Using the typologies of different kinds of victims of burglary to illustrate the differences between complete innocence, facilitation, precipitation, provocation, and full responsibility

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Conscientiously resisting victims are blameless in cases of burglary. They followed all the crime prevention tips and purchased house alarm systems. These victims take the crime of burglary seriously, even making sure they have all the receipts, descriptions, and proper insurance coverage for items in their homes. Conventionally cautious victims locked their houses at night and made sure some lights were on when they were not home, but did not take the extra precautions the conscientiously resisting victims did—such as a house alarm. Therefore, both groups are considered blameless, although they might be susceptible to criticism for not resisting enough. Carelessly facilitating victims leave their house doors unlocked and are not conscious of simple risk avoidance techniques such a leaving a light on in the house when they leave at night. They are considered partly responsible as they did not remotely attempt to thwart a burglar's objective. Precipitative initiators took steps that went beyond carelessness to facilitate the burglary for their own gain, such as having their old stereo system stolen from their house so the insurance will pay for a new one. They may have left the front door wide open, or left for a trip and did not lock any doors or windows while they were gone. Provocative conspirators are accomplices to the crime. In other words, the crime would not have occurred without their assistance. They may seek to pay a criminal to burglarize their home so they may obtain the insurance money. Finally, fabricating simulators are not victims because they are making up the story of burglary for their own fiduciary gain. No crime occurred, except of course the insurance fraud the so-called victim facilitated.