Scope of Contemporary Victimology 18 August 2009 Prof

Scope of Contemporary Victimology 18 August 2009 Prof. Dr. K. Chockalingam Professor of Victimology & Deputy Director Tokiwa International Victimology Institute, Tokiwa University, Mito, Japan 9 th 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.

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.

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.

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 systems the 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.

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?

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.

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.

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. ”

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).

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 1940 s. 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 12. The tormentor Widows, widowers, and those in mourning 13. The blocked, exempted, or fighting Victims of blackmail, extortion, confidence games 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.

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…”

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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. ”

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.

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”.

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.

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

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.

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. ”

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. ”

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.

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 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.

The women’s movement particularly in the late 1960 s 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.

Children’s rights During the same period concern over the needs and rights of children also blossomed. In the mid 1960 s, 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.

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.

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.

Legal reforms Several other law reforms aiming at protecting and helping crime victims started coming up since 1960 s. 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.

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, 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.

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.

References Doerner, W. G & Lab, S. P. (2005). Victimology (4 th Ed. ). Lexix. Nexis, 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, 5 th 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.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION