bones 7 0.04%
Extortion/Blackmail Possible Internal Injury 6 0.03%
Extortion/Blackmail Loss of Teeth 2 0.01%
Extortion/Blackmail Unconsciousness 1 0.01%
Extortion/Blackmail Total 19,953 100%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts None 1,647 94.17%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Apparent Minor Injuries 68 3.89%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Other Major Injury 16 0.91%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Possible Internal Injury 11 0.63%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Unconsciousness 3 0.17%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Severe Laceration 2 0.11%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Loss of Teeth 1 0.06%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Apparent Broken Bones 1 0.06%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Total 1,749 100%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude None 457 90.32%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Apparent Minor Injuries 38 7.51%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Possible Internal Injury 8 1.58%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Apparent Broken Bones 1 0.20%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Other Major Injury 1 0.20%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Severe Laceration 1 0.20%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Total 506 100%
Kidnapping/Abduction None 24,986 57.98%
Kidnapping/Abduction Apparent Minor Injuries 14,421 33.46%
Kidnapping/Abduction Possible Internal Injury 1,296 3.01%
Kidnapping/Abduction Other Major Injury 1,126 2.61%
Kidnapping/Abduction Severe Laceration 520 1.21%
Kidnapping/Abduction Apparent Broken Bones 371 0.86%
Kidnapping/Abduction Unconsciousness 324 0.75%
Kidnapping/Abduction Loss of Teeth 50 0.12%
Kidnapping/Abduction Total 43,094 100%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Unknown 16,113 98.17%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Other Major Injury 244 1.49%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter None 20 0.12%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Possible Internal Injury 14 0.09%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Severe Laceration 12 0.07%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Apparent Broken Bones 5 0.03%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Unconsciousness 3 0.02%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Apparent Minor Injuries 3 0.02%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Total 16,414 100%
Robbery None 116,438 59.87%
Robbery Apparent Minor Injuries 39,239 20.17%
Robbery Unknown 29,607 15.22%
Robbery Other Major Injury 2,949 1.52%
Robbery Severe Laceration 2,809 1.44%
Robbery Possible Internal Injury 1,746 0.90%
Robbery Apparent Broken Bones 983 0.51%
Robbery Unconsciousness 573 0.29%
Robbery Loss of Teeth 156 0.08%
Robbery Total 194,500 100%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) None 81,627 93.06%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Apparent Minor Injuries 4,482 5.11%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Possible Internal Injury 933 1.06%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Other Major Injury 489 0.56%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Unconsciousness 99 0.11%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Apparent Broken Bones 36 0.04%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Severe Laceration 34 0.04%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Loss of Teeth 15 0.02%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Total 87,715 100%
Sex Offenses - Rape None 56,697 73.86%
Sex Offenses - Rape Apparent Minor Injuries 13,106 17.07%
Sex Offenses - Rape Possible Internal Injury 4,976 6.48%
Sex Offenses - Rape Other Major Injury 1,148 1.50%
Sex Offenses - Rape Unconsciousness 580 0.76%
Sex Offenses - Rape Severe Laceration 129 0.17%
Sex Offenses - Rape Apparent Broken Bones 102 0.13%
Sex Offenses - Rape Loss of Teeth 21 0.03%
Sex Offenses - Rape Total 76,759 100%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object None 5,713 76.94%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Apparent Minor Injuries 1,030 13.87%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Possible Internal Injury 516 6.95%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Other Major Injury 110 1.48%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Unconsciousness 34 0.46%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Severe Laceration 11 0.15%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Apparent Broken Bones 8 0.11%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Loss of Teeth 3 0.04%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Total 7,425 100%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy None 14,234 81.58%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Apparent Minor Injuries 2,025 11.61%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Possible Internal Injury 913 5.23%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Other Major Injury 172 0.99%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Unconsciousness 63 0.36%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Severe Laceration 21 0.12%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Apparent Broken Bones 18 0.10%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Loss of Teeth 1 0.01%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Total 17,447 100%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Unknown 7,963 99.74%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape None 15 0.19%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Apparent Minor Injuries 4 0.05%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Possible Internal Injury 2 0.03%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Total 7,984 100%
The distribution of the injury sustained by the victim for those who had an injury other than 'none' or 'apparent minor injuries,' 2022.

