Victimology a comprehensive approach pdf

Unit 1 Discussion Forum

For our Unit 1 discussion, please locate a criminal case from your own area. (TENNESSEE) Provide a synopsis of the case itself by identifying the key players and basic information (crime description..ect). Provide a discussion of the how the criminal justice system handled the victim(s) during the case itself. Was the system objective, did the trial play out in the media, and what services can you see needed for the victim? (Remember the accuser is not always the victims...)

crimevictims AN I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V I C T I M O L O G Y

E I G H T H E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 15 14 13 12

Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Eighth Edition Andrew Karmen

Publisher: Linda Ganster

Senior Acquiring Sponsoring Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Assistant Editor: Rachel McDonald

Editorial Assistant: Virginette Acacio

Associate Media Editor: Andy Yap

Senior Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Senior Marketing Communications Manager: Heather Baxley

Manufacturing Planner: Judy Inouye

Rights Acquisitions Specialist: Don Schlotman

Art and Cover Direction, Production Management, and Composition: PreMediaGlobal

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/ Tim Heraldo

Cover Image: © Image Source/Corbis

© 2013, 2010 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706.

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.

Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to permissionrequest@cengage.com.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012934422

ISBN-13: 978-1-133-04972-2

ISBN-10: 1-133-04972-9

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at: www.cengage.com/global.

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com.

To those whose suffering is needlessly intensified or prolonged because of

ignorance about the plight of crime victims or a lack of commitment to assist their

recovery.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

1 What Is Victimology?

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Plight of Crime Victims

Studying Victimization Scientifically

Why Objectivity Is Desirable

Victims or Offenders? Criminals as Victims Victims versus “Good Guys”

Sources of Bias

Victimology’s Undeserved “Bad Reputation”

The Origins of Victimology

Victimology Compared to Criminology

Parallels between Criminology and Victimology Differences and Boundaries The Interface with Other Disciplines Divisions within the Discipline Why Study Victimology and “Survivorology”?

What Victimologists Do

Step 1: Identify, Define, and Describe the Problem Step 2: Measure the True Dimensions of the Problem Step 3: Investigate How Victims Are Handled Step 4: Gather Evidence to Test Hypotheses

Summary Key Terms Defined in the Glossary

Questions for Discussion and Debate

Critical Thinking Questions

Suggested Research Projects

LEARNING OBJECTIVES To appreciate why objectivity is worth striving for

when examining the victims’ plight.

To become acquainted with the milestones in the history of victimology.

To discover why some people have a negative impression about what they call victimology.

To be able to recognize how victimology is similar to as well as different from criminology.

To become familiar with the steps to follow when conducting a victim-centered analysis.

1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

THE PLIGHT OF CRIME VICTIMS

The concept of a “victim” can be traced back to ancient societies. It was connected to the notion of sacrifice. In the original meaning of the term, a victim was a person or an animal put to death dur- ing a religious ceremony in order to appease some supernatural power or deity. Over the centuries, the word has picked up additional meanings. Now it commonly refers to individuals who suffer injuries, losses, or hardships for any reason. People can become victims of accidents, natural disasters, diseases, or social problems such as warfare, discrim- ination, political witch hunts, and other injustices. Crime victims are harmed by illegal acts.

Victimization is an asymmetrical interpersonal relationship that is abusive, painful, destructive, par- asitical, and unfair. While a crime is in progress, offenders temporarily force their victims to play roles (almost as if following a script) that mimic the dynamics between predator and prey, winner and loser, victor and vanquished, and even master and slave. Many types of victimization have been out- lawed over the centuries—specific oppressive and exploitative acts, like raping, robbing, and swindling. But not all types of hurtful relationships and deceitful practices are forbidden by law. It is permissible to overcharge a customer for an item that can be pur- chased for less elsewhere; or to underpay a worker who could receive higher wages for the same tasks at another place of employment; or impose exorbitant interest rates and hidden fees on borrowers who take out mortgages and use credit cards; or to deny food and shelter to the hungry and the homeless who can- not pay the required amount.

Victimology is the scientific study of the physi- cal, emotional, and financial harm people suffer because of illegal activities. Victimologists first and foremost investigate the victims’ plight: the impact of the injuries and losses inflicted by offenders on the people they target. In addition, victimologists carry out research into the public’s political, social, and economic reactions to the plight of victims. Vic- timologists also study how victims are handled by offi- cials and agencies within the criminal justice system, especially interactions with police officers, detectives,

prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, probation offi- cers, and members of parole boards.

Victimologists want to know whether and to what degree crime victims experience physical wounds, economic hardships, or emotional turmoil. One aim, of course, is to devise ways to help them recover. In the aftermath of the incident, are they frightened, terrorized, depressed, traumatized, infu- riated, or embittered? Also, victimologists want to find out how effectively the injured parties are being assisted, served, accommodated, rehabilitated, and educated to avoid further trouble. Victimologists are equally curious to determine the extent to which their plight is being ignored, neglected, belittled, manipulated, and commercially or politically exploited. Some individuals who sustain terrible injuries and devastating losses might be memorial- ized, honored, and even idolized, while others might be mocked, discredited, defamed, demeaned, socially stigmatized, and even condemned for bring- ing about their own misfortunes. Why is this so?

Victimologists also want to examine why some injured parties find their ordeals life transforming. Some become deeply alienated and withdraw from social relationships. They may become burdened by bouts of depression, sleep disorders, panic attacks, and stress-related illnesses. Their healing process may require overcoming feelings of helplessness, frustra- tion, and self-blame. Others might react to their fear and fury by seeking out fellow sufferers, building alli- ances, and discovering ways to exercise their “agency”—to assess their options andmakewise deci- sions, take advantage of opportunities, regain control of their lives, rebuild their self-confidence, and restore a sense of trust and security. Why do people experi- ence such a wide range of responses and what person- ality and social factors determine how a person reacts?

Direct or primary victims experience the criminal act and its consequences firsthand. Perhaps the term “survivors” is preferable to “victims” because it is more upbeat and empowering, empha- sizing the prospect of overcoming adversity. How- ever, the established usage of the term “survivors” is to refer to the close relatives of people killed by murderers. Survivors or indirect or secondary victims (such as family members and lovers) are

2 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

not immediately involved or physically injured in confrontations. But they might be burdened, even devastated, as the following example illustrates.

A teenager who shot and killed a high school athlete is about to be sentenced to prison. The distraught father of the murdered boy tells the judge, “We always hope our little guy will come through the door, and it will never be. We don’t have lives. We stay in every day. We can’t function.” (MacGowan, 2007)

First responders and rescue workers who race to crime scenes (such as police officers, forensic evi- dence technicians, paramedics, and firefighters) are exposed to emergencies and trauma on such a rou- tine basis that they also can be considered secondary or indirect victims who periodically might need emotional support themselves to prevent burnout (see Regehr and Bober, 2005).

Note that victimologists are social scientists and researchers, as opposed to practitioners who directly

assist injured parties to recover from their ordeals or who advocate on their behalf. Doctors, nurses, psy- chiatrists, psychologists, therapists, counselors, social workers, caseworkers, lawyers, clergy, and dedicated volunteers provide hands-on services, emotional support, and practical advice to their clients (see Williams, 2002). Victimologists step back and evalu- ate the effectiveness of these well-intentioned efforts by members of the healing and helping professions. Conversely, people who minister to those in distress can gain valuable insights and useful suggestions from the findings of studies carried out by victimologists.

