LLM 201-B Victimology - Lecture notes 4 PDF

Preview

Summary

ghghghghg...

Description

Victimology LLM 201- B Unit- I

Question 1. Write detailed note on Concept , evolution and development of Victimology.

Suggested Answer

Victimology is the study of victims of crimes. In this lesson, learn about the relationships between victims and perpetrators, the theories about victimology, and the history of victimology.

Victimology Definition Imagine you are on your way to a friend's house and you see an altercation taking place between two men on the street. As you are watching the news later that day, you find out that one of the men involved in the fight you witnessed has serious injuries. The police are looking for witnesses to the crime. You call the police department listed in the newscast and explain what you saw on your way to your friend's house. The police tell you that the victim was robbed by his neighbor, and collect any information you might have. This is the first step in victimology.

Victimology is the study of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. To understand this concept, first, we must understand what the terms victim and perpetrator mean. The victim is a person who has been harmed by a perpetrator. The perpetrator, also known as the offender, is an individual who has committed the crime against the victim. Law enforcement agencies use the study of victimology and the theories of victimology to determine why the victim was targeted by the offender.

History According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), between the 1970's and 1980's, just after the civil rights movement, there was increased awareness about victims. In 1972, the FBI formed the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) to study the relationships between the offenders, the victims, and group dynamics in society. Police officers would gather at the FBI headquarters in Quantico, Virginia for trainings. During these trainings, the police officers began to realize they were seeing different patterns between victims and offenders. The BSU studied these patterns and relationships between victims and offenders. Along with the BSU, several independent victim support organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and Parents of Murdered Children (PMOC), formed to study different crimes that have happened to their loved ones. These groups worked together to help to better define the relationships between victims and offenders that are used in current theories of victimology.

The concept of victimology and caring for victims was originally founded by criminologists. This concept appeared after many years of the criminla justice system just strucly focusing on the criminals and what should be done with them. It was ot untile 1949 when a psychiatrists officially used the term victimology in the english language. Finallly in 1960, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement as well as the Administration of Justice argued that more attention should be paid to victims by the criminologists (Karmen, 2010, pp. 14-15). It was the above administrations that put out the first survey to find out more about the victims, and its conclusion showed thatmany victims were not reporting their incidents due to their lack of trust for the legal system (Clark, p.1). In 1974 a victim's rights movemennt was formed and resulted in the development of programs to serve as better treatment of crime victims. By 1972 the women's right movement was focusing on victims of domestic and sexual assault, leading to the opening o the first rape crisis centers (Clark, p.1). By the 1980's victims support organization were popping up everywhere, these groups included Family and Friends of Missing Persons, Parents of Murdered Children, as well as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Clark, p.1). Though criminologists were the first to stumble upon the idea of better understanding of victims, victimology is a seperate study than those done by criminologists. Victiomology is its own specialization within criminology. Criminology and victimology take sepereate halves to the problems of crimes. Criminologists focus on the actual crime and the offenders' background and motives. Victimologists focus on both the people and entities targeted by criminals. Though, on different halves of the spectrum, both studies rely upon the same scientific studies and collection methods used by most of the social sciences. The two groups however differ in a few important ways. Criminology has much more history and reasearch completed than victimology, due to victimologies late arrival in the 20th century. Another difference is that criminologists have agreed that they strictly study activities of which are considered illegal. Victimologists on the other hand have not come to an agreement on where the boundaries should lie within their studies. Even with their differences though, both studies overlap eachother in many situations, and even work off of eachother for bigger and better results.

The Development Of Victimology This paper will explain and evaluate the development of victimology as a field of study, focusing on victimology within England and Wales. Firstly, it will define the concept of victimology, and the 'victim' before explaining the origins of the study. The development of victimology will then be evaluated, focusing firstly on the concept of the 'victim' and then upon more general issues. This paper will discuss the impact of these issues on the success of victimology's development, but will conclude by acknowledging the potential strength of the continual development of victimology as a field of study. As a concept, victimology is difficult to universally define, due to the fact that different people define victimology in varying ways. At best, one can only forward a broad definition of victimology and acknowledge that other definitions do exist. As a "recently developed sub-discipline of criminology" victimology focuses equally on victims as it does on crime (Dignan, 2005:31). Within victimology, the victim's experience, events leading to victimisations, victimisations themselves and the response of society and organisations to victimisations are all studied (Dussich, 2006:116). To clarify, victimology studies events where persons, institutions or communities are significantly injured or damaged (Dussich, 2006:116). In an academic sense, the term 'victimology' is translated as 'a system of knowledge' of victims (Dussich, 2006 : 116). To add, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (2001), a victim is defined as "a person who has complained of the commission