Figure 15.4: The distribution of the injury sustained by the victim for those who had an injury other than ‘none’ or ‘apparent minor injuries,’ 2022.

Victim injury for assault offenses, by injury severity, 1991-2022. Major injury is all injury types other than 'none' and 'apparent minor injuries' which are 'other major injury,' 'severe laceration,' possible internal injury,' apparent broken bones,' 'unconsciousness,' and 'loss of teeth.'

Figure 15.5: Victim injury for assault offenses, by injury severity, 1991-2022. Major injury is all injury types other than ‘none’ and ‘apparent minor injuries’ which are ‘other major injury,’ ‘severe laceration,’ possible internal injury,’ apparent broken bones,’ ‘unconsciousness,’ and ‘loss of teeth.’

15.4 Relationship to offender

One interesting variable in this segment is that we know the relationship between the victim and the offender. There are 27 possible relationship types (including “unknown” relationship) which can be broken into three broad categories: legal family members, people known to the victim but who aren’t family, and people not known to the victim. These relationship categories are mutually exclusive. If, for example, there were two possible relationship categories that apply, such as the victim was both the friend and the neighbor of the offender, only a single category would be reported.

Table 15.4 shows each of the relationship categories and how frequently they occur. The most common relationship category, accounting for 19.8% of relationships was that the relationship was unknown. This is followed by 14.4% of victims being the boyfriend or girlfriend (we can find out which by looking at their sex) of the offender. Then victims were the acquaintance of or a stranger to the offender at 13% and 12.8%, respectively. The only other categories that account for over 5% of victims are the victim being “otherwise known” to the offender at 9.5% and being the spouse of the offender at 5.4%. One relationship to note is that when the victim “was child” that means they were the offender’s biological or adopted child. This does not mean that they are actually a child (<18 years old).

If you are familiar with the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report data, this variable - and the two following variables - is also in that dataset.