The term victimology can mean different things to different people, and detectives can con- sider themselves “victimologists” too. In police work, the term victimology is applied to a type of background investigation. To homicide detectives, victimology is the process of reconstructing events and learning as much as possible about a person who was murdered in order to help figure out who the killer is (see Box 1.1).

B O X 1.1 What the Police Mean by the Term Victimology

When homicide squad detectives say they are engaged in victimology, they mean piecing together clues and leads from the dead person’s life in order to help discover the killer’s identity. Police investigators want to find out as much as possible about the deceased from interviews with the next of kin and eyewitnesses, e-mail messages, diaries, banking deposits and withdrawals, computer files, and records of telephone calls. Detectives look into the victim’s associates (by compiling lists of contacts, including friends, family members, acquaintances, rivals, and enemies), social back- ground (lifestyle, occupation, education, marital status, secret lovers), criminal history (any prior record of arrests, convictions, and incarcerations plus any cases in which the departed served as a complainant, plaintiff, or witness against others), financial situation (sources of income, debts owed, investments, and who is next in line to inherit any property), and health issues (drinking habits, substance abuse, and other problems). Autopsy findings shed light on the final meal, the presence of any traces of recent drinking and drug taking, the cause of death, and the approximate time interval when the fatal confrontation took place.

For example, if a drug dealer is found shot to death in an alley, detectives would construct a timeline of his last

known whereabouts and activities. What were his known hangouts (bars, clubs, parks, etc.)? Investigators would seek clues to determine whether he was killed by someone above him in the hierarchy of drug trafficking or someone below who worked for him or bought controlled substances from him. Was he recently embroiled in any disputes or court cases, and did he secretly serve as a confidential informant? Who had a motive and an opportunity to slay him? (NYPD homicide detectives, 2008). When police discovered the scattered remains of a number of young women in a stretch of deserted sand dunes near a popular beach, their victimo- logical inquiries soon established a common thread: that they all had been prostitutes apparently slain by a serial killer (Baker, 2010).

Clearly, whereas victimologists want to uncover trends, patterns, and regularities that hold true for many injured parties in general, police investigators seek to establish in great detail everything that can be unearthed about the life and death of a particular person. “Forensic victimology” in this very pragmatic and immediate sense is undertaken to increase the odds of solving a case, apprehending a suspect, and testifying in court on behalf of a person who is no longer able to pursue justice on his or her own (see Petherick and Turvey, 2008).

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 3

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

STUDYING VICTIMIZATION SCIENTIFICALLY

The suffering of victims and survivors always has been a popular theme for artists and writers to inter- pret and for political and religious leaders to address. But this long and rich tradition embodies what might be categorized as the subjective approach to the plight of victims, since issues are approached from the standpoint of morality, ethics, philosophy, personal- ized reactions, and intense emotions. Victimologists examine these same topics and incidents from a fresh, new angle: a social science perspective.Objectivity is the hallmark of any social scientific endeavor. Scientific objectivity requires that the observer try to be fair, open-minded, evenhanded, dispassionate, neutral, and unbiased. Objectivity means not taking sides, not showing favoritism, not allowing personal prejudices to sidetrack analyses, not permitting emotion to cloud reasoning, and not letting the dominant views of the times dictate conclusions and recommendations.

Prescriptions to remain disinterested and unin- volved are easier to abide by when the incidents under scrutiny happened long ago and far away. It is much harder to maintain social distance when investigating the plight of real people right here and right now. These scientific tenets are extremely difficult to live up to when the subject matter—the depredations inflicted by lawbreakers—draws upon widely held beliefs about good and evil, right and wrong, justice and unfairness. Most offenders show such callous disregard and depraved indifference toward the human beings they have cold- bloodedly targeted as depersonalized objects that it is difficult to avoid being caught up and swept away by strong emotional currents. Consider how natural it is to identify with those on the receiving end of violent attacks, feel empathy and sympathy toward them, and to bristle with hostility toward the aggressors, as in the following real-life cases (all involving college students):

A 22-year-old student government president is carjacked and kidnapped by two armed young men, 21 and 17 years old, and forced to withdraw money

from an ATM. Next, they drive their hostage to a remote location in the woods, molest her, and decide to kill her since she could identify them. She pleads for her life and urges them to pray with her. Instead, one shoots her four times. But she still can move and talk, so he blasts her with a shotgun to finish her off. The two assailants are caught and convicted of murder. (Velliquette, 2011)

■ ■ ■

A 22-year-old college student who aspires to become a police officer works in a bakery. But he is gunned down in his home by a gang of young men who barge in and mistake him for his look-alike younger brother, who had gotten them in trouble with the authorities. “He was one of the best boys you will ever find” his mother laments. (Bultman and Jaccarino, 2010)

■ ■ ■

A 24-year-old woman disappears while hiking with her dog on the Appalachian Trail on New Year’s Day. Assuming that she is lost, a search- and-rescue crew combs the area. Her parents arrive at the scene and at first are optimistic, describing her as a feisty and gregarious person who could handle herself outdoors in chilly weather. A week later, the authorities stumble upon some bloody clothing and her dog wandering around a parking lot. When the police arrest a 61-year-old drifter who has her wallet and college identification card, he quickly confesses to avoid the death penalty, leads detectives to her decapitated corpse, and admits he held her captive for several days before slaying her. (Goodman, 2008)

■ ■ ■

A classroom door swings open, and a mentally deranged undergraduate barges in and shoots the professor who is lecturing by the blackboard. Then, starting with those in the front rows, the silent and expressionless gunman methodically starts firing away at the horrified students, who hit the floor and turn over desks to shield themselves. “There were a couple of screams, but for the most part it was eerily silent, other than the gunfire,” a student reports. As the

4 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

mass murderer wanders off, another student recalls, “I told people that were still up and conscious, ‘Just be quiet because we don’t want him to think there are people in here because he’ll come back in.’” Indeed, he tries to return to resume the slaughter, but a wounded student keeps the door wedged shut. Still determined to reenter into the classroom, the deranged undergrad fires repeatedly at the door. When he eventually stalks off, the survivors call 911 on their cell phones and holler for help out the window. The attacker is later found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, in another classroom, alongside the bodies of some of his other victims. (Hernandez, 2007)

Doesn’t basic human decency demand that observers identify with the wounded, downtrodden, and underdogs and condemn predatory behavior? Why would victimologists even consider maintain- ing objectivity to be an indispensable prerequisite of each and every scientific analysis?

WHY OBJECTIVITY IS DESIRABLE

At first glance, the importance of reserving judg- ments, refraining from jumping to conclusions, and resisting the urge to side with those who are in pain might not be self-evident. An angry, gut reaction might be to ask, “What kind of person would try to remain dispassionate in the midst of intense suffering? What is wrong with championing the interests of people who have been harmed by unjust and illegal actions? Why is neutrality a worthwhile starting point in any analysis?”

The simple and direct answer to the question “Why shouldn’t victimologists be openly and squarely pro-victim?” is that, unlike the situations described in the examples above, on many occa- sions this formula provides no real guidance. So when is a person worthy of sympathy and support? Most people would consider an individual who sus- tained injuries and losses to be an innocent victim only when the following conditions apply (what sociologists would call the ideal type or positive

stereotype): the person who suffered harm was weaker in comparison to the apparent aggressor and was acting virtuously (or at least was engaged in conventional activities and was not looking for trouble or breaking any laws); and the wrongdoer was a complete stranger whose behavior obviously was illegal and unprovoked, and was not a member of a powerful group protected by vested interests (such as police officers or prison guards). In other words, the status of being a legitimate or bona fide victim is socially constructed and conferred (see Christie, 1986; and Dignan, 2005).

