Transcript The Scope of Contemporary Victimology Prof. Dr. K

Scope of
Contemporary Victimology
18 August 2009
Prof. Dr. K. Chockalingam
Professor of Victimology &
Deputy Director
Tokiwa International Victimology Institute, Tokiwa University,
Mito, Japan
9th Asian Post Graduate Course on Victimology
Mito, Japan
17 August, 2009 – 29 August, 2009
Introduction
Victimology as a growing discipline
Diverse views exist on the focus and place of the discipline of
Victimology.
Whether Victimology is an independent area of inquiry or a sub
field of Criminology.
Traditionally, criminology has focused on causation and prevention of
crime, and the treatment of offenders besides the study of the
functioning of the institutions which handle the problem of crime.
Study of crime victim might complement these traditional foci and
might be conceived as a sub field of Criminology.
But a more independent focus would permit a broader range of inquiry
and emphasis on the crime victim.
2
Introduction (cont.)
A second question concerns the breadth of victim-related issues
within the field of Victimology.
The earliest work focused on the interaction of offenders and victims,
and contribution of victims to their own victimization.
Some scholars advocate that Victimology should limit itself to the
study of victim-offender interaction.
Others argue that the needs of crime victims, the functioning of the
organizations and institutions which respond to these needs, and
the emerging roles and responsibility for crime victims within the
CJS are important areas of inquiry for Victimology.
3
Introduction
A third issue is the breadth of the definition of the term ‘victim’.
One approach is to limit the victim concept to victims of traditional
crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, burglary etc.
However, views have also been proposed to include prisoners,
immigrants, subjects of medical experimentation, persons charged
with crimes but not found guilty, as victims of crimes.
4
Victim-offender systems
The study of victim-offender relationship was one of the central focus
of Victimology for the early pioneers in the discipline.
There are two distinct aspects to a study of victim-offender
systemsthe study of victim vulnerability and
the study of victim culpability.
Hans von Hentig’s work identified both classes of victims who might
be vulnerable or susceptible to victimization as well as those victims
who might be culpable as they partially precipitated their own
victimization.
5
Victim vulnerability
Vulnerability refers to the susceptibility ( the state of being easily
affected ) of certain groups of people to victimization, through no
fault of their own, but on the basis of certain demographic or other
characteristics.
For example,
– Are elders more susceptible to victimization than younger people?
– Are persons who live in certain neighborhoods more susceptible to
victimization than those who live in other neighborhoods?
– Are persons in some occupational groups more susceptible than
persons in other occupational groups?
– Are women more susceptible than men? Are persons who choose
certain lifestyles more susceptible to victimization?
6
Victim vulnerability (cont.)
The analysis of vulnerability serves two useful functions.
First, identification of groups, susceptible to victimization helps us in
directing crime prevention efforts to the most vulnerable groups.
Second, such an analysis may help dispel common myths and
enable a precise focus on the nature of the crime victimization
problem.
For example, evidence that most assaultive crimes are intra racial
should help dispel the stereotypes of black offenders victimizing white
victims and permit a more realistic assessment of the problems of
violent crime.
7
Victim culpability
Culpability refers to actions on the part of the victim that may
either invite or precipitate victimization. Sometimes victims may be
partially responsible for their own victimization. For example,
– Are the motorists who leave their keys in the ignition of an
automobile partially responsible if the vehicle is stolen?
– Is someone who is assaulted after making abusive comments at
another person partly responsible for the victimization?
– If the husband who has habitually battered his wife only to be
killed one day by the wife after an attempted assault by him
partially responsible for his own victimization?
Studying victim culpability involves efforts to measure the extent to
which culpability may occur for selected types of victimizations.
8
Victim culpability (cont.)
Marvin E. Wolfgang, made a classic study on homicide victims in the
city of Philadelphia with the following definition of victim
precipitation:
– “The term victim-precipitation is applied to those criminal homicides in which
the victim is a direct, positive precipitator in the crime. The role of the victim is
characterized by his having been the first in the homicide drama to use physical
force directed against his subsequent slayer. The victim-precipitated cases are
those in which the victim was the first to show and use a deadly weapon, to
strike a blow in an altercation – in short, the first to commence the interplay or
resort to physical violence.”
9
Victim culpability (cont.)
Wolfgang found that in 26% of the homicides, victim
precipitation happened.