#>                                             Crime Category First Year
#> 1                                     Relationship Unknown       1991
#> 2                                      Victim Was Stranger       1991
#> 3                          Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend       1991
#> 4                                  Victim Was Acquaintance       1991
#> 5                               Victim Was Otherwise Known       1991
#> 6                                        Victim Was Spouse       1991
#> 7  Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend)       2017
#> 8                                        Victim Was Parent       1991
#> 9                                         Victim Was Child       1991
#> 10                          Victim Was Other Family Member       1991
#> 11                                      Victim Was Sibling       1991
#> 12                                       Victim Was Friend       1991
#> 13                                     Victim Was Offender       1991
#> 14                                     Victim Was Neighbor       1991
#> 15                                    Victim Was Ex-Spouse       1991
#> 16                            Victim Was Common-Law Spouse       1991
#> 17                                       Victim Was In-Law       1991
#> 18                                   Victim Was Step-Child       1991
#> 19                                  Victim Was Grandparent       1991
#> 20                                  Victim Was Step-Parent       1991
#> 21                                     Victim Was Employee       1991
#> 22                Victim Was Child of Boyfriend/Girlfriend       1991
#> 23                                     Victim Was Employer       1991
#> 24                                   Victim Was Grandchild       1991
#> 25                                 Victim Was Step-Sibling       1991
#> 26                        Victim Was Babysittee (The Baby)       1991
#> 27                                                   Total          0
#>    \\# of Victims \\% of Victims \\# of Officer Victims
#> 1       1,117,979       24.31\\%                 16,873
#> 2         669,425       14.56\\%                 40,978
#> 3         538,762       11.72\\%                    110
#> 4         505,720       11.00\\%                  2,151
#> 5         384,883        8.37\\%                 12,381
#> 6         209,028        4.55\\%                     55
#> 7         172,218        3.75\\%                     11
#> 8         163,978        3.57\\%                     26
#> 9         128,085        2.79\\%                      6
#> 10        113,811        2.48\\%                     31
#> 11        102,790        2.24\\%                     18
#> 12        100,191        2.18\\%                     17
#> 13         93,715        2.04\\%                      8
#> 14         86,725        1.89\\%                     19
#> 15         52,407        1.14\\%                      8
#> 16         25,507        0.55\\%                      6
#> 17         19,763        0.43\\%                     27
#> 18         19,401        0.42\\%                      5
#> 19         19,054        0.41\\%                      1
#> 20         15,982        0.35\\%                      3
#> 21         14,920        0.32\\%                    158
#> 22         14,423        0.31\\%                      1
#> 23         13,567        0.30\\%                      8
#> 24          8,776        0.19\\%                      0
#> 25          4,616        0.10\\%                     13
#> 26          2,399        0.05\\%                      3
#> 27      4,598,125         100\\%                 72,917
Table 15.4: The distribution of the relationship between the victim and the offender. Only individual and law enforcement officer victims have this variable available, 2022.
Crime Category First Year # of Victims % of Victims # of Officer Victims
Relationship Unknown 1991 1,117,979 24.31% 16,873
Victim Was Stranger 1991 669,425 14.56% 40,978
Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1991 538,762 11.72% 110
Victim Was Acquaintance 1991 505,720 11.00% 2,151
Victim Was Otherwise Known 1991 384,883 8.37% 12,381
Victim Was Spouse 1991 209,028 4.55% 55
Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 2017 172,218 3.75% 11
Victim Was Parent 1991 163,978 3.57% 26
Victim Was Child 1991 128,085 2.79% 6
Victim Was Other Family Member 1991 113,811 2.48% 31
Victim Was Sibling 1991 102,790 2.24% 18
Victim Was Friend 1991 100,191 2.18% 17
Victim Was Offender 1991 93,715 2.04% 8
Victim Was Neighbor 1991 86,725 1.89% 19
Victim Was Ex-Spouse 1991 52,407 1.14% 8
Victim Was Common-Law Spouse 1991 25,507 0.55% 6
Victim Was In-Law 1991 19,763 0.43% 27
Victim Was Step-Child 1991 19,401 0.42% 5
Victim Was Grandparent 1991 19,054 0.41% 1
Victim Was Step-Parent 1991 15,982 0.35% 3
Victim Was Employee 1991 14,920 0.32% 158
Victim Was Child of Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1991 14,423 0.31% 1
Victim Was Employer 1991 13,567 0.30% 8
Victim Was Grandchild 1991 8,776 0.19% 0
Victim Was Step-Sibling 1991 4,616 0.10% 13
Victim Was Babysittee (The Baby) 1991 2,399 0.05% 3
Total 0 4,598,125 100% 72,917

We also know the relationship between victim and offender when the victim is a law enforcement officer. As shown in Table ??, most of the time the officer did not know the offender, with 58.9% of victimizations being this relationship type. This is followed by 18.7% where the officer knew the offender, including if they were familiar with the person by arresting or stopping them previously. In about 18.5% we do not know the relationship as it is unknown and in 3.2% the officer and the offender were acquaintances. There are also a number of unlikely (and some impossible) relationships like the three in which the officer was the offender’s child and the one in which the officer was a baby who was abused by their babysitter. These seem to be clear indications that there are some data errors with this variable.