Victims or Offenders?

But real-life confrontations do not consistently gen- erate simple clear-cut cases that neatly fall into the dichotomies of good and evil, and innocence and guilt. Not all victims were weak, defenseless, unsuspecting “lambs” who, through tragic or ironic circumstances or just plain bad luck, were pounced upon by cunning, vicious “wolves.” In some instances, observers may have reasonable doubts and honest disagreements over which party in a conflict should be labeled the victim and which should be stigmatized as the villain. These complicated situations dramatize the need for impartiality when untangling convoluted rela- tionships in order to make a rational argument and a sound legal determination that one person should be arrested, prosecuted, and punished, and the other defended, supported, and assisted. Unlike the black-and-white examples presented above, many messy incidents reported in the news and processed by the courts embody “shades of gray.” Clashes frequently take place between two people who, to varying degrees, are both victims, or both wrongdoers. Consider the fol- lowing accounts of several iconic, highly publi- cized, and hotly debated cases from 2012 as well as past decades that illustrate just how difficult it can be to try to establish exactly who seriously misbehaved and who acted appropriately:

A 17 year-old boy wearing a hooded sweatshirt on a rainy night is on the phone with his girlfriend as he walks home from a store after buying a can of

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 5

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

soda and some candy. The captain of a neighbor- hood watch group on patrol in a gated community of townhouses that has recently suffered a rash of break-ins drives by, spots him, and calls the police, voicing his suspicions that, “He is up to no good…”. The 911 dispatcher tells the 28 year-old man, who had taken some criminal justice courses at a community college, not to follow and confront the youth. But he does, and after he gets out of his SUV, they exchange words and become embroiled in a fistfight. Neighbors hear someone screaming and pleading for help, and call 911. When officers arrive, they find the man bloodied and the teenager dead. The man claims that he was the actual vic- tim: that the taller and heavier teenager attacked him; that he was being severely beaten; and that he had a right to stand his ground and fire his licensed handgun in self-defense. When the news spreads that the local police department has decided not to arrest the armed crime watch volunteer, demonstra- tions erupt across the country, demanding the arrest of the man as an overzealous police wannabe who acted as a vigilante. Protesters also condemn pro- visions of the state’s “stand your ground” law for causing needless bloodshed, and denounce the pos- sibility of racial profiling (the slain teenager was black and the shooter has a white father and an Hispanic mother). The local police chief steps down, the county prosecutor and the Justice Department re-open the investigation, and President Obama identifies with the unarmed youth who was tragically and needlessly killed, telling journalists that, “If I had a son, he’d look like {the victim}.” (Robertson and Alvarez, 2012)

■ ■ ■

Two brothers, 18 and 21, barge in upon their wealthy parents, who are at home in their mansion watching television and eating ice cream. The sons slay their father and mother with a salvo of 15 shotgun blasts. The police search for the killers for six months before the two sons concede that they did it. On trial for first-degree murder and facing possible execution, the sons give emotionally compelling (but uncorroborated) testimony describing how their father sexually molested and emotionally abused them

when they were little boys. The brothers contend they acted in self-defense, believing that their parents were about to murder them to keep the alleged incestuous acts a family secret. The prosecution argues that the boys killed their parents in order to get their hands on their $14 million inheritance (they had quickly spent $700,000 on luxury cars, condos, and fashionable clothing before they were arrested). The jurors become deadlocked over whether to find them guilty of murder or only of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, and the judge declares a mistrial. In the second trial, the prosecution ridicules their abuse defense. They are convicted of premedi- tated murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. (Berns, 1994; Mydans, 1994; Associated Press, 1996a)

■ ■ ■

An ex-Marine who works as a bouncer in a bar wakes up in his bed and discovers to his horror that his wife has sliced off his penis with a kitchen knife. Arrested for “malicious wounding,” she tells the police that she mutilated him because earlier that evening in a drunken stupor he forced himself upon her. He is put on trial for marital sexual abuse but is acquitted by a jury that does not believe her testimony about a history of beatings, involuntary rough sex, and other humiliations. When she is indicted on felony charges (ironically, by the same prosecutor) for the bloody bedroom assault, many people rally to her side. To her supporters, she has undercut the debilitating stereotype of female pas- sivity; she literally disarmed him with a single stroke and threw the symbol of male sexual domi- nance out the window. To her detractors, she is a master at manipulation, publicly playing the role of sobbing, sympathetic victim to divert attention from her act of rage against a sleeping husband who had lost his sexual interest in her. Facing up to 20 years in prison, she declines to plead guilty to a lesser charge and demands her day in court. The jury accepts her defense—that she was a traumatized battered wife, deeply depressed, beset by flashbacks, and susceptible to “irresistible impulses” because of years of cruelty and abuse—and finds her not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. After 45 days

6 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

under observation in a mental hospital, she is released. Soon afterwards, the couple divorces, and then they each take financial advantage of all the international media coverage, sensationalism, titil- lation, voyeurism, and sexual politics surrounding their deeply troubled relationship. (Margolick, 1994; Sachs, 1994)

In both of the classic cases that were resolved by the criminal justice system in ways that caused quite an uproar and still provoke many heated discussions, the persons officially designated as the victims by the police and prosecutors—the dead parents, the slashed husband—arguably could be considered by certain standards as wrongdoers who “got what was coming to them.” Indeed, they were viewed just that way by substantial segments of the public and by some jurors. The defendants who got in trouble with the law—the shotgun-toting brothers, the knife-wielding wife—insisted that they should not be portrayed as criminals. On the contrary, they contended that they actually were the genuine vic- tims who should not be punished: sons sexually molested by their father, a battered woman who was subjected to marital rape.

When different interpretations of the facts lead to sharply divergent conclusions about who is actually the guilty party and who is the injured party, any knee-jerk, antioffender, pro-victim impulses provide no guidance for action. The con- fusion inherent in the unrealistically simplistic labels of 100 percent criminal and 100 percent vic- tim underscores the need for objectivity when try- ing to figure out who is primarily responsible for whatever lawbreaking took place. Clearly, the dynamics between victims and victimizers need to be sorted out in an evenhanded and open- minded manner, not only by victimologists but also by police officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries. In rare instances, even the authorities can’t make up their minds, as this unresolved incident demonstrates:

A pizza parlor chef and a mob henchman become embroiled in a knife fight that spills out on to a city street. They stab and slash each other and wind up in different hospitals. The police arrest both of the

injured parties on charges of attempted murder as well as other offenses. However, each of the comba- tants refuses to testify in front of a grand jury against his adversary, fearing self-incrimination if he has to explain his motives and actions. The district attor- ney’s office declines to grant immunity from prose- cution to either of the two parties because detectives cannot figure out who was the attacker and who fought back in self-defense. As a result, neither is indicted, and a judge dismisses all the charges pending from the melee. Both wounded men, and the lawyers representing them, walk out of court pleased with the outcome—that no one will get in trouble for an assault with a deadly weapon. (Robbins, 2011)