After Wolfgang’s work many other studies were conducted on victim
precipitation focusing on the crimes of homicide, assaults, rape and
robbery.
The concept of victim culpability raises perplexing problems. Though
some victims may be partially responsible for their victimization,
there is also the danger of using the phenomenon of ‘victim blaming’.
Blaming the rape victim is found in many cultures. The challenge
facing the field of Victimology is to engage in both conceptual and
empirical work on victim culpability but also to discover ways to
avoid victim blaming. (Gallaway & Hudson, 1981).
10
The re-emergence of the victim
The C.J.S. devoted bulk of its time and energy to control criminals. In
the midst of the preoccupation of understanding the crime and its
causation, the victim was “rediscovered” in the 1940s.
Interestingly the victim emerged not as an individual worthy of
sympathy or compassion but as a possible partner or contributor to his
or her own victimization.
Students of criminal behavior focussed at the relationship between the
victim and the offender with the aim of a better understanding of the
genesis of the crime.
11
The re-emergence of the victim (cont.)
As interest in victims began to increase, scholars began to grapple
with the basic question of what exactly is Victimology?
Some scholars believed that Victimology was a specialty area or a
branch of Criminology as every crime has a criminal and a victim.
Others countered that because Victimology was so broad, it deserved
to stand as a separate field in its own right. They believed that
Victimology could be a major area of study like biology, criminology,
psychology etc.
Early researches in Victimology focused upon victim typologies. A
typology is an effort to categorize observations into logical groupings
to reach a better understanding of our social world.
12
The works of Hans Von Hentig
Hans von Hentig, one of the pioneers in Victimology tried to discover
what made a criminal predisposed to being a criminal.
von Hentig began to examine what made the victim victimized. The
key ingredient of his thesis was the criminal-victim dyad.
In his 1941 publication, von Hentig claimed the victim to contribute to
the criminal act.
Hence according to von Hentig, a superficial examination of the
outcome of a criminal event sometimes presents a distorted image of
who the real victim is and who the real offender is. A closer
examination of the dynamics underlying the victimization might bring
out that the victim was a major contributor to his or her own
victimization.
13
The works of Hans Von Hentig (cont.)
Von Hentig in his book The Criminal and His Victim in 1948
explained that “increased attention should be paid to the crime
provocative function of the victim… With a thorough knowledge of
the interrelations between the doer and the sufferer, new approaches to
the detection of crime will be opened”.
Von Hentig believed that victim contribution largely results from
characteristics or social positions beyond the control of the individual.
Thus, von Hentig classified victims into thirteen categories depending
on their propensity for victimization.
14
Hans von Hentig’s victim typologies
S. No
Type
Example
1.
The young
Children and infants
2.
The female
All women
3.
The old
Elderly persons
4.
The mentally defective and deranged
5.
Immigrants
6.
Minorities
The feeble-minded, the
insane, drug addicts,
alcoholics
Foreigners unfamiliar
with the culture
Racially disadvantaged
15
persons
Hans von Hentig’s victim typologies (cont.)
7.
Dull normals
Simple-minded persons
8.
The depressed
Persons with various psychological maladies
9.
The acquisitive
The greedy, those looking for quick gains
10.
The wanton
Promiscuous persons
11.
The lonesome and
the heartbroken
The tormentor
Widows, widowers, and those in mourning
The blocked,
exempted, or
fighting
Victims of blackmail, extortion, confidence
games
12.
13.
An abusive parent
16
The works of Hans Von Hentig (cont.)
The typology of von Hentig reflects the inability of certain victims to
resist a perpetrator due to physical, social or psychological
deficiencies.
For example, very young people, females, and the elderly persons
lack the physical power to resist offenders.
Immigrants and minorities due to their cultural differences might feel
they are outside the mainstream of society. These feelings of
exclusion may lead them into situations in which criminals prey upon
them.
Individuals who are mentally defective or deranged, dull normal,
depressed, lonesome or blocked may not understand what is
happening around them or may be unable to resist.
The acquisitive person and the tormentor are individuals who, are
either directly involved in the criminal act or placed themselves in
situations with a potential for victimization.
17
The works of Hans Von Hentig (cont.)
The typology of Hans von Hentig does not imply that the victim is
always the primary cause of the criminal act. What he does suggest is
that victim characteristics may contribute to the victimization episode.