Table 15.5: The number and percent of victim relationships to offender by offense, 2022. This breakdown is only available for a subset of offenses. There can be up to 10 victim-offender relationships per victim; in this table we only use the first relationship reported. The top five most common relationships are shown, all other relationships are combined into an ‘All Other’ category.
Crime Relationship to Offender # of Offenses % of Offenses
Arson Relationship Unknown 2,798 36.94%
Arson Victim Was Stranger 1,058 13.97%
Arson Victim Was Acquaintance 791 10.44%
Arson Victim Was Otherwise Known 720 9.51%
Arson Victim Was Parent 428 5.65%
Arson All Other 1,779 23.49%
Arson Total 7,574 100%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Relationship Unknown 125,660 21.86%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Stranger 89,408 15.55%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 80,103 13.94%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Acquaintance 66,709 11.61%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Otherwise Known 50,231 8.74%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault All Other 162,692 28.32%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Total 574,803 100%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Acquaintance 79,595 16.47%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Relationship Unknown 74,276 15.37%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Otherwise Known 63,911 13.22%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Stranger 62,722 12.98%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 37,121 7.68%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation All Other 165,675 34.29%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Total 483,300 100%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 359,209 19.17%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Acquaintance 207,915 11.09%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Relationship Unknown 189,435 10.11%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Stranger 177,632 9.48%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Otherwise Known 174,926 9.33%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault All Other 765,140 40.82%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Total 1,874,257 100%
Bribery Victim Was Stranger 70 32.41%
Bribery Relationship Unknown 36 16.67%
Bribery Victim Was Otherwise Known 29 13.43%
Bribery Victim Was Acquaintance 28 12.96%
Bribery Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 12 5.56%
Bribery All Other 41 18.99%
Bribery Total 216 100%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Relationship Unknown 70,068 48.54%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Stranger 32,762 22.70%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Acquaintance 10,869 7.53%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Otherwise Known 8,098 5.61%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 5,621 3.89%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering All Other 16,937 11.76%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Total 144,355 100%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Relationship Unknown 9,991 47.44%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Stranger 5,982 28.41%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Acquaintance 1,300 6.17%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,047 4.97%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Parent 443 2.10%
Counterfeiting/Forgery All Other 2,296 10.9%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Total 21,059 100%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Relationship Unknown 92,048 34.62%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Stranger 40,575 15.26%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Acquaintance 24,158 9.09%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Otherwise Known 20,892 7.86%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 18,126 6.82%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property All Other 70,107 26.38%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Total 265,906 100%
Embezzlement Victim Was Employer 767 23.29%
Embezzlement Victim Was Acquaintance 472 14.33%
Embezzlement Relationship Unknown 469 14.24%
Embezzlement Victim Was Otherwise Known 352 10.69%
Embezzlement Victim Was Stranger 245 7.44%
Embezzlement All Other 988 30.01%
Embezzlement Total 3,293 100%
Extortion/Blackmail Relationship Unknown 2,442 50.08%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Stranger 1,013 20.78%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Acquaintance 494 10.13%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Otherwise Known 339 6.95%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 185 3.79%
Extortion/Blackmail All Other 403 8.25%
Extortion/Blackmail Total 4,876 100%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Relationship Unknown 12,346 46.38%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Stranger 5,124 19.25%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Acquaintance 2,174 8.17%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,433 5.38%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Parent 1,260 4.73%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud All Other 4,284 16.11%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Total 26,621 100%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Relationship Unknown 26,989 46.33%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Stranger 14,505 24.90%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Acquaintance 5,070 8.70%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Otherwise Known 4,700 8.07%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Friend 1,156 1.98%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game All Other 5,831 10.01%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Total 58,251 100%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Relationship Unknown 556 47.28%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Stranger 183 15.56%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Acquaintance 94 7.99%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 84 7.14%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Otherwise Known 63 5.36%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion All Other 196 16.7%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Total 1,176 100%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Relationship Unknown 23,475 62.93%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Stranger 7,323 19.63%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Acquaintance 1,235 3.31%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,029 2.76%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Sibling 955 2.56%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft All Other 3,286 8.79%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Total 37,303 100%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Relationship Unknown 7,764 54.13%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Stranger 2,954 20.59%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Sibling 1,030 7.18%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Otherwise Known 611 4.26%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Acquaintance 590 4.11%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation All Other 1,395 9.73%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Total 14,344 100%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Relationship Unknown 271 61.31%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Otherwise Known 33 7.47%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Acquaintance 27 6.11%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Stranger 26 5.88%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Friend 16 3.62%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud All Other 69 15.6%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Total 442 100%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Relationship Unknown 3,167 54.64%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Stranger 1,409 24.31%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Acquaintance 330 5.69%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Otherwise Known 263 4.54%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Parent 123 2.12%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud All Other 504 8.69%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Total 5,796 100%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Relationship Unknown 427 30.54%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Acquaintance 289 20.67%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Stranger 269 19.24%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Otherwise Known 146 10.44%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 88 6.29%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts All Other 179 12.79%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Total 1,398 100%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Relationship Unknown 188 43.12%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Stranger 86 19.72%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Acquaintance 47 10.78%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Employee 32 7.34%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Otherwise Known 20 4.59%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude All Other 63 14.46%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Total 436 100%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Stranger 290 47.62%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Relationship Unknown 127 20.85%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Acquaintance 67 11.00%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Otherwise Known 43 7.06%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 20 3.28%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime All Other 62 10.18%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Total 609 100%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 12,082 29.52%