Criminals as Victims

To further complicatematters, impartiality is called for when the injured party clearly turns out to be an undeniable lawbreaker. To put it bluntly, predators prey upon each other as well as upon innocent mem- bers of the general public. Some assaults and slayings surely can be characterized as “criminal-on-criminal.” Researchers (see Singer, 1981; Fattah, 1990) noted long ago that people who routinely engage in illegal activities are more likely to get hurt than their law- abiding counterparts. When an organized crime syn- dicate “takes out a contract” on a rival faction’s chief- tain, the gangster who was “whacked” in a “mob rubout” was not an upstanding citizen struck down by an act of randomly directed violence. Similarly, when a turf battle erupts between drug dealers and one vanquishes the other, it must be remembered that the loser aspired to be the victor. When youth gangs feudwith each other by carrying out “drive-by” shootings, the young members who get gunned down are casualties of their own brand of retaliatory “street justice.” Hustlers, con men, high-stakes gam- blers, pimps, prostitutes, fences, swindlers, smugglers, traffickers, and others living life in the fast lane of the underworld often get hurt because they enter into conflicts with volatile persons known to be armed and dangerous. What could it possibly mean to be pro-victim in these rather common cases in which lawbreakers harm other wrongdoers? The

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

designations “victim” and “offender” are not always at opposite poles but sometimes can be pictured as over- lapping categories somewhere near the middle of a continuum bounded by complete innocence and full legal responsibility.

Of course, it is possible for people engaged in illicit activities to be genuine victims deserving of protection and redress through the courts. For example, prostitutes who trade sexual favors for money are frequently beaten by sadistic johns, robbed of their earnings by exploitative pimps (see Boyer and James, 1983; Brents and Hausbeck, 2005), and occasionally targeted by serial killers. The harms they suffer are more serious than the offenses they commit (see Coston, 2004). In bar- room brawls, individuals who pick fights might wind up badly beaten or even killed by their intended targets who turn the tables, gain the upper hand, and respond to their attackers’ bellig- erent initiatives with unreasonable, excessive force, beyond what the law permits in self-defense. In penal institutions, convicts become victims entitled to press charges when they are assaulted, gang raped, or robbed by other, more vicious inmates.

Next, consider the possibility of the intergen- erational transmission of misusing force—a cycle of violence over time that transforms a victim into a victimizer (see Fagan, Piper, and Cheng, 1987). For example, a group of picked-upon students might band together to ambush their bullying tormentors; a battered wife might launch a vengeful surprise attack against her brutal husband; or a child sub- jected to periodic beatings might grow up to parent his sons in the same excessively punitive way he was raised. A study that tracked the fortunes of boys and girls known to have been physically and sexually abused over a follow-up period of several decades concluded that being harmed at an early age sub- stantially increased the odds of future delinquency and violent criminality (Widom and Maxfield, 2001). Another longitudinal study of molested males estimated that although most did not become pedophiles, more than 10 percent grew up to become sexual aggressors and exploiters (Skuse et al., 2003). Similarly, the results of a survey of con- victs revealed that they were much more likely to

have been abused physically or sexually as children than their law-abiding counterparts (Harlow, 1999). About half of all inmates in state prisons told interviewers that they had been shot at in the past, and more than a fifth had been wounded by gunfire (Harlow, 2001). Violence begets violence, to the extent that those who suffer today may be inclined to inflict pain on others tomorrow.

Even more confusing are the situations of certain groups of people who continuously switch roles as they lead their twisted daily lives. For instance, desper- ate heroin addicts are repeatedly subjected to con- sumer fraud (dealers constantly cheat them by selling heavily adulterated packets of this forbidden powder). Nevertheless, after being swindled over and over again by their suppliers, they routinely go out and steal other people’s property to raise the cash that pays for their habits (see Kelly, 1983). Similarly, teenage girls who engage in prostitution are arrested by the police and sent to juvenile court as delinquents, in accordance with the law. But reformers picture them as sexually abused by their pimps and by johns who actually com- mit statutory rape upon these underage sex workers. Are they victims who need help rather than offenders who deserve punishment (see Kristof, 2011)? To further complicate matters, offenders can morph into victims right under the noses of the authorities. For example, when delinquents are thrown in with older and tougher inmates in adult jails, these teenagers face grave risks of being physically and sexually assaulted (“New study,” 2008).

Victims versus “Good Guys”

Striving for objectivity is important for another reason. Victimologists do not limit their studies to the clashes between victims and offenders. They are very inter- ested in the social reaction to victimization—how others respond to these crimes. Crime victims can and do become embroiled in conflicts with persons and groups besides the perpetrators who have directly inflicted physical wounds and economic losses. Injured parties might nurse grievances against journalists reporting about their cases; police officers and detec- tives investigating their complaints; prosecutors osten- sibly representing them in court; defense attorneys

8 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

working on behalf of the accused; juries and judges deciding how to resolve their cases; probation, parole, and corrections officers supervising convicts who harmed them; lawyers handling their lawsuits in civil court; governmental agencies and legislative bodies shaping their legal rights; social movements either speaking on their behalf or opposing their wishes; and businesses viewing them as eager customers for security products and services. Impartiality helps social scientists to understand why friction can develop in these situations, and how to find solutions if these rela- tionships become antagonistic.

First consider the situation in which some vic- tims are pitted against others. This can arise in the aftermath of a Ponzi scheme collapse, when it comes to parceling out whatever funds remain to the many investors who were defrauded. Those investors who bought in and cashed out earlier made money at the expense of those who joined in right before the pyramid scheme was uncovered (see Henriques, 2010). Which victims are truly the “good guys,” and which are more deserving of inac- curate depictions than others? Objectivity is needed to resolve this victim versus victim infighting.

Often, victims of highly publicized crimes are outraged by the way the news media portrays them. Rather than side with the injured parties or with the journalists covering their cases, shouldn’t a vic- timologist adopt the stance of a detached and disin- terested observer who investigates these charges of inaccurate depictions by carrying out a content analysis of press coverage in high-profile cases?

Isn’t objectivity indispensablewhen two compet- ing approaches both claim to be pro-victim? Consider two alternative ways of handling wife beating. One policy insists that a battered woman should be permit- ted to remain in control of “her” case and ultimately decide if she wants to continue to press charges against her intimate partner (husband/live-in lover) who was arrested for assaulting her. The other policy mandates that the prosecution of the arrestee should go forward on the basis of the available evidence (police officer testimony, photos of bruises, eyewitness accounts, hospital records, 911 recordings), even if the injured party wants to drop the charges (either because she fears reprisals or seeks rapprochement). Only an

impartial analysis of scientifically gathered evidence can determine which of these two ostensibly “pro- victim” approaches best serves the long-term interests of different groups of domestic violence victims (see O’Sullivan et al., 2007).

The above examples illustrated how important it is for researchers to remain neutral at the outset of a study. Now consider the dilemmas many everyday people face because of their competing loyalties: their desire to back crime victims in their struggle for justice versus their other commitments. The fol- lowing examples illustrate how objectivity and impartiality are sorely needed whenever pro-victim impulses must be balanced against other priorities and allegiances—for instance, support for the police, the U.S. military, and the pro-life movement.

Conflict arises whenever angry victims or their next of kin raise explosive charges against law enforce- ment agencies for failing to “protect and serve” them at the same time that highly respected police officials deny these charges and issue rebuttals. For example, a child held captive by her intoxicated father was killed by a hail of bullets from a SWAT team during an attempted rescue. The mother blamed the police more than her hostage-taking husband for the tragic outcome, triggering an investigation by outside agen- cies (see Winton, 2005; and Rubin, 2008). In another divisive incident, a defendant overpowered a court officer and used the service revolver to kill innocent bystanders. The families of the deceased faulted the department’s lax security practices and inadequate training for the slaying of their loved ones (Dewan, 2005). In cases like these, would a per- son who is both ardently pro-victim and pro-police agree with the distraught relatives that law enforce- ment agencies were too reluctant to take responsibility for procedural mistakes that cost innocent lives?