According to von Hentig, we must realize that “the victim is taken as
one of the determinants and that a nefarious symbiosis is often
established between doer and sufferer…”
18
Beniamin Mendelsohn and his work
Beniamin Mendelsohn, a Romanian lawyer is often credited as the
father of Victimology. Mendolsohn was fascinated by the dynamics
between the victims and offenders.
He used to ask victims, witnesses and bystanders to complete a
detailed and probing questionnaire before preparing a case. After
examining their responses, Mendelsohn found that usually there was a
strong interpersonal relationship between victims and offenders.
With these data, Mendelsohn in the year 1956 outlined a six-step
classification of victims based on legal considerations of the degree of
the victim’s blame.
19
Beniamin Mendelsohn and his work (cont.)
The first category of the typology of Mendelsohn was the
“completely innocent victim”. This victim type according to him
exhibited no provocative behavior prior to the offender’s attack.
The second type, namely “victims with minor guilt” or “victims due
to ignorance” did something inadvertently that placed them in a
compromising position before the occurrence of victimization.
His third category was “victim as guilty as the offender” and the
“voluntary victim”. Suicide cases and parties injured while engaging
in vice crimes and other “victimless offenses” fell under this category.
20
Beniamin Mendelsohn and his work (cont.)
The next two categories address some of von Hentig’s earlier
concerns.
Mendelssohn’s fourth type “victim more guilty than the offender”
represents the situation in which the victim instigates or provokes the
criminal act. A person who is on the losing end of a punch after
making an abusive remark would fit in here. Similarly, a victim who
started as an offender and, ended up as victim is “the most guilty
victim”. An example of this category would be the burglar shot by a
house owner during an intrusion.
The last category is the “simulating or imaginary victim”.
Mendelsohn reserves this niche for persons who pretend that they
have been victimized. The person who claims to have been mugged,
rather than admitting to gambling his or her pay cheque away would
be an example.
21
Beniamin Mendelsohn and his work (cont.)
Mendelsohn’s classification is useful mainly for identifying the
relative culpability of the victim in the criminal act. Besides
developing this typology, Mendelsohn also coined the term
‘Victimology’ and proposed the terms “penal-couple” (a criminalvictim relationship), “victimal”, and “victimity” (as opposed to
criminal and criminality), and “potential of victimal receptivity” (an
individual’s propensity for being victimized).
22
The work of Stephen Schafer:
The victim and his criminal
Stephen Schafer revisited victim’s role in his book ‘The Victim and
His Criminal’.
Schafer introduced the concept of ‘functional responsibility’ of the
victim. Schafer (1968) modified the typology provided by Hans von
Hentig and presented his own classification.
While Hentig tried to identify the varying risk factors, Schafer sets
forth the responsibility of different victims.
23
Empirical studies of victim precipitation
Marvin E. Wolfgang and his work: Patterns in criminal
homicide
Victim precipitation deals with the degree to which victim is
responsible for his/her own victimization.
Using homicide data from the city of Philadelphia, Marvin Wolfgang
reported that 26 percent of the homicides that occurred from 1948
to 1952 resulted from victim precipitation.
Wolfgang defined victim-precipitated homicide as those instances
in which the ultimate victim was the first in the homicide drama to
use physical force or violence against his subsequent attacker.
24
Marvin E. Wolfgang and his work: Patterns
in criminal homicide (cont.)
Wolfgang identified some interesting factors related to victimprecipitated homicides.
Wolfgang views that “connotations of a victim as a weak and passive
individual, seeking to withdraw from an assaultive situation, and an
offender as a brutal, strong and overly aggressive person seeking out
his victim, are not always correct.”
25
The work of Menachem Amir:
Patterns in forcible rape:
Menachem Amir examined the concept of victim precipitation
through his empirical analysis of rape victims in 1971.
Amir concluded from his study of rape victims in Philadelphia that
19 percent of all forcible rapes were victim-precipitated.
Amir viewed that the role played by the victims and their
contribution to the perpetration of the offence becomes one of the
main interests of the emerging discipline of Victimology.
26
General Victimology—A New approach
The preoccupation with the concept of victim precipitation and its
divisiveness and ensuing fragmentation threatened to stagnate the
field of Victimology.
The lack of theoretical advances caused concerns that Victimology
was bogging down in an academic quagmire.
However, an antidote emerged from the discussions held at an
International conference in Bellagio, Italy, during the summer of 1975.
It was the concept of “General Victimology”.
27
General Victimology—A New approach (cont.)
