Victimology Theory and Applied For Development - Ezzat A. Fattah, Study notes of Victimology

Download Victimology Theory and Applied For Development - Ezzat A. Fattah and more Study notes Victimology in PDF only on Docsity! 60 RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56 VICTIMOLOGY TODAY RECENT THEORETICAL AND APPLIED DEVELOPMENTS Ezzat A. Fattah* would help them cope with, and recover from, the harmful and traumatic effects of victimization. The paper also made an attempt to explain the reasons for this transformation and the forces that played a vital role in bringing about the change. So what has happened in victimology since that scientific meeting twenty years ago? The decades of the 1980’s and 1990’s could easily be described as a period of consolidation, data gathering theorization, new legislation, victim compensation, redress and mediation, assistance and support. II. CONSOLIDATION In the last few years, the discipline of victimology firmly established itself on the academic scene. There was a substantial increase in the number of universities and colleges offering courses in victimology and related subjects. A large number of books and articles were published in different languages, and in addition to several periodicals published in local languages, an International Review of Victimology, in English, was put out by AB Academic Publishers in Britain. A number of national and regional societies of victimology were established. Japan has been one of the leaders in this respect, thanks to the tireless efforts of Professor Koichi M i y a z a w a , t h e w o r l d r e n o w n e d victimologist, and a dynamic group of his students and followers. The World Society of Victimology continued to hold its international symposia once every three years. The last one, the ninth in the series, was held in I. INTRODUCTION Criminology today is very different from criminology at the end of the 19th century or the first half of the 20th century. And victimology is very different from victimology in the 1950’s or the 1960’s. Scientific disciplines undergo constant evolution, though the pace of change may vary from one discipline to the other. Victimology has undergone not only a rapid, but also rather fundamental, evolution in the last two decades. Twenty years ago, in 1978 at the International Congress of Criminology held in Lisbon, Portugal, I presented a paper entitled “Some Recent Theoretical Developments in Victimology”. The paper was published in the only victimological journal available at the time (Victimology: An International Journal, Vol.4, no.2, pp.198-213). In the paper, I pointed to the discipline’s transformation from a ‘victimology of the act’ to a ‘victimology of action’. I explained how in its beginning, victimology was essentially the victimology of specific crimes: victimology of violent crimes, i.e, homicide; victimology of sexual offences, i.e, rape; victimology of property crimes, i.e, burglary and fraud. These pioneer theoretical studies of early victimology were soon overshadowed by major developments in the applied field, w e l l - i n t e n t i o n e d a n d p e r s i s t e n t endeavours aimed at alleviating the plight of crime victims, and at providing them with the services, aid and assistance that * Professor Emeritus, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, Canada. 61 112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS Amsterdam in August 1997, and drew a record number of participants. All in all, victimology is no longer a subject of bewilderment or curiosity but is slowly becoming a household name. This is being facilitated by the extensive coverage crime news and victim issues are receiving in the mass media; by the wide publicity victims’ programs are gett ing and by the proliferation of victim services and victim assistance programs in many countries. The last twenty years saw the creation and extremely rapid expansion of victim services. Victim assistance programs, totally non-existent a couple of decades ago, have mushroomed all over the globe from Australia to Europe, from South America to Asia, and from the large Islands of Japan to the relatively small Canary Islands. One of the most important developments in the field of victimology in the last twenty years was the formal approval by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 11, 1985 of the “UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power”. In adopting it, the General Assembly stated that it was “Cognizant that millions of people throughout the world suffer harm as a result of crime and abuse of power, and that the rights of these victims have not been adequately recognized”. III. DATA GATHERING AND THEORY FORMULATION One of the primary tasks of theoretical victimology is to collect empirical data on crime victims. The main instrument used at present to collect this information is victimization surveys. They are conducted at the local, regional, national and international level. Notable among these surveys are the ones that are carried out on a regular basis, at regular intervals, in England and the US: the British Crime Survey and the National Crime Survey in the United States. Each of these surveys yields a wealth of information on crime victims. Both of them allow a thorough analysis of the temporal and spatial patterns and trends in various types of victimization. The original goal of these surveys, namely counting victimization, has been largely expanded and several new questions were added in recent years to the instrument to explore various areas such as the levels of fear of crime, the levels of satisfaction with police action, the reasons for not reporting the incident to the police, the consequences of victimization, etc. Another area that was examined was the measures taken by the respondents to prevent certain types of offences, or to min imize the chances o f fu ture victimization. Some surveys tried to establish whatever link may exist between offending and victimization by including questions requesting respondents to self- report acts of delinquency they might have committed. These latter questions led to some very interesting findings. In their London (England) survey, Sparks, Genn, and Dodd (1977) found victims of violent crime to be significantly more likely than non-victims to self-report the commission of violent crimes. Gottfredson (1984) analysed the 1982 British Crime Survey data and was struck by the relatively strong inter-relationship between offending and victimization. For persons with at least one self-reported violence offence, the likelihood of victimization was 42 percent, or seven t imes the l ike l ihood o f personal victimization for persons reporting no self- reported violent offences. The British Crime Survey of Scotland (Chambers and Tombs, 1984), revealed that 40 percent of respondents admitting an assault were themselves assault victims during that period. 64 RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56 Using lifestyle to explain variations in risk is neither a novel nor a unique approach. It has been known for a long time that the probability of accidental death or injury is, in many respects, related to people’s lifestyle and the kind of activities in which they are involved. Physicians have repeatedly stressed the close link between lifestyle and routine activities, and the risk of suffering certain diseases such as cancer, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular ailments. As a matter of fact, the lifestyle concept permeates the explanations of a higher or lower susceptibility to a wide variety of diseases. We refer to lifestyle when we maintain that those who smoke have a higher risk of lung cancer than those who do not; that those who expose themselves, unprotected, to the sun have a greater probability of skin cancer; that those who drink heavily have a greater susceptibility to liver disease. Lifestyle is also the central concept in explanations linking dietary habits, the lack of exercise and a sedentary way of life, to heart disease. More recently, lifestyle has been identified as a major risk factor in contracting Aids. The belief that lifestyle can influence the probability of victimization by increasing or decreasing people’s chances of becoming victims of certain crimes may be seen as a simple, and in many ways logical, extension of the concept to the social sphere. Another explanatory model is the Routine Activity Approach developed by Cohen and Felson (1979). The focus in Cohen and Felson’s approach is on “ direct- contact predatory violations,” which are those “involving direct physical contact between at least one offender and at least one person or object which that offender attempts to take or damage” (Cohen and Felson, 1979, p.589). Cohen and Felson (1979) argue that the occurrence of these types of victimization is the outcome of the conference in space and time of three minimal elements: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and absence of capable guardians. The central factors underlying the routine activity approach are opportunity, proximity/ exposure, and facilitating factors. For example, the abundance of goods that can be stolen leads to higher rates of property victimization (opportunity). The dispersion of routine activities in the United States since the end of World War II has led to a substantial increase in predatory crime. This shift of routine activities away from the home, and the greater interaction between people who are not members of the same household results in greater exposure of people to potential offenders outside the home, and thus, increases the risk of direct- contact predatory crime (proximity/ exposure). Concomitantly, the increasing absence from home leaves the residences insufficiently protected and renders them suitable and easy targets for common types of household victimization (facilitating factors : the absence of capable guardians). These are by no means the only models. There is also the Opportunity Model (Cohen, Kluegel and Land, 1981) and the Dutch Model (Steinmetz). The opportunity model incorporates elements from both the lifestyle and routine activity perspectives and posits that the risk of criminal victimization depends largely on people’s lifestyle and routine activities that bring them and/or their property into direct contact with potential offenders in the absence of capable guardians. The Dutch model was developed by Van Dijk and Steinmetz who identified three main factors: proximity, attractiveness and exposure, as important determinants of differential victimization risks. In an attempt to integrate the various models into a comprehensive scheme I used ten different components. There are : 65 