Consider another controversy involving law enforcement. After two unarmed auxiliary police officers were gunned down by a deranged killer, their grieving parents applied to a fund that provides financial compensation for line-of-duty-deaths, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, ostensibly a pro-victim branch of govern- ment. When their request was rejected on the grounds that the two murdered auxiliaries

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 9

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

technically were not peace officers (with the author- ity to make arrests), the federal agency’s decision was denounced by the parents, the police commissioner, and newspaper editorial boards (Lueck, 2008). Where would people who are both pro-victim (and appreciative of the work of police auxiliaries) as well as staunch backers of the Department of Jus- tice stand in this controversy over appropriate eligi- bility standards for the compensation fund for officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice?

In the midst of a global war on terrorism, deep respect for the armed forces of the United States and its leadership abounds in Congress as well as among the citizenry. But what happens when people who are zealously pro-military learn of charges that the Depart- ment of Defense has not done enough over the past decade to assist victims and prosecute offenders in cases of wife beating on military bases (Houppert, 2005); and of sexual assaults by servicemen against women in uniform, from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghani- stan to theU.S. Air Force Academy? These accusations from female soldiers, plus concerns voiced by elected officials, have caused the Pentagon to investigate domestic violence and sexual misconduct in the mili- tary and to issue sweeping policy reforms 18 times over 16 years (see Office of the Inspector General, 2003; Corbett, 2007; Herbert, 2009; Myers, 2009; and Parker, 2011). Similar complaints have been directed at the highly respected Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA was faulted in a report by the Government Accountability Office in 2011 for failing to report and investigate many charges of sexual assaults at mental health treatment facilities lodged by patients who were female members of the armed forces (Walsh, 2011). Which side in this ongoing controversy has solid evidence to support its claims?

People who are “pro-choice” would agree that a girl or woman who has been compelled to submit to a sexual assault that results in a pregnancy should not have to bear the rapist’s child. But those who want to minimize the suffering of these females and yet are also passionately opposed to abortions might find themselves torn between their competing loy- alties. The controversy sharpens when it comes to policies surrounding “Plan B, the morning-after pill” and “ella,” a newer emergency contraceptive

pill that works in disrupting fertilization for up to five days. Lawmakers and political interest groups are divided over whether these over-the-counter pills also should be available without a prescription to a teenage girl 16 and younger. Some are most concerned about giving a green light to premarital sex while others worry about the fate of a girl who dreads getting pregnant from acquaintance rape or incest but also does not wish to inform her parents or report the offense to the authorities (Harris, 2010; and Calmes and Harris, 2011). Another set of difficult choices confronts those who identify themselves as being pro-victim but also “pro-life”: a law passed in 2011 in South Dakota compels girls and women seeking abortions—including victims of incest and rape—to first attend a counseling ses- sion intended to discourage them from exercising their right to choose to terminate their desperately unwanted pregnancy (Editors, New York Times, 2011a). Evaluating the impact of these controversial policies requires an open-minded and evenhanded approach to the arguments advanced by both sides.

SOURCES OF BIAS

To sum up the arguments presented in earlier sec- tions, when choosing projects to research and when gathering and interpreting data, victimologists must put aside their personal political orientations toward criminal justice policies (such as conservatism or liber- alism); their allegiances to causes (such as preserving civil liberties or advancing women’s rights or outlaw- ing abortion); and any positive or negative feelings toward entire groups (such as being pro-police or hos- tile to gun owners). Advocacy, whether for or against some policy or practice, should be kept separate from assessing the facts or drawing conclusions based on evidence. Scientific skepticism—not self-interest or preconceived notions—must prevail when evalu- ating whether victims’ rights legislation, prevention strategies, antitheft hardware, and recovery programs genuinely work or are ineffective or even counter- productive in reaching their stated goals. Expert opin- ion, in reports, in court testimony, or in the classroom must be based on facts, not faith. Research, policy

10 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

analyses, and program evaluations must tell the whole truth, no matter who is disappointed or insulted.

Three types of biases undermine the ability of any social scientists (not just victimologists) to achieve objectivity and draw conclusions based on solid evidence (see Myrdal, 1944). The first may arise from personal experiences, taking the form of individual preferences and prejudices. For example, victimologists who have been personally harmed in some way (by a burglary, robbery, or rape, for exam- ple) might become so sensitized to the plight of their fellow victims that they can see issues only from the victim’s point of view. Conversely, those who have never been through such an ordeal might be unable to truly grasp what the injured parties must endure. In either case, the victimologist may develop a bias, whether it be oversensitivity and overidentifi- cation or insensitivity and lack of identification.

A second type of bias derives from the legacy of the discipline itself. The language, concepts, theo- ries, and research priorities can reflect the collective preferences and priorities of its founders and their followers. For instance, it is widely acknowledged that the pioneers in this field of study introduced a victim-blaming orientation into the new discipline, but over the decades the tide has decisively turned. Today, the vast majority of victimologists make no secret of their opposite commitments: not to find fault with those who are suffering but rather to devise more effective means of aid, support, and recovery.

Although subtle, a third type of bias can be traced back to the mood of the times. Victimologists, like all other members of a society, are influenced by their social environment. The events that shape public opinion during different periods of time can also affect scientific thought. During the 1960s and early 1970s, for example,many people demanded that the govern- ment devise ways to help victims get back on their feet financially, medically, and emotionally. This insis- tence about expanding the social safety net to cushion the blows inflicted not only by job losses and illness but also the depredations of offenders reflected the spirit of egalitarianism and mutual aid of this stage in American history and inspired a great deal of research and policy advocacy. But these ambitious goals have

been voiced less often ever since the 1980s, when the themes of “self-reliance,” “reduce social spending by government,” and “cut taxes” gained popularity. This emphasis on individuals taking responsibility for their own well-being as opposed to holding the social- economic system accountable for its shortcomings and failings (especially high rates of unemployment, poverty, and crime) has become the dominant ideol- ogy since the “financial meltdown” of 2008 and the onset of the “Great Recession.” Consequently, research projects and proposals about government- funded victim assistance programs have shifted their focus to matters such as “seed money,” “sunset provi- sions” (to phase out efforts that don’t rapidly produce results), cost effectiveness, demonstration projects, and the feasibility of self-help, privately financed, or faith- based charitable alternatives.

Clearly, inquiries into how victims suffer at the hands of criminals as well as other groups such as journalists and criminal justice officials is unavoidably a value-laden pursuit that arouses intense passions and sharply dissenting views. As a result, some have argued that objectivity is an impossible and unrealistic goal that should be aban- doned in favor of a forthright affirmation of values and allegiances. They say that victimologists (and other social scientists) should acknowledge their biases at the outset to alert their audiences to the slant that their analyses and policy recommenda- tions will take. Others argue that objectivity is worth striving for because subjectivity thwarts attempts to accurately describe, understand, and explain what is happening, why it came about, and how conditions can be improved.

