Week 2- Victimological theory PDF

Preview

Summary

Theories of victimology...

Description

Understanding victims & victimisation: Week 2 Victimological theory: Positivist, radical and critical victimology History of victimology ‘The forgotten person’ Good starting point to include in your assessment, setting the scene in the introduction   



Historically victims were neglected in CJS and criminology Tended to focus on the prosecution (the state) and the defendant (the person up for prosecution) Historically the victim has been neglected within criminology too (Rock, 2007) more interested in different fields- positivist (interested with the body/mind of criminal), interactionist (concerned with victimless crime, such as drug use) and radicals (concerned with structural crime) Early criminology focused on the criminal and the crime and the victim was forgotten as they saw the crime and the criminals as a more pressing and urgent issue

History of victimology Widely accepted that there are 4 founding ‘fathers’ of victimology, the early work of these people focused on how the victim is different to ‘the normal person’  

 



4 founding fathers in the 1940’s: von Hentig, Mendelsohn, Schafer and Wertham Von Hentig- was the first to deeply research the interaction between the victim and the offender, how it happened and how the victim could have provoked (seen as a positivist victimology) 1960’s-1970’s: rise of the large victimisation surveys (this gave way to radical victimology) 1980’s-1990’s: period of evolution and consolidation (greater question of the construction of the victim as a person and how they are used from a political sense, a critical approach to victimology) Now victimology is an established discipline (Goodey, 2005) Positivist victimology





Underpinned by the idea that the definition of a victim is clear-cut, someone that has experienced a crime, given by the criminal law (Davies et al, 2017) they don’t agree that it is someone who has experienced harm, but someone who has experienced a crime Focus on the factors and processes that cause victimisation (Rock, 2018: 35)

Three features of positivist criminology (Miers, 1989) -

-

Factors that produce pattens of victimisation- especially those that make some individuals or groups more likely to become victims, they explore how the victim is different to the nonvictim Focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence (between 2 people) Identify victims who have contributed to their own victimisation

Positivist victimologists 

Von Hentig (1948) looked at ‘victim proneness’ argues people because of their biology are more likely to become victims than other groups and argued they ‘invite’ victimisation upon themselves just by being them, he created a list of 13 categories- women, the young, the old, the mentally unwell, immigrants…

Understanding victims & victimisation: Week 2 

  

Mendelsohn (1956, 1974) interested in ‘victim culpability’: created a 6-fold-typology, at one end is a completely innocent victim (a child or someone who i.e. unconscious) and at one end is a culpable victim (maybe someone who started off as a perpetrator, i.e. someone who attacks someone but is also hurt in the process) These ideas are now outdated, as they focus on biological and psychological explanations whereas today, we look at more social explanations Present in ‘lifestyle’ explanations of crime, things like routine activities theory, is something we still use today which is a lasting impact of positivist victimology Outlet in policy through ‘responsibilities’ campaigns (Garland, 2001) the way in which the government try to get us to prevent ourselves becoming victims

Victim-precipitation    



Term first introduced by Wolfgang (1957) about homicide He argued that in 26% of cases, the victim had in some way brought about or instigated their own demine/victimisation Certain characteristics observable amongst victim precipitated homicides e.g. alcohol, victim had previous arrests, stabbings, female offender An example of a case: Emma Humphreys, convicted of the murder of her 33 year old boyfriend, imprisoned in the 1980’s. Been brought up by parents with problems of alcoholism, spent long periods in care and at the age of 13 was drinking and doing drugs, by the age of 16 was selling sex on the streets, she found Trevor who she thought she was in a relationship with but actually he became very controlling, raped her etc. She stabbed him out of fear and spent over 10 years in prison, in the 1990’s the justice for women group protested for Emma to be released and the appeal was successful- Trevor was the precipitated victim The term has since been applied to other crimes Radical and critical victimology Radical victimology

    

  

Emerged in response to the critiques of positivist victimology They look at the role of the state and the law in producing victims, looking at social factors and those in positions of power, that make other people more likely to become a victim Whilst a positivist victimologists would say the definition is clear cut and is someone who has experienced a crime, radical say it is more complicated than that Quinney is the founding figure of radical victimology, he asked ‘who is the victim?’ (1972) Say victims are not easy to identify and define- people may be victimised by the state e.g. the police/prison service but this would not be seen as a crime as such so people may not see them as a victim, this can be linked to secondary victimisation (Wolhunter et al, 2009:33) People are harmed by everyday social and economic relations, focus on how structural factors affect victimisation and role of the capitalist state Lea and Young (1984) say its mainly the poor who are victimised, most likely to be victims but also most likely to be criminals too Some radicals were feminists and sought to draw attention to the ‘dark figure of crime’ this unknown area of victims we are not aware of- victims of rape or domestic violence who may not report to the police