112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS (1) Opportunities: which are closely linked to the characteristics of potential targets (persons, households, businesses) and to the activities and behavior of those targets. (2) Risk factors: particularly those related to socio-demographic characteristics such as age and gender, area of residence, absence of guardianship. Presence of alcohol and so forth. (3) Motivated offenders: this is because offenders, even non- professional ones, do not choose their victim/targets at random but select their victims/targets according to specific criteria. (4) Exposure : this is because exposure to potential offenders and to high-risk situations and environments enhances the risk of criminal victimization. (5) Associations: the homogeneity of the victim and offender populations suggests that differential association is as i m p o r t a n t t o c r i m i n a l victimization as it is to crime a n d d e l i n q u e n c y. T h u s individuals who are in close personal, social or professional c o n t a c t w i t h p o t e n t i a l delinquents and criminals run a greater chance of being victimized than those who are not. (6) Dangerous times and dangerous places: the risks of criminal victimization are not evenly distributed in time or space - there are dangerous times such as evenings, early night hours and on weekends. There are also dangerous places such as places of public entertainment where the risks of becoming a victim are higher than at work or at home. (7) Dangerous behaviors: this is because certain behaviors, such as provocation, increase the risk of violent victimization while o ther behav iors such as negligence and carelessness enhance the chances of property victimization. There are other dangerous behaviors that place those engaging in them in dangerous situations where their ability to defend and protect themselves against attacks is greatly reduced. (8) High-risk act ivi t ies : a lso increase the potential for victimization. Among such activities is the mutual pursuit of fun, as well as deviant and illegal activities. It is also well known that certain occupations such as prostitution carry with them a higher than average p o t e n t i a l f o r c r i m i n a l victimization. (9) Defensive/avoidance behaviors: as many risks of criminal victimization could be easily avoided, people’s attitudes to those risks can influence their chance of being victimized. It goes without saying that risk- t a k e r s a r e b o u n d t o b e victimized more often than risk- avoiders. It also means that fear of crime is an important factor in reducing victimization, since those who are fearful take more precautions against crime, even curtailing their day and night time activities, thus reducing their exposure and vulnerability to victimization. (10) Structural/cultural proneness: there is a positive correlation b e t w e e n p o w e r l e s s n e s s , deprivation and the frequency of 66 RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56 criminal victimization. Cultural s t i g m a t i z a t i o n a n d marginalization also enhances the risk of criminal victimization by designating certain groups as ‘fair game’ or as culturally legitimate victims. IV. NEW LEGISLATION There has been a flurry of victim legislation in recent years in a large number of countries. Following the adoption of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims, so-called Victims’ Charter of Rights or Victims’ Bills of Rights were passed by the legislative bodies in various societies. In the United States there was an attempt by the victim lobby to bring about a change to the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution to provide a legal basis for protecting the rights of crime victims, but it did not succeed. However, as Karmen (1995, p339) reports, since 1980, in almost every American state, legislatures passed various statutes acknowledging basic rights for victims: to be notified about and to participate in judicial proceedings, to promptly get back stolen property that was recovered , t o be pro tec ted f rom intimidation and harassment, and to receive restitution or compensation. Similar legislation was passed in Canada, Australia, Britain and some other European countries. Also in Europe, victims received a considerable boost from a number of important initiatives in the mid-1980s, including a Convention and two important Recommendations by the Council of Europe in 1983, 1985 and 1987 (on, respectively, state compensation, the position of the victim in the criminal justice system, and assistance to victims) (Maguire and Shapland, 1997, p212). While legislative initiatives and/or changes acknowledging victims rights were generally well received and encountered little or no opposition in parliaments and legislative assemblies, they are not without critics. In a seminal article entitled ‘The Wrongs of Victim’s Rights’ Lynn Henderson (1985, 1992) outlined many of the weaknesses inherent in the notion of victim’s rights and many of the dangers of victim’s rights legislation. One particular initiative that has received a great deal of criticism is ‘victim impact statements’. VIS, designed to allow victims some input in the court’s decision in their case (by providing a statement of the impact the victimization has had on their lives and their families), was singled