of an offence against themselves or their property"; this can include bereaved relatives, alongside parents or careers and small businesses. Kearon & Godfrey (2007) explain that in the past, victims have been central to the processes of justice. There would have been little recorded crime before the end of the 19th century if it wasn't for the activity of victims. To illustrate, in Anglo-Saxon times, courts dealt with complaints brought directly by victims against the perpetrator which often resulted in financial compensation paid from the perpetrator to the victim (Kearon&Godrey,2007:67). The concept of the victim will be discussed in more detail later in this paper. Preceding this will be the overview of the origins of victimology, exploring in particular three criminological categories that underline victimology. It is often said that the origin of victimology lies in the hands of Mendelsohn and Von Hendig (Walklate:2007b:15). Von Hendig describes victims as having "crime provocative" functions, in other words, having proneness to crime (Hendig,1967:450), but Mendelsohn describes victims in terms of their culpability or responsibility for their victimisation (Marsh,2004:105). Mendelsohn and Von Hendig together explore criminological and philosophical aspects in relation to crime and victims, and despite their differences, both theorists have influenced victimology and are linked specifically to positivist victimology (Marsh, 2004:104). The positivist position links with the theories that underline victimology. Goodey (2005) claims that embedded in victimology are three categories of victimology that are based in criminology, in which she attributes to Walklate and Mawby. Firstly, there is the positivist position of which proposes the scientific nature of victimology; it defines victimisation according to the criminal law and is twinned with the idea of blaming the victim, or victim culpability (Goodey, 2005:93). Secondly, there exists the radical position which concentrates more on human rights (particularly the rights of victims) than on the scientific nature of victimology (Goodey, 2005 :93). This category emphasises all aspects of victimisation, even that which is outside the law, whilst examining "the role of the state alongside the law in producing victimisation" (Walklate,2007b:117). This position can be considered as having influenced the 'victims movement'. Thirdly, there is the critical position which combines the two positions above which looks at the experiences of individual victims and how the state and society's powers influence them (Goodey, 2005: 93). The critical position is concerned with the invisible victims and acts as well as the visible, and holds that policy should be influenced by both (Walklate, 2007b:119). The main focus of the critical position is on rights, citizenship and the state; these are three important "policy oriented concepts" which are linked to other versions of victimology (Walklate, 2007b :120). The underlying theories discussed are important as a base to victimology. This next section will go further and provide a explanation of the development of victimology as a field of study. Dignan (2005) describes the significance of the visibility of victims and argues that this is what led to the development of victimology. To explain, this 'visibility' could be considered as a focus on victims rather than offenders. Dignan (2005) claims that in the 1950s the interest of victims was supported by penal reformers, and it was the first time in which penal reformers considered crime as not just a violation of legal obligations but as a "violation of the rights of individual victims". Penal reformers had a deep impact in policy and in the development of victimology, for example, Margery Fry was key in promoting the improvement of services for victims (Dignan, 2005:14). Also, the mass media was thought to increase the visibility of victims, focusing strongly on victims and the families of victims; a main illustration being the emphasis that was put on the impact of the 'Moors Murders' on the families of those victims. In addition, the publications of incidents and extensive media coverage focused on the impact of the crime upon the victim (Dignan, 2005: 14). A further increase to

victim visibility stemmed from the late 60s in that a recognition had been growing of particular vulnerable groups, specifically domestically abused women, sexually abused women and abused children (Dignan, 2005 : 15). With the growth of the feminist movement came an emphasis on women and children as "victims of interpersonal crime" (Goodey, 2005:102). This brought on broader concerns in regards to the handling of victims (Dignan, 2005: 15). Furthermore, the introduction and growth of victimisation surveys could be considered paramount to the increase of visibility of victims and so the development of victimology. These surveys increased knowledge about the nature and extent of criminal victimisation (Dignan, 2005:16). The surveys arose in the late 1960's and were initially designed to discover more about the "dark figure of crime". The surveys were based on individual interviews, with figures about the extent of victims' injuries and financial loss, alongside the emotional impact of crime (Maguire 1988:7 & 8). The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which was formerly known as the 'British Crime Survey', is an institution which is part of the official crime date (Green, 2007:105). In 1982, the first Crime Survey for England and Wales was conducted, with two following in1984 and 1988 (Maung 1995:1). It is important to point out that previous research in surveys focused on delinquency rather than on victimisation (Maung, 1995:2). Evidently, the focus of the victim over the offender had increased influencing the development of victimology. One can argue that the introduction of victimisation surveys had an indirect impact on criminological theory, policy, and society's view on crime (Maguire&Pointing,1988:8). In addition, other forms centred on the victims were emerging alongside victimisation surveys. Following the Victim Movement in the U.S, in the 1970s, the UK courts began to offer retribution for the victims, making them a more central focus in the courts (Maguire, 1988:3). The UK "victims' movement", largely run by the 'National Association of Victim Support Schemes', focused on the services to the victims rather than on the rights of victims (Maguire, 1988:3). These services were seen as positive for many people as the objective of the services was to achieve better links between local communities (Maguire, 1988:4), and also they grew fast, with a significant increase in the amount in just five years (Maguire, 1988:21). One of the reasons for the emergence of the Victim Support schemes arguably was the rising crime rate, and with it was the rejection of the rehabilitative criminal justice model in regards to dealing with the offender (Goodey 2005:102). In relation to this rejection, the criminal justice system in England and Wales has introduced the restorative justice model in recent years (Dignan, 2005:108). With restorative justice, victims are central in the justice process, which operates from a belief one can get justice through problem solving and reparation rather than from punitive solutions (Conflicts Solution Centre, 2009). To illustrate, the compensation order of 1972 and the community service order of 1988 were both set in place to provide reparations to the community, but more specifically to the victim (Dignan, 2005:108). The restorative justice model therefore demonstrates the centrality of the victim within the criminal justice system, and through the emphasis of the victim and their compensation, the model links favourably with the study of victimology. Despite the seemingly unstoppable nature of victimology, there are several weaknesses deeply rooted in the study itself. In particular, the concept of the victim can appear to have a significant effect on the development of victimology. Firstly, the differing definitions of the 'victim' can be considered to affect the development of victimology, for example, through reducing the applicability of results derived through research methods . To demonstrate, a survey designed to gain a greater understanding of victimisation which fails to clarify what constitutes being a victim, will have inutile findings as the results would not reflect a collective, consistent understanding. As an