For the purposes of a textbook, the best course of action is to present all sides of controversial issues. Nev- ertheless, space limitations impose hard choices. This book focuses almost entirely on victims of street crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, kidnapping, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft). There are many other categories of lawbreaking: crimes in the “suites” involving a betrayal of trust and an abuse of power by high government officials against their rivals or to the detriment of the general public and by corporate executives who can illegally inflict massive losses and injuries upon their company’s workers, customers,

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 11

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

stock owners, or competitors.White-collar crimes such as embezzlement by employees against their employers or fraud by citizens against government programs also impose much greater financial costs than street crimes. Organized rackets run by mobsters (drug smuggling, gun trafficking, counterfeiting of documents and cur- rency, gambling, extortion) generatemillions of dollars, undermine everyday life, and stimulate official corrup- tion (bribes to look the other way). Crimes without complainants—victimless activities to some, vice to others—are controversial because the social reaction and criminal justice response might be worse than the original deviant behavior involving transactions between consenting adults (such as prostitution, illegal wagering, and street-level drug selling and buying). Clearly these other categories of crimes are as serious and merit attention from scholars, law enforcement agencies, and concerned citizens. But they are not the types of lawless deeds that come to mind when people talk about “the crime problem” or express fears about being harmed. Street crime scares the public, preoccu- pies the media, keeps police departments busy, and captures the notice of politicians. These conventional, ordinary, depressingly familiar, and all-too-common predatory acts have tangible, visible, readily identifiable victims who are directly affected and immediately aware of their injuries and losses.

In contrast, in the other categories of crime, especially white-collar crime and crime in the suites, the deleterious consequences are experienced by abstractions (such as “a competitive economy” or “national security”), impersonal entities (such as the U.S. Treasury or multinational corporations), or vaguely defined collectivities (such as voters, tax- payers, investors, shareholders, or consumers). It is difficult to grasp precisely “who” has suffered in these cases, and it is nearly impossible to describe or measure the background characteristics or reactions of the injured parties. It is extremely tough to establish in court specifically who the flesh-and-blood victims are in cases of drug smug- gling, money laundering, insurance scams, false advertising, bribe-taking, software piracy, counter- feiting of trademarked goods, dumping of toxic wastes, insider trading, electoral fraud, illegal cam- paign contributions, and income tax evasion. But

people hurt by street crimes can be easily identified, observed, contacted, interviewed, studied, coun- seled, assisted legally, and treated medically. As a result, a wealth of statistical data has accumulated about their wounds, losses, and emotional reactions. For these reasons, victims of interpersonal violence and theft will be the primary focus of attention and concern throughout this text, even though many of the illegal activities cited above inflict much more severe social and economic damage (see Naim, 2005). But note that this decision immediately introduces a bias into this introduction to the field of victimology, one that reflects the experiences of authors of articles and textbooks, the collective pri- orities of the discipline’s founders and most prolific researchers, and the mood of the times!

Victimology’s Undeserved “Bad Reputation”

As the previous sections demonstrated, objectivity is desirable within victimology. Ironically, many out- siders do not approach the field of victimology in an objective way. They seem hostile to it on a gut level because they believe it is hopelessly biased. Some prominent and insightful people who ought to know better use the word “victimology” as an epithet spit out through clenched teeth. Not very long after the term entered mainstream culture, victimology (undeservedly!) became a “dirty word.” This disturbing trend emerged during the 1990s and unfortunately is becoming even more entrenched and pronounced during the twenty- first century. Some dramatic illustrations of how victimology has been bad-mouthed in the media as muddled thinking or even denounced as a con- temptible point of view appear in Box 1.2.

What were these commentators thinking when they issued these sweeping denunciations of what they labeled “victimology”? Why is this relatively new academic discipline being singled out for such harsh criticisms?

Evidently, those who condemn victimology are railing at something other than scientific research focused on people harmed by criminals. The mistake these commentators are making is parallel to the improper usage of the phrase “sociological forces”

12 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

rather than “social forces,” and “psychological prob- lems” instead of “mental problems.” Victimology is just one of many “-ologies” (including such narrowly focused fields of study as penology or suicidology, or such broad disciplines as sociology and psychology). The suffix “-ology” merely means “the study of.” If the phrase “the objective study of crime victims” is substituted for “victimology” in the excerpts quoted above, the sentences make no sense. Victimology, sociology, and psychology are disciplines that adopt a certain approach to their subject matter or a method of analysis that maintains a particular focus, but they do not impose a partisan point of view or yield a set of predictably biased conclusions.

It appears that what these strident denuncia- tions are deriding is a victimization-centered orien- tation which can be categorized as the ideology of victimism (see Sykes, 1992). An ideology is a coherent, integrated set of beliefs that shapes inter- pretations and leads to political action. Victimism is the outlook of people who share a sense of common victimhood. Individuals who accept this outlook believe that they gain insight from an understanding of history: of how their fellow group members (such as women, homosexuals, or racial and religious minorities) have been seriously “wronged” by another group (to put it mildly; viciously slaugh- tered would be a better way to phrase it in many historical cases!) or held back and kept down by unfair social, economic, or political institutions built upon oppressive and exploitative roles and relationships.

For example, in a well-known speech in 1964 (right before Congress passed civil rights legislation officially dismantling segregation), Malcolm X, the fiery spokesman for the black nationalist movement, proclaimed (see Breitman, 1966) “I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism … victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy… I’m speaking as a victim of this American dream system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.” Today, African-American activists combating the lingering embodiments of the old racist double standards within criminal justice might stress the legacy of

centuries of government-sanctioned slavery, fol- lowed by decades of crippling “Jim Crow” segrega- tion (based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that promulgated the dishonest doctrine of “separate but equal”) that was enforced by lynch mobs and Klan terrorism.

Similarly, a leading figure in the women’s libera- tion movement of the late 1960s analyzed “sexual politics” in this way (Millet, 1970): “Oppressed groups have been denied education, economic inde- pendence, the power of office, representation, an image of dignity and self-respect, equality of status, and recognition as human beings. Throughout history women have been consistently denied all of these, and their denial today,while attenuated and partial, is nev- ertheless consistent.” Feminists struggling against stub- born vestiges of sexism within criminal justice might point out how in the past rape victims felt as if they were on trial; how battered women’s pleas for help were ignored by the men at the helm of the criminal justice system; and how women were unable to serve on juries, and were strongly discouraged from seeking various careers such as becoming a police officer, law- yer, or judge. Staunch critics of current conditions often connect the dots by tracing the roots of today’s social problems back through centuries of systematic injustices. But the commentators cited in Box 1.2 below claim that adopting this kind of victimist orien- tation leads to an unhealthy preoccupation with the past that impedes progress.

This debate over who or what is to blame for per- sisting injustices is part of an ongoing political battle for the hearts and minds of the American people—a con- tinuing ideological struggle that is often categorized as “identity politics” which is part of the “culture wars.” Unfortunately, victimology has become confused with victimism and as a result has been caught up in the cross- fire between partisans on both sides. But victimology, as an “-ology” and not an “-ism,” is an objective, neutral, open-minded, and evenhanded scientific endeavor that does not take sides, play favorites, or speak with just one voice in these political debates. So there is no reason to condemn the whole scholarly enterprise of victimology and dismiss it as flawed, distorted, or slanted, as the com- mentators quoted in Box 1.2 did. To put it bluntly, victimology has received a bum rap by those who

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 13

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

mistakenly mock it and equate it with victimism. Read on and this confusionwill be dispelled. Victimologywill take shape as a challenging, meaningful, balanced, en- lightening, constructive, and relevant field of study that focuses on a very old problem from a fresh, new angle.