The remedy proposed by Beniamin Mendelsohn called for
Victimology to come out of the provincial backwaters of Criminology
and into its own rightful domain.
Mendelsohn attempted to propose Victimology from its independence
from Criminology by devising the phrase “General Victimology”.
According to Mendelsohn, Victimologists aim to “investigate the
causes of victimization in search of effective remedies”. Because
human beings suffer from many causal factors, focusing on criminal
victimization alone according to Mendelsohn is too narrow a
perspective. A more global term like “General Victimology” is
required to convey the true meaning of the field.
28
General Victimology—A New approach (cont.)
Mendelsohn (1976) views general Victimology to comprise of five
types of victims. They include victims of:
– A criminal
– One’s self
– The social environment
– Technology
– The natural environment
29
General Victimology—A New approach (cont.)
The first category is criminal victimization.
Self-victimization would include suicide and any other suffering
induced by victims themselves.
The term victims of the social environment incorporates individuals,
class or group oppression. Some common examples would include
racial discrimination, caste relations, genocide, and war atrocities.
Victims of technology are people who fall prey to society’s reliance
upon scientific innovation. Nuclear accidents, improperly tested
medicines, industrial pollution and transportation mishaps belong to
this category.
Finally, victims of the natural environment would include people
affected by events such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, famines
and the like.
30
General Victimology—A New approach (cont.)
In line with Mendelsohn’s propositions, Smith and Weis (1976)
proposed a broad overview of the areas encompassed by general
Victimology.
There are four major areas of concern: the creation of definition of
victims, the application of these definitions, victims’ reactions during
the post victimization period, and societal reactions to it.
When viewed in this context, General Victimology becomes a very
broad enterprise with extensive implications. According to
Mendelsohn (1976: 21):
“Just as medicine treat all patients and all diseases, just as
criminology concerns itself with all criminals and all forms of crime,
so victimolgy must concern itself with all victims and all aspects of
victimity in which society takes an interest.”
31
Critical Victimology
One recent trend in Victimology is the call to shift the focus from the
general approach covered by the General Victimolgy, to what some
other people call Critical Victimology.
Proponents of this move maintain that Victimology fails to question
the basic foundations of what crime is, overlooks the question of why
certain acts are sanctioned, and, consequently, has developed in the
wrong direction.
Mawby and Walklate (1994:21) define Critical Victimology as:
– “An attempt to examine the wider social context in which some
versions of Victimology had become more dominant than others
and also to understand how those versions of Victimology are
inter woven with questions of policy response and service delivery
to victims of crime.”
32
Critical Victimology (cont.)
Central to Critical Victimology is the issue of how and why certain
actions are defined as criminal and, as a result how the field of
Victimology becomes focused on one set of actions instead of another.
Mawby and Walklate point out that many crimes committed by the
powerful in the society are not subjected to the criminal court. Some
writers point to the neglect of attention to genocide, war crimes,
political campaign, law violations, clandestine arms sales and
weapons of mass destruction, smuggling, and the human slave trade.
Consequently the victims of those crimes do not enter into the typical
discussion of victimoligical concerns.
33
Victimology of Human Rights Violations
including crime:
In the recent decades, three scientists have contributed to the
definition of Victimology which is agreed upon by many
contemporary victimologists. From the manmade victims of Paul
Separovic to the three volumes of Elias Neuman or to the
publications of Robert Elias, Victimology evolved as the ‘science of
victims of human rights violations including crime’. Many
victimologists share this perspective.
According to Kirchhoff (1993, 2005), Criminologists analyzing crime
problem from a victim’s perspective as victimology is superfluous.
Victimology is the victim and not the whole social structure or
criminal law in it. Activities which take care of victims, prevent
victimization, protect victims, assist victims, reduce suffering and
support coping, restitution, impact of victimization are all the
34
activities in which Victimology operates scientifically.
The victim movement
While the concept of victim precipitation and responsibility of the
victim in the crime was studied by many researchers, practitioners
highlighted the victim as some one who deserved support and
assistance from the society and the CJS.
At the same time different movements contributed to the renewed
interest in the plight of victims.
Some of these movements include: the women’s movement,
children’s rights, concerns over increasing crime problem, the
advocacy of victim compensation, legal reforms, etc.
35
The women’s movement
The women’s movement particularly in the late 1960s focused
largely on the victims.
Victim-blaming arguments often dealt with rape and sexual assault.
