Since the fall of communism in 1989, criminal victimisation has become an issue in the Czech Republic, and research indicates that it is a stressful experience. The relationship between criminal victimisation and depression was examined by adding fear of crime, protection against crime, avoidance of crime, mastery over one's life, social support, and trust in government (as well as socio-demographic controls) to successive regression equations. A total of 703 Czech households in the second of a threewave (1994-1996) panel study were studied. For men, the total and direct effects of criminal victimisation on depression were significant. However, the relation of men's fear of crime and depression was mediated by avoidance. For women, criminal victimisation was not related to depression. The relation of women's fear of crime and depression was mediated by mastery. Interpretations of these results are grounded in the different relevance criminal victimisation has for the well-being of men and women. Czech Sociological Review, 2000, Vol. 8 (No. 2: 195-209) Since the fall of communism in 1989, the issue of criminal victimisation has become a public concern in the Czech Republic. American research shows that criminal victimisation has real consequences, such as the diminished psychological well-being of victims, and it can be assumed that it poses a threat to the well-being of Czech citizens also. In this analysis, criminal victimisation in the Czech Republic is examined within the theoretical framework of the stress-distress perspective. The analysis begins with a brief discussion of rising crime during the period of the Czech transformation prior to 1994. Rising Crime in the Czech Republic Since the fall of communism in 1989 crime rates have been rising in former Czechoslovakia. The 1992 International Crime Survey (ICS) revealed that of all Czechoslovak respondents in the survey, 10.9% reported having been a burglary victim, 22% reported having had personal property stolen, and 9.4% reported that they had been the victims of an assault the second highest proportion of assault victims reported for post-communist countries [Valkova 1993]. In addition, among Czechoslovak respondents in the 1992 ICS, 9% of the women reported having been the victims of sexual offences, and almost 44% of car owners in the survey had experienced car vandalism [Siemaszko 1993]. In Prague, Burianek [1994] found an increase in types of crime new to the Czech Republic, such as drug dealing, economic crime and organised crime. The 1992 ICS also reported that 33.4% of Czech respondents felt 'a bit unsafe' and 10.5% felt 'very unsafe' when walking alone in their area at night [Valkova 1993]. *) NIMH (Grant 50369) and a NATO Collaborative Research Grant supported this research. *) Direct any correspondence to Lee Michael Johnson, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, 107 East Hall, Ames, I A 5001 1-1070, USA, phone +1-515-294-8012. 195 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.123 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:42:25 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Czech Sociological Review, VIII, (2/2000) While the Czech public's concern with crime has increased, its faith in the state to control it has decreased. In a 1992 national poll, 86% of Czech respondents reported that they were dissatisfied with police [Hraba et al. 1996]. The 1992 ICS showed that 55.4% of respondents were dissatisfied with the way police handled reported crime, and 32.4% thought the police do a bad job of patrolling streets [Valkova 1993]. The 1992 ICS also showed a lack of faith in police as the main reason given in former Czechoslovakia for not reporting car vandalism [Siemaszko 1993]. Hraba et al. [1998] found a perceived increased risk of crime among Czechs that was due to a lack of trust in government as well as criminal victimisation. One reason for the rise in crime is that economic motives for crime have increased in the Czech Republic. With the transformation, the state no longer guarantees employment and public entitlements have diminished. Earnings inequality began to increase in 1990, with higher incomes rising and diverging from others [Rondinelli 1994; Vecernik 1995, 1996a], who in turn have experienced declining income, economic insecurity, and subjective poverty [Matějů and Řehakova 1996; Musil 1992; Vecernik 1996b]. These factors have been associated with arrest rates in the United States [LaFree and Drass 1996] and may also serve as economic motives for crime in the Czech Republic. Criminal Victimisation in the Stress-Distress Perspective Consistent with both criminological and stress-distress research, criminal victimisation is posited to be a Stressor that can produce depressive symptoms in victims [Coyne and Downey 1991; Hraba et al. 1999; Kilpatrick et al. 1985; Mawby and Walkate 1994; Norris and Kaniasty 1994; Proulx et al. 1995]. The effect of criminal victimisation on depression may depend, however, on the emotional reactions of victims to victimisation. Increased fear of crime is one of these reactions. In criminology, fear of crime is defined as a feeling of dread about being victimised by crime [Ferraro 1995; Garofalo 1981; Giles-Sims 1984; LaGrange and Ferraro 1989; Miethe and Lee 1984; Taylor and Hale 1986], and it is considered to be a consequence of crime itself [Giles-Sims 1984; Ferraro 1995; Garofalo 1981; Norris and Kaniasty 1994; Roundtree and Land 1996; Thompson and Norris 1992]. It is also seen as a cause of psychological distress in stress-distress research [Ross 1993]. This analysis will test whether Czech victims become depressed in direct response to criminal victimisation, or whether they must first fear it (interpreting it as a threat to personal well-being) in order to become depressed. The effect of criminal victimisation may also depend on victims' behavioural responses to victimisation and fear of crime. These reactions can be stress-coping strategies. Approach strategies are those intended to increase one's resistance to stress, and avoidance strategies are those intended to reduce the occasions when one is confronted by stress. Approach strategies appear to have more power in reducing distress [Coyne and Downey 1991; Elder 1974; Lorenz et al. 1996]. The restrictions to personal freedom associated with avoidance strategies may have a negative effect on people's psychological well-being, thus reducing their effectiveness in reducing distress [Hraba et al. 1999]. Similarly, criminologists are interested in protection and avoidance as reactions to crime. Protection strategies are those which are intended to increase a person's ability to resist criminal victimisation learning self-defence techniques, for example. Avoidance strategies, on the other hand, are those which are intended to reduce the opportunities for others to offend not going out after dark or into certain neighbourhoods, for example [DuBow et al. 1979; Garofalo 1981; Liska and Warner 1991; Roundtree and Land 1996].