THE ORIGINS OF VICTIMOLOGY

The beginnings of the academic discipline of victim- ology can be traced back to several articles, books, and research projects initiated by criminologists

during the 1940s and 1950s. Until that time, crimin- ology’s attention was focused entirely on those who violated the law: who they were, why they engaged in illegal activities, how they were handled by the criminal justice system, whether they should be incarcerated, and how they might be rehabilitated. Eventually, perhaps through the process of elimina- tion, several criminologists searching for solutions to the crime problem were drawn to—or stumbled upon—the important role played by victims.

These criminologists considered victims to be wor- thy of serious study primarily because they were the

B O X 1.2 Some Striking Examples of “Victimology Bashing”

The context and then the statement denouncing “victimology”

Concerning male/female relations:

■ During a nationally televised interview, a critic of con- temporary feminism (Paglia, 1993) declared, “I hate victimology. I despise a victim-centered view of the universe. Do not teach young women that their heritage is nothing but victimization.”

■ A collection of letters written to the editors of the New York Times (1996, p. E8) was published under the headline “What women want is a lot less victimology.”

■ A reviewer (Harrop, 2003) of a book about the difficulties facing boys wrote, “The art of victimology requires three easy steps: (1) Identify a group suffering real or perceived injustices. (2) Exaggerate the problem. (3) Blame the prob- lem on a group you don’t like. Conservatives have long con- demned the “victimology industry” as a racket, especially when practiced by women and minorities. As it happens, conservatives also play the game, and very well indeed.… The latest victimized group seems to be American boys.”

■ A political analyst subtitled her provocative article about an alleged “Campus Rape Myth” as “The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university- approved sex toys” (MacDonald, 2008a).

Concerning heterosexual/homosexual relations:

■ In a newspaper opinion piece about the controversy surrounding homosexuals serving in the military, the author (Sullivan, 1993, p. A21) observed, “The effect that ending the ban could have on the gay community is

to embolden the forces of responsibility and integration and weaken the impulses of victimology and despair.… A defeat would send a signal to a gay community at a crossroads between hopeful integration and a new relapse into the victimology of the ghetto.”

Concerning race and ethnic relations:

■ An author of a book about race relations called a well- known reverend and civil rights activist a “professional victimologist” (see Dreher, 2001).

■ A former governor of Colorado (Lamm, 2004) warned that a plot to “destroy America” through immigration and multiculturalism would include the following strat- egy: “establish the cult of victimology … start a griev- ance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

■ A newspaper columnist and political activist (Kuhner, 2011) lamented: “Victimology and racial set-asides dominate large swathes of American life, from university admissions and government bureaucracies to big business and construction.”

Concerning international relations:

■ A former Soviet intelligence officer (Pacepa, 2005) denounced the United Nations as a breeding ground for “a virulent strain of hatred for America, grown from the bacteria of Communism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, jingoism, and victimology.”

■ A prominent commentator (Brooks, 2006a) wrote about the public’s perception of the Middle East: “What these Americans see is fanatical violence, a rampant culture of

14 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

completely overlooked half of the dyad (pair). The first use in English of the term victimology to refer to the scientific study of people harmed by criminals appeared in a book about murderers written by a psychiatrist (Wertham, 1949). The first scholars to consider them- selves victimologists examined the presumed vulnerabil- itiesof certainkindsofpeople, suchas theveryyoung, the very old, recent immigrants, and the mentally disturbed (Von Hentig, 1948); the kinds of people, in terms of factors such as age and sex, whose actions contributed to their own violent deaths (Wolfgang, 1958); and the resistance put up by rape victims (Mendelsohn, 1940).

BeniaminMendelsohn, a defense attorney in Romania, wrote and spoke during the 1940s and 1950s about how victims were ignored, disrespected, and abused within the criminal justice process. He proposed ways to help and protect themby creating victim assistance clinics and special research institutes, andhe campaigned for victims’ rights. For his foresight, hemight be deemed “the father of victimology” (Dussich, 2009b).

During the 1960s, as the problem of street crime intensified, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice argued that criminologists ought to pay more

victimology and grievance, a tendency by many Arabs to blame anyone but themselves for the problems they create.”

■ A reviewer (Anderson, 2008) of a book about the war on terrorism wrote: “The Left’s victimology now sickens [the author].”

■ The Secretary of Defense in both the Bush and Obama administrations (Gates, 2009) told members of the armed forces: “I think most of our families don’t regard themselves as victims and don’t appreciate sometimes the victimology piece. They are very proud of the service of their soldiers overseas …”

Concerning “Culture Wars”:

■ In his syndicated column, a leading conservative parti- san (Buckley, 1994, p. 30a) condemned the thinking of the 1960s Woodstock generation: “The countercultural music is the perfect accompaniment for the culture of sexual self-indulgence, of exhibitionism, of crime and illegitimacy, and ethnic rancor and victimology.”

Concerning courtroom strategies:

■ A news magazine columnist (Leo, 2002) took a swipe at certain lawsuits: “Yes, everybody is a victim now, but some breakthroughs in victimology are more noteworthy than others. The year’s best example was the trio of supersize teens who sued McDonald’s, claiming the burger chain made them fat by enticing them to eat its meals nearly every day for five years.”

■ In a critique of several jury verdicts that found defen- dants “not guilty,” a news magazine commentator (Leo,

1994) complained, “We are deep into the era of the abuse excuse. The doctrine of victimology—claiming victim sta- tus means you are not responsible for your actions—is beginning to warp the legal system.… The irony of this seems to escape victimologists. A movement that began with the slogan, ‘Don’t blame the victim’ now strives to blame murder victims for their own deaths.”

Concerning academia and life on college campuses:

■ A columnist (Seebach, 1999, p. 2B) berated liberal pro- fessors for producing college grads whom employers would reject because the students were “experts only in victimology or oppression studies.”

■ A political analyst (MacDonald, 2007) interpreted the selection of a new university president as evidence that “Harvard will now be the leader in politically correct victimology.”

■ Arguing that resentment against highly educated can- didates might be going too far during the 2008 presi- dential campaign, a political analyst (MacDonald, 2008c) agreed with her allies: “I am as depressed as anyone by the university’s descent into ignorant narcis- sism and victimology over the last 30 years.”

Concerning everyday life:

■ A Pulitzer Prize–winning conservative commentator (Will, 1998, p. 42) titled his syndicated column oppos- ing the Clinton administration’s antismoking campaign as “President feeds the culture of victimology.”

■ One journalist (Parker, 1999, p. B10) even insisted that “Americans are fed up with twentieth-century victimology.”

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 15

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

attention to victims (thereby inspiring some to become victimologists). The Commission’s Task Force on Assessment (1967, p. 80) concluded:

One of the most neglected subjects in the study of crime is its victims: the persons, households, and businesses that bear the brunt of crime in the United States. Both the part the victim can play in the criminal act and the part he could have played in preventing it are often overlooked. If it could be determined with sufficient specificity that people or businesses with certain charac- teristics are more likely than others to be crime victims, and that crime is more likely to occur in some places rather than in others, efforts to control and prevent crime would be more pro- ductive. Then the public could be told where and when the risks of crime are greatest. Measures such as preventive police patrol and installation of burglar alarms and special locks could then be pursued more efficiently and effectively. Individuals could then substitute objective estimation of risk for the general apprehensiveness that today restricts—perhaps unnecessarily and at best haphazardly—their enjoyment of parks and their freedom of movement on the streets after dark.