Kidnapping/Abduction Relationship Unknown 4,221 10.31%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 3,652 8.92%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Stranger 3,464 8.46%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Acquaintance 3,321 8.11%
Kidnapping/Abduction All Other 14,190 34.67%
Kidnapping/Abduction Total 40,930 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Relationship Unknown 107,302 44.48%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Stranger 50,393 20.89%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Acquaintance 24,885 10.32%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Otherwise Known 14,940 6.19%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Friend 6,680 2.77%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny All Other 37,027 15.38%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Total 241,227 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Relationship Unknown 2,458 50.13%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Stranger 1,235 25.19%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Acquaintance 382 7.79%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Otherwise Known 221 4.51%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Friend 116 2.37%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking All Other 491 10.02%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Total 4,903 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Relationship Unknown 1,728 41.65%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Stranger 1,584 38.18%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Acquaintance 261 6.29%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Otherwise Known 125 3.01%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 107 2.58%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching All Other 344 8.29%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Total 4,149 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Stranger 7,665 55.12%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Relationship Unknown 5,058 36.37%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Acquaintance 437 3.14%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Otherwise Known 367 2.64%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Employee 123 0.88%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting All Other 257 1.85%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Total 13,907 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Relationship Unknown 19,538 34.11%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Stranger 10,633 18.56%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Acquaintance 7,986 13.94%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Otherwise Known 5,127 8.95%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Friend 2,433 4.25%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building All Other 11,565 20.18%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Total 57,282 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Relationship Unknown 233 49.47%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Stranger 180 38.22%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Acquaintance 20 4.25%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Otherwise Known 18 3.82%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Employee 4 0.85%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device All Other 16 3.39%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Total 471 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Relationship Unknown 104,788 72.36%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Stranger 31,736 21.91%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Acquaintance 2,555 1.76%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,905 1.32%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 806 0.56%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle All Other 3,029 2.07%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Total 144,819 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Relationship Unknown 41,437 81.49%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Stranger 7,121 14.00%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Acquaintance 734 1.44%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Otherwise Known 492 0.97%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 196 0.39%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories All Other 871 1.72%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Total 50,851 100%
Motor Vehicle Theft Relationship Unknown 81,557 57.70%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Stranger 28,319 20.04%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Acquaintance 9,716 6.87%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Otherwise Known 4,680 3.31%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Parent 3,824 2.71%
Motor Vehicle Theft All Other 13,251 9.39%
Motor Vehicle Theft Total 141,347 100%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Relationship Unknown 5,146 39.72%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Acquaintance 1,903 14.69%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Stranger 1,531 11.82%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Otherwise Known 904 6.98%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 711 5.49%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter All Other 2,761 21.31%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Total 12,956 100%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Stranger 568 34.13%
Negligent Manslaughter Relationship Unknown 326 19.59%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Acquaintance 182 10.94%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Friend 160 9.62%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Child 129 7.75%
Negligent Manslaughter All Other 299 17.96%
Negligent Manslaughter Total 1,664 100%
Robbery Relationship Unknown 54,458 41.85%
Robbery Victim Was Stranger 50,037 38.46%
Robbery Victim Was Acquaintance 10,347 7.95%
Robbery Victim Was Otherwise Known 4,792 3.68%
Robbery Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 3,181 2.44%
Robbery All Other 7,301 5.63%
Robbery Total 130,116 100%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Acquaintance 16,257 20.60%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Otherwise Known 9,645 12.22%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Relationship Unknown 8,513 10.78%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Other Family Member 7,823 9.91%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Child 7,366 9.33%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) All Other 29,331 37.16%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Incident Liberties/Child Molest) Total 78,935 100%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Child 429 35.02%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Sibling 308 25.14%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Other Family Member 225 18.37%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Grandchild 50 4.08%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Step-Child 47 3.84%
Sex Offenses - Incest All Other 166 13.54%
Sex Offenses - Incest Total 1,225 100%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Acquaintance 16,657 24.07%
Sex Offenses - Rape Relationship Unknown 9,825 14.20%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 7,261 10.49%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Otherwise Known 6,211 8.98%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Friend 5,540 8.01%
Sex Offenses - Rape All Other 23,706 34.23%
Sex Offenses - Rape Total 69,200 100%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Acquaintance 1,440 21.25%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Relationship Unknown 834 12.31%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Otherwise Known 726 10.72%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Child 592 8.74%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Other Family Member 547 8.07%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object All Other 2,636 38.9%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Total 6,775 100%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Acquaintance 3,127 19.49%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Relationship Unknown 2,097 13.07%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Other Family Member 1,723 10.74%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,627 10.14%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Child 1,157 7.21%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy All Other 6,314 39.35%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Total 16,045 100%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Acquaintance 1,819 25.37%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1,472 20.53%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Otherwise Known 825 11.50%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Relationship Unknown 778 10.85%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Friend 565 7.88%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape All Other 1,712 23.86%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Total 7,171 100%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Relationship Unknown 25,124 52.19%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Stranger 18,462 38.35%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Acquaintance 1,420 2.95%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,155 2.40%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Parent 380 0.79%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) All Other 1,596 3.32%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Total 48,137 100%