out f or par t i cu lar c r i t i c i sm and encountered a lot of resistance from some quarters. In Australia, for example, after reviewing the arguments for and against victim impact statements, and after noting that many victims do not wish to be involved by giving evidence on the impact of offences on their lives, the Victorian Sentencing Committee concluded that the case against the introduction of VIS was more compelling than the case for them. Consequently, the Committee (1988) recommended that VIS not be adopted in Victoria (p.545) (Fattah, 1992, p416; see also Kelly and Erez, 1997, p236-7). In the US, the Supreme Court barred victim impact testimony in capital cases as violating the Eight Amendment of the American Constitution (Booth v. Maryland, 1987, and South Carolina v. Gathers, 1989) and then in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) the court upheld the use of victim impact testimony at the sentencing stage of a capital case (Kelly and Erez, 1997, p235- 6). 69 112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS are currently operating in many places. Overall, however, the two most important services provided to crime victims by vic t ims ass is tance programs are information and moral support. Despite enormous strides, a great deal remains to be done. Maguire and Pointing (1988, p37) note that victim support remains essentially a ‘grassroots’, low budget enterprise which relies upon the good will and hard work of volunteers. Shapland, Willmore and Duff (1985, p178) maintain that the major projects aimed at fulfilling victims’ needs were set up without regard to, or even investigation of, victims’ expressed needs. Rock (1990, p408) insists that victims’ interests were never the motivating or mobilizing force behind the new initiatives to help victims. Mawby and Gill (1987, p228) detected a right wing, law and order focus among victim support scheme volunteers. They expressed concerns that crime victims might become ‘the victims of political expediency’. While Elias (1993, p120) affirms that victims’ services really serve official needs, not victims’ needs. IX. CONCLUSION I have tried to present a bird’s eye view of recent developments in victimology, both theoretical and applied. Victimology has made enormous strides in the past twenty years. As a result of ongoing studies and research, we now possess a better knowledge than ever before of the phenomenon of victimization and of those who are occasionally, frequently or repeatedly victimized. We have adequate knowledge o f the d istr ibut ion o f victimization in time and space, of the dynamics of victimization, of the process of victim/target selection, and we have several theoretical models that are meant to explain the variations in victimization risks. More progress has even been achieved at the applied level. The victim movement has been very successful in sensitizing politicians, policy makers, the criminal justice system and the general public to the plight of crime victims. This has resulted in a flurry of legislation aimed at improving the sad lot of crime victims and at recognizing and implementing some basic rights for crime victims. Many steps have been taken to increase victim participation in criminal justice proceedings, to improve the treatment of victims by criminal justice personnel, and to allow the victims some input in criminal justice decisions. T h e r e h a v e b e e n m a n y o t h e r developments at the applied level. In many countries, state programs to compensate crime victims were set up. Restitution by the offender is being ordered in a growing number of cases, particularly in cases of economic crimes, white collar crime, and property victimization. A paradigm shift is slowly shaping up in criminal justice and the growing realization of the futility of punitive/retributive justice is facilitating the acceptance of the new paradigm of restorative justice. Restitution by the offender (to the victim) is increasingly becoming one of the primary conditions of diversion and of probation, both in the juvenile and adult systems. Programs for victim-offender mediation both in serious as well as in minor offences have been established in many countries and in most cases, making amends by repairing the harm done to the victim is one of the primary conditions of successful resolution of the conflict. Victim services, practically non-existent two decades ago, are becoming widespread not only in the wealthy countries of the industrialized world, but also in many developing countries. Assistance, in various forms, though mostly by well- 70 RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56 intentioned volunteers, is being offered to victims who desire it. Special assistance to certain categories of victims, such as victims of rape, child victims of sexual assault, and victims of family violence is now available in many places. Shelters for battered women and children have been opened to help victims avoid the repetition of victimization. Special counselling programs are also made available to the families of victims of homicide. It can thus be concluded that the achievements have been many and in some instances nothing short of spectacular. But the road remains long and paved with obstacles. A great deal remains to be done in order to meet the challenge to victim services in the next millennium.