Victimology of state crime

Understanding victims & victimisation: Week 2 Kauzlarich et al (2001) was interested in state crimes, not necessarily something that violated law but rather something that caused harm, he sees crime victims have experienced ‘economic, cultural or physical harm, pain or exploitation’ by the state, by state agencies, or for the benefit of the state and state agencies. There are 6 defining features of a state crime: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Victims of state crime tend to be least socially powerful Victimisers tend not to recognise the institutional harm Victims of state crime are blamed for their own suffering Victims often rely on their victimisers for seeking redress (victim of state crime, then relying on the police to seek redress, however they are an agency of the state and may not be taken seriously) 5. Victims of state crime are easy targets for repeat victimisation 6. Illegal state policies and practices are an attempt to achieve institutional goals

For example: having strict border policies we see migrants drowning in the sea, but this is justified by the state that their decision to have strict borders are politically popular and done for good reason   

Cuts to social housing Cuts to the job market Cuts legal aid Critical victimology

Arised from a dissatisfaction with earlier victimological theories, concerned with the idea that early theories said that there was an objective victim without considering the labelling process of becoming a victim, this labelling idea is critical victimology  





 

They argue the victim label is not objective and changes over time and from place to place For example, there is growing information around child exploitation and modern slavery, things that once received very little attention, so people experienced these things but were not always recognised as a victim although they are now Argue the victim label can be used politically, for political gain (Dignan, 2004): the home office via state agencies, are labelling people who are voluntarily selling sex, as victims of sex trafficking because if you label someone as a victim, they are easier to deport, people wouldn’t question why someone ‘in need of help’ is given help to get back to their home country; political agenda, no unrest with in the media There is also a critical feminist tradition, which looks at the impact of structure and agency (McGarry and Walklate, 2015) i.e. gender, age, sexuality, how these factors shape victimisation Put victims first and give those victims an agency and allow them to speak for themselves Shift away from victimisation patterns to look at instead what produces those patterns

Ideal victims A key idea in critical victimology coined by Christie (1986), interested in how a victim acquires the label of victim and is therefore deeply believes in the labelling process, he argues not everyone finds it equal to gain this victim status as society has a certain view of who is this ideal victim and can easily acquire this victim label

Understanding victims & victimisation: Week 2 Key characteristics of an ideal victim: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Victim is weak compared to offender Innocent or merely going about their daily business Blameless for their victimisation Does not know the stranger who victimised them The offender is big and bad The victim has the right combination of power, influence, and sympathy to acquire victim status Key points that can be used in the assessment





An ideal victim would have a very different experience in the CJS and with crime, that someone not seen as an ideal victim, would affect one’s ability to gain justice and compensation Use the 3 theories, do not need to use lots of detail but need to address them and critique them and what those theories would suggest a victim’s experience of crime (positivist) and social harm is (critical and radical) References/additional resources

McGarry, R. and Walklate, S. (2015) Chapter 1: Exploring the concept of 'victim' in Victims: Trauma, Testimony and Justice. London: Routledge. Available as an E-Book via the Library and as a linked resource via the module Reading List. Christie, N. (1986) ‘The Ideal victim’ in E. Fattah (ed) From crime policy to victim policy . New York: St Martin’s Press. Hard copy available in the physical library Dignan, J. (2004) Understanding victims and restorative justice. London: Mcgraw-Hill. Available as an E-Book via the module Reading List. Kauzlarich, D. et al., (2001) ‘Towards a victimology of state crime’ Critical Criminology, 10(3): 173194. Available via the library and Google Scholar Newburn, T. (2017) Criminology, 3 module Reading List

rd

edition. London: Routledge. Available as an E-Book via the

McGarry, R. and Walklate, S. (2015) Victims: Trauma, Testimony and Justice. London: Routledge. Available as an E-Book via the module Reading List Quinney, R. (1972) ‘Who is the victim?’ Criminology, 10(3): 314-323. Access via the Library or Google Scholar Wolhuter, L., Olley, N. and Denham, D. (2009) Victimology: victimisation and victims’ rights . London: Routledge. Available as an E-Book via the module Reading List...