15.5 Aggravated assault and homicide circumstances

In cases of aggravated assault or homicide we have some information about the motive of the offender. There can be up to two motives, what NIBRS calls circumstances, for each of these offenses. Table 15.6 shows all of the possible circumstances in the data, and shows the frequency only of the first circumstance. The most common circumstance is that there was an argument, and this accounts for 42.7% of these victims. The next most common is 24% which had unknown circumstances followed by 18.7% with “other” circumstances. The next most common group is “lovers’ quarrel” which the FBI relabeled as “domestic violence” beginning in 2019. This group accounts for 9.4% of victims. Assault on law enforcement officers is the next most common group at 2.8% of victims. All other groups are less common than 2% of victims.

Table 15.6: The distribution of circumstances for aggravated assault and homicides, 2022.
Circumstance Crime Category First Year # of Victims % of Victims
Argument Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 263,394 37.82%
Unknown Circumstances Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 176,578 25.35%
Other Circumstances Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 135,511 19.46%
Domestic Violence (Historically Called Lovers Triangle/Quarrel) Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 83,118 11.93%
Assault On Law Enforcement Officer(s) Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 19,495 2.80%
Other Felony Involved Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 9,213 1.32%
Gangland Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 2,938 0.42%
Drug Dealing Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 2,326 0.33%
Juvenile Gang Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 1,509 0.22%
Other Negligent Killings Negligent Manslaughter 1991 1,433 0.21%
Criminal Killed By Private Citizen Justifiable Homicide 1991 409 0.06%
Other Negligent Weapon Handling Negligent Manslaughter 1991 270 0.04%
Criminal Killed By Police Officer Justifiable Homicide 1992 225 0.03%
Mercy Killing Aggravated Assault/Murder 1993 47 0.01%
Child Playing With Weapon Negligent Manslaughter 1991 40 0.01%
Gun-Cleaning Accident Negligent Manslaughter 1992 4 0.00%
Hunting Accident Negligent Manslaughter 1991 3 0.00%
Total Aggravated Assault/Murder
696,513 100%