illustration of varying definitions, the police's understanding of the concept 'victim' is narrow and in fitting with crime-recording practices, but for others in which these practices do not directly affect, the meaning of the concept may vary indefinitely(Walklate, 2007:38). In contrast, perhaps it is not realistic to attempt to achieve a universal definition of the 'victim', due to the fact that it is a concept and therefore cannot escape subjectivity. One might say that in terms of this issue, the most desirable option would be to modify research methods in a way that somehow circumvents the problem regarding varying definitions. However, if this occurred, victimology would still be founded on a problematic concept and the possibility of this may be perceived as implausible. Although, it could be argued that the lack of universality may be resolved with the idea of the 'ideal' victim, as the concept seems to provide universal criteria in regards to the 'victim' and the perception of the 'victim'. However, this is not the case as this term deals with a desired definition of who a victim is deemed to be, not what a victim actually is. Generally, the 'ideal victim' is a victim who is weak, of an interpersonal crime, and can't be blamed for being in the place in which the offence occurred; the offender is physically dominant and unknown to the victim (Whyte, 2007a:447). Christine describes an ideal victim as being:"a person or category of individuals who-when hit by crime-most readily are given the complete and legitimate status of being a victim" (Christine cited in Walklate, 2005:99) It is said that those people who meet the 'ideal' victim criteria are typically the victims that attract media attention which influences public attention and their sympathy (Whyte, 2007a:447). Therefore, 'ideal victims' are more likely to receive a response and support from the public which may have an influence in regards to the reparation of the offender (Walklate,2007a:114). One may argue, however, that it is fundamental that all victims are recognised first and foremost as have being victimised. Not only is the concept of the 'ideal victim' arguably unfair, but the victimisation it focuses on is disproportionate. To illustrate, the chance of being a victim is :"unevenly distributed…with poor people from ethnic minorities, especially males, being most likely to be victimised by a stranger and women most likely to be victimised by someone they know" (Walklate, 2007a:113). Contestably, the existence of the 'ideal victim' takes away valuable resources, namely general support, which could be used to target and reduce victimisation of those who are victimised more frequently and on a larger scale. This brings the paper onto the concept of victim visibility. What needs to be considered here is the less visible crimes which create the less visible victims (Walklate, 2007a:112). A major example of a less visible crime is corporate crime. It is believed that in the U.K, corporate activity causes over 900 deaths a year, which exceeds the number of people murdered due to interpersonal violence (Whyte,2007a:449). These deaths are as a result of injuries caused by work, poisoning caused by the environment, and food related illnesses (Whyte, 2010:141143). From this, one can see that corporate crime is a significant social problem, but in practice these incidents are rarely processed or recorded as equivalent to 'real' crimes (Whyte,2010:149). Moreover, if corporate crimes are thought to be largely unreported, a significant number of people who have suffered as a result of these crimes will not be considered as valuable individuals in terms of research, and furthermore they will not get the reparations they deserve.

It seems evident that there is an obvious distinction in terms of public and media perception between the victims who carry certain 'ideal' characteristics and the significantly less visible victims. On the whole, the development of victimology as a field of study cannot be considered entirely successful if there exists such major issues with the concept of the 'victim'. Less visible crimes need to become a main focus for victimologists in order to gain more information about the impact of crime on victims of all types of victimisations and, ultimately influence the provision of support for a variety of victims. One could even argue, that verifying the concept of the 'victim' may in itself contribute to solving the issues surrounding the less visible victims and the eradication of the 'ideal victim'. In addition to the problems that arise from the concept of the 'victim' there are several criticisms of the methods used in the development of the study itself. Even without considering the well-known issues of under-reporting and the 'dark figure of crime', there are problems with methods that are used to gain data, which therefore limit research (Green,2007a:104). To explain, it seems necessary to understand research about victimisations "within wider historical, social, ideological and economic conditions", but as victimisation surveys tend to neglect context, there arises a limit to the meaning which can be derived from the surveys (Green, 2007a:104). For example, within a survey...