The female victim and her life style were criticized but the reformers
felt that the CJS treated the sexual assault victims as if they were the
offenders.
This made the victim advocates seeking for equal treatment. The
women's movement achieved many gains such as development of
rape crisis centers, shelters for battered women, counseling for
abused women and their children, and other forms of assistance.
36
Children’s rights
During the same period concern over the needs and rights of children
also blossomed.
In the mid 1960s, child abuse was discovered as a social problem.
Many physical and psychological actions used against children were
labeled as abuse. States enacted laws prescribing the limits to which
the child could be physically disciplined.
Children were emerging as a new class of victims- both of abuse in
their homes and of society in general.
37
The growing crime problem
1960 to 1980 was a period which witnessed enormous increase in
crime in the US and crime was considered as an important issue with a
political agenda for Presidential and local elections.
Victim issues were a major focus of the President’s Commission
(1967) Report, which made far reaching recommendations to improve
the position of victims.
The President’s Commission report further called for systematic
victimization surveys, suggestions for the means of alleviating the
pain and loss of victims, ideas for community programs aiming to
provide victim services.
38
Victim compensation
One of the recommendations of the President’s Commission of 1967
was more vigorous implementation of victim compensation for their
losses which involved both restitution and state compensation.
State compensation to victims was first introduced in Great Britain
by Margery Fry in 1957. Though this early attempt failed, New
Zealand passed the first victim compensation law in 1963 followed
by England in 1964 and the US in 1965. Many other developed
countries have also established compensation programs to crime
victims.
39
Legal reforms
Several other law reforms aiming at protecting and helping crime
victims started coming up since 1960s. Such changes include the
protection of rape victim’s background and character in court
proceedings, protection to battered spouses and their children,
mandating doctors and teachers to report cases of child abuse.
Guidelines for informing victims about court proceedings and the
legal system, as well as provisions that allow victim impact statements
in sentencing and parole decisions began to appear in some states.
In some of the states in USA they passed a “Victim’s Bill of Rights”
which outlined the rights of the victim, similar to those appear in the
U.S. Bill of Rights, which focuses on protection for the accused.
40
Other factors
Other factors played a direct or indirect role in emphasizing
victim’s issues. The mass media started to portray not only
the offender but the harm to the victim, relying on
interviews with the victims or victim’s family.
Another factor is the increasing interest in victims among
academics. About four decades ago there were no books
specifically focusing on victims excepting the publication of
“The Victim and his Criminal” by Schafer (1968).
In the recent years, many texts on victimology have
appeared which include general victim topics to specific
discussions on compensation, spouse abuse, child abuse,
41
victim services and other areas of interest.
Other factors (cont.)
The triennial international symposia on victimology beginning from
the first symposium in Jerusalem in 1973 have also disseminated the
ideas of victimology worldwide.
New specialized institutes such as Tokiwa International Victimology
Institute (TIVI), Japan, International Victimology Institute
(INTERVICT), the Netherlands have been promoting victimological
research to a significant extent.
Academic courses on victimology both at the undergraduate and
graduate level have also been started in some countries, which attract
students to undertake intensive studies on the different facets of
victimology.
42
Conclusion
Victimology is concerned with crime victims.---Special
Victimology or Penal Victimology. But it is no more confined to
crime victims.
Victimology has expanded in the recent years to include the
acts of victimization covered by human rights violations.
Victimology cannot ignore the victimization caused by natural
phenomena such as earth quakes, floods and other natural
and man-made disasters, which is covered by the field of
‘General Victimology’.
In conclusion, Victimology should concern itself to the suffering
and pain of victims, regardless of the source of victimization as
the victims deserve attention, assistance, support and
alleviation of pain.
43
References
Doerner, W.G & Lab, S.P. (2005). Victimology (4th Ed.). LexixNexis, Anderson
Publishing.
Gallaway, B. & Hudson, J (1981). Perspectives on crime victims. pp. 2-5.
Missouri: The C.V. Mosby Company.
Karmen, A.(2005) Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, 5th
Edition,Thomson Wadsworth, California.
Kirchhoff, G.F.(1993) “An Endeavour to define Victimology”, in Global
Perspectives of Victimology, pp.19-45 (Eds.)Makkar,S.P.Singh & Friday,
Paul.C., ABS Publications, Jalandhar, India.
Kirchhoff, G.F.(2005) “What is Victimology?”,Monograph Series No.1, TIVI, 68
pages.
44
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
45