In this call for a shift in focus, the Commission’s Task Force stressed the potential practical benefits: More crimes could be prevented and more criminals caught, unrealistic fears could be calmed and unwar- ranted complacency dispelled, and needless expen- ditures could be eliminated or reduced. These ambitious goals have not yet been attained. Other goals not cited by the commission that have been added over the years include reducing suffering, making the criminal justice system more responsive, and restoring victims to the financial condition they were in before the crime occurred.

During the 1960s and 1970s, criminologists, refor- mers, and political activists argued persuasively that offenders themselves were in some sense “victims” too—of grinding poverty, dysfunctional families, fail- ing school systems, rundown housing, job shortages, discrimination, police brutality, and other social pro- blems (for example, see Ryan, 1971). In reaction to

this sympathetic characterization of lawbreakers, many people asked, “But what about the real flesh- and-blood individuals that they preyed upon who were innocent, law-abiding, and vulnerable? What can be done to ease their suffering?” While grappling with that question, reformers came to recognize that persons targeted by criminals were being systematically abandoned to their fates, and that institutionalized neglect had prevailed for too long. A consensus began to emerge that people harmed by illegal acts deserved better treatment. Plans for financial assistance were the focusof earlydiscussions; campaigns for enhanced rights within the legal system soon followed.

By the 1970s, victimology had become a recog- nized field of study with its own national and inter- national professional organizations, conferences, and journals. By the end of the 1990s, students were taking courses in victimology at more than 240 colleges and universities (see Box 1.3 below).

VICTIMOLOGY COMPARED TO CRIMINOLOGY

Victimology is an interdisciplinary field that benefits from the contributions of sociologists, psychologists, social workers, political scientists, doctors, nurses, crim- inal justice officials, lawyers, spiritual leaders, and other professionals, volunteers, advocates, and activists. But academically and organizationally, victimology is best conceived of as an area of specialization within crimi- nology, on par with other fields of intensive study, such as delinquency, drug abuse, and penology. All these subdisciplines merit elective courses and text- books of their own in colleges and graduate programs. In other words, criminology is the older parent disci- pline and victimology is the recent offshoot.

Criminology can be defined as encompassing the scientific study of illegal activities, offenders, their victims, criminal law and the justice system, and societal reactions to the crime problem.

Parallels between Criminology and Victimology

Even though it is a rapidly evolving subdiscipline, victimology parallels its parent, criminology, in

16 CHAPT ER 1

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

B O X 1.3 Highlights in the Brief History of Victimology and Victim Assistance

Year Event

1924 Edwin Sutherland writes the first criminology text- book that includes a short discussion of crime victims.

1941 Hans Von Hentig publishes an article focusing on the interaction between victims and criminals.

1947 Benijamin Mendelsohn coins the term victimology in an article written in French.

1957 In Great Britain, Margery Fry proposes legislation that would authorize the government to reimburse victims for their losses.

1958 Marvin Wolfgang studies the circumstances sur- rounding the deaths of murder victims, and discovers that some contributed to their own demise.

1964 The U.S. Congress holds hearings on the plight of crime victims but rejects legislative proposals to cover their losses.

1965 California becomes the first U.S. state to set up a special fund to repay victims for crime inflicted expenses.

1966 The first nationwide victimization survey to find out about crimes that were not reported to the police is carried out, and its findings are considered so enlightening that it becomes an annual undertaking.

1967 A presidential commission recommends that crimin- ologists study victims.

1968 Stephen Schafer writes the first textbook about victims.

Early 1970s

The first sex crime squads and rape crisis centers are established.

1972 The federal government initiates a yearly National Crime Victimization Survey of the general public to uncover firsthand information about street crimes.

1973 The first international conference of victimologists is convened in Jerusalem.

1974 The first shelter for battered women is set up in Minnesota. The first victim advocates in law enforcement are assigned by the police department in Fort Lauder- dale, Florida. The first lawyers serving as advocates for victims in legal proceedings are made available on the South East Side of Chicago.

Mid- 1970s

Prosecutors initiate victim–witness assistance programs.

1976 The first scholarly journal devoted to victimology begins publication. A National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) is established to bring together service providers working for government agencies and nonprofits. The probation department in Fresno, California, is the first to instruct its officers to interview victims to find out how the crime impacted them physically, emotionally, socially, and financially.

Year Event

1977 New York State enacts the first “Son of Sam” law to prevent offenders from profiting from telling about their exploits.

1979 The World Society of Victimology is founded.

1981 President Reagan proclaims Victims’ Rights Week every April.

1982 Congress passes a Victim and Witness Protection Act that suggests standards for fair treatment of victims within the federal court system.

1983 The President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime recommends changes in the Constitution and in federal and state laws to guarantee victims’ rights.

1984 Congress passes the Victims of Crime Act, which provides federal subsidies to state victim compensa- tion and assistance programs.

1985 The United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopts a resolution that urges all members to respect and extend the rights of victims of crimes and of abuses of power.

1986 Victims’ rights activists seek the passage of consti- tutional amendments on the federal and state levels guaranteeing victims’ rights.

1987 The U.S. Department of Justice opens a National Victims Resource Center in Rockville, Maryland, to serve as a clearinghouse for information.

1990 Congress passes the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act.

1994 Congress passes the Violence Against Women Act.

2003 The American Society of Victimology is set up to encourage collaboration between academicians, researchers, and practitioners.

2004 Congress enacts the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which pledges fair treatment and opportunities for input in federal court proceedings.

2005 A bipartisan group of 18 members of Congress forms a Victim’s Rights Caucus.

2007 VictimLaw, a user-friendly website set up by the National Center for Victims of Crime, provides a searchable database about state legislation concern- ing restitution and compensation for financial losses.

2008 The National Museum of Crime & Punishment opens in Washington, D.C., with exhibits that dramatize the plights of victims.

2011 The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the federal government’s Department of Justice (DOJ) launches a website, www.crimesolutions.org, that evaluates the effectiveness of programs on behalf of crime victims.

SOURCE: Galaway and Hudson, 1981; Schneider, 1982; Lamborn, 1985; NationalOrganizationforVictimAssistance(NOVA),1989,1995;Dussich,2003; Walker, 2003; Garlock, 2007; Rothstein, 2008; and Dussich, 2009a; 2009b.

17

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

many ways. Criminologists ask why certain indivi- duals become involved in lawbreaking while others do not. Their studies concentrate on the offenders’ backgrounds and motives in order to uncover the root causes of their misbehavior. Victimologists ask why some individuals, households, and entities (such as banks) are targeted while others are not. Research projects aim to discover the sources of vulnerability to criminal attack and the reasons why some victims might act carelessly, behave recklessly, or even insti- gate others to assault them. Criminologists recognize that most people occasionally break certain laws (especially during adolescence) but are otherwise law-abiding; only some who engage in delinquent acts graduate to become hardcore offenders and career criminals. Victimologists realize that anyone can suffer the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time but wonder why certain individuals are targeted over and over again.

Although the law holds offenders personally accountable for their illegal conduct, criminologists explore how social, economic, and political condi- tions generate criminal activity. Similarly, although certain victims might be accused of sharing some degree of responsibility with their offenders for the outbreak of specific incidents, victimologists examine personality traits, agents of socialization, and cultural imperatives that compel some people to take chances and put their lives in danger, while others seem to accept their fate. Just as aggressive criminal behavior can be learned, victims may have been taught to lead high-risk lifestyles or even to play their subordinate roles.