15.6 Justifiable homicide circumstance

We know a little bit more in cases of justifiable homicides. Here, we know the circumstances behind the homicide. Figure 15.6 shows the circumstance breakdown for all 308 justifiable homicides reported in 2019. The most common reason, at 34.4% of justifiable homicides is because the offender attacked a civilian. In 21% of justifiable homicides the offender attacked a police officer and was killed by the same officer. In 6.5% the offender attacked a police officer and was killed by a different officer. This is followed by 28% being killed during the commission of a crime. In 4.9% of justifiable homicides, the circumstance is unknown. 3.6% had the offender killed while fleeing from a crime and 1% were killed while resisting arrest.

The distribution of circumstances for justifiable homicides (N = 308 in 2022 for all agencies reporting).

Figure 15.6: The distribution of circumstances for justifiable homicides (N = 308 in 2022 for all agencies reporting).

15.7 Demographics

As only people have demographics, these variables only apply when the victim is an individual or a law enforcement officer. The demographics here cover victim age, race, sex, ethnicity, and whether they live in the jurisdiction of the agency where they were victimized. For the following graphs I will be using all victims, not separating by if they are an “individual” or a law enforcement officer.

15.7.1 Residence status

This segment tells us if the victim is a resident of the jurisdiction they were victimized in. This basically means whether or not they live in the city where the crime happened. It has nothing to do with residence status or citizenship status in the United States. The FBI defines residence as their legal permanent address though it is unclear how that is handled for people without this info (though this is far less likely to be a problem here than for arrestees which also report this variable) and when people live permanently in a different spot than their legal address. This variable is useful when trying to figure out if victims are those who live in the area or live outside of it, such as tourists or workers who live nearby. Since crime rates are usually crimes per residents in the jurisdiction, this can be used to determine how reliable that denominator is. If many victims are residents then it makes much more sense than if few are.

Table ?? shows the residence status for all individual or law enforcement officer victims. The vast majority, 67%, of victims are residents of the jurisdiction where they were victimized while 12.5% were not residents. 20.4% of victims have an unknown resident status.

One proposed measure to improve policing is to require police officers (or at least newly hired officers) live in the city where they work. The idea here is that people will do a better job if it affects the place they consider home.97 Luckily for us, NIBRS includes law enforcement officers in their measure of whether the victim lives in the jurisdiction where they were victimized. Since law enforcement officers are only recorded to be victims when on the job, this is one measure of where officers live.

Figure 15.7 shows the residence status for law enforcement officer victims. Most law enforcement officer victims reside in their jurisdiction with being 53.2% residents and 13.3% being non-residents. However, there is a lot of uncertainty as 33.5% have an unknown residence status.

The distribution of residence status for all Law Enforcement Officer victims, 2022.

Figure 15.7: The distribution of residence status for all Law Enforcement Officer victims, 2022.

The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency's jurisdiction, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.8: The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency’s jurisdiction, 1991-2022.

The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency's jurisdiction for law enforcement officer victims, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.9: The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency’s jurisdiction for law enforcement officer victims, 1991-2022.

15.7.2 Age

This variable is the age of the victim when the crime occurred, regardless of when they reported the crime. Age is given as how many years old the victim is, with a few exceptions. Victims older than 98 are grouped together as “over 98 years old” while victims younger than 1 years old are broken down into “under 24 hours (neonate)”, “1-6 days old”, and “7-364 days old”. About 1.4% of victim ages are unknown.

Figure 15.10 shows the percent of victims at each age available. This is pretty similar to the age of offenders shown in Figure 14.1 with a peak in the mid to late 20s with a long decline after. The most common victim age is 27 followed by 28, 29, and 30. Relative to offender ages, there are far more young victims. About 2.8% of victims, or 145k victims, in 2019 were aged 14 or younger. However, remember that this is for all victims of any crime so age trends may differ by which crime you are looking at.

The age of all victims, 2022.

Figure 15.10: The age of all victims, 2022.

The mean and median age of victims, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.11: The mean and median age of victims, 1991-2022.

The percent of victim's age that is unknown, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.12: The percent of victim’s age that is unknown, 1991-2022.

15.7.3 Sex

As with the Offender and the Arrestee Segments, we know the sex of the victim. The only choices are female, male, and unknown sex. There is no option for transgender or any other identify. Since the victim can tell the police their sex, and the police can see them clearly in most cases (though this may not be true if the victim reports a crime over the phone by calling 911 but then does not stay to be interviewed) so is more reliable than in the Offender Segment which may include guesses about the offender. The most common victim sex is female at 50.8% of victims, followed closely by male at 48.4%. Only about 0.8% of victims have an unknown sex. It is interesting that female victims are so common since most criminology research finds that male victims are so common. I think this is likely due to criminologists primarily focusing on murder and index violent crimes as their measure of crime, which ignores many other crimes.98

The share of victims by sex, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.13: The share of victims by sex, 1991-2022.

15.7.4 Race

For each victim we also know their race. The only possible races are White, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. These categories are mutually exclusive so people cannot be labeled as mixed race, they must be put into one of the categories. Since the police generally can talk to the victim it is possible that they ask the victim what race they are rather than just guess based on appearance. However, this may differ based on agency and the officer taking the report so may be inconsistent.

Figure ?? shows the breakdown in victims by race. Most victims are White at about 67.8% of victims, followed by Black victims at 23.4%. 5.6% have an unknown race. The remaining victims are made up of 1.9% Asian victims, 0,7% American Indian/Alaskan Native victims, and 0.5% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

The share of victims by race, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.14: The share of victims by race, 1991-2022.

15.7.5 Ethnicity

The final demographics variable for victims is their ethnicity, which is whether they are Hispanic or not. Ethnicity is an optional variable so agencies do not have to ever report it. This means that some agencies never report it, some always report it, and some report it only sometimes. The “sometimes report” agencies are probably the most dangerous to use since it is unclear when they report it, which could lead to biased data (such as only reporting it when the suspect is confirmed Hispanic or not, which may not be how other agencies define it).

There’s also the question of reliability of the ethnicity data. Someone being Hispanic or not is likely just what the arrestees calls themselves or what the arresting officer perceives them to be. Both are important ways of measuring ethnicity but get at different things. Perception is more important for studies of bias, self-identification for differences among groups of people such as arrest rates by ethnicity. And the subjectivity of who is classified as Hispanic means that this measurement may differ by agency and by officer, making it imprecise.

Figure ?? shows the breakdown in arrests by victim ethnicity for all victims in 2019. Most arrestees - 62.2% - are not Hispanic. Only 10.5% are reported to be Hispanic but a much higher percent of arrestees - 27.2% - have an unknown ethnicity. Given that over a quarter of victims do not have ethnicity data, if you would like to use this variable I recommend that you carefully examine the data to ensure that the agencies you are looking at (if you do not use all agencies in the data) have a much higher reporting rate.

The share of victims by ethnicity, 1991-2022.

Figure 15.15: The share of victims by ethnicity, 1991-2022.


  1. Businesses may have some form of demographic information if you think about demographics of the owners or managers. However, that information is not available. If the business was targeted due to the owner’s demographics then that may be considered a hate crime and be reported in the Offense Segment.↩︎

  2. Since crime is generally concentrated in a small number of impoverished parts of town, and police likely would not live in these parts, this probably would not be very effective.↩︎

  3. Murder and other violent crimes are mainly men hurting/killing other men, except in domestic violence which is primarily men hurting/killing women.↩︎