This essay will discuss the ways in which gender influences patterns and processes of victimisation, identifying key victimological perspectives and typologies. It will consider key authors in the discipline and offer definitions of terms used. The essay will identify three issues which may impact on gendered victimisation before acknowledging the argument that radical victimology offers a more balanced approach to gendered victimisation than positivist or critical viewpoints.
The Sage Dictionary of Criminology (2013) defines victimisation as “…a term originally used to designate an area of study concerned to address the relationship between the victim and offender.” It should be noted however that since the late 1970s, the term has
…show more content…
In response to this movement, more support services were established for victims and measures were provided allowing victims greater involvement in the criminal justice process through a variety of means. This increased the need for research into the effects of crime on victims and how best their needs can be met.
Victimology draws together academics, activists, and policymakers from a variety of backgrounds and identifies three main victimological perspectives. Positivist victimology dates back to the emergence of victimology as a discipline in the 1940s. It looks to understand the process of victimisation and why people become victims of crime by examining the relationship between the victim and offender through an agency lens. Newburn (2013) identifies positivists such as Miers (1989) who see victimisation as being causal in nature and identify three key features:
• Identification of factors (individual or environmental) which produce patterns of victimisation.
• They focus mainly of interpersonal crimes of violence.
• The identification of victims who contribute to their own victimisation.
Positivist victimology has made a fundamental contribution to the study of victimology by ensuring the development and refinement of quantitative victimisation. It emphasises the role of the state, criminal justice agencies and the voluntary sector in responding to the needs of victims of crime. It is however
The criminal justice system is often criticized for re-victimizing victims of crime. What changes could the “system” make in order to minimize the re-victimizationexperience for victims of crime? Include examples from the criminal justice system, victim services and the
Theories of victimization essentially does something morally unpopular, by discussing how the victim caused their own victimization. Identified below are four theories of victimizations and examples of both strength and weakness of each. The goal for this paper is to briefly define at the four theories in order to grasp a better understanding of how individuals can lessen the opportunity to become a victim of a crime.
James Dignan’s concepts related to offenders, but mostly, related to victims. In his work “The victim in restorative justice” (2007), he argues that restorative justice “has a tendency to focus primarily on offenders and reconviction rates rather than on victim-related concerns” (p.309). Dignan goes on explaining that only after Braithwaite’s theory became more developed in Australia and New Zealand, the role of victims became clearer (Dignan, 2007). He says that there are beneficial distinctions between reciprocal benefits and one-sided benefits, depending on the interaction of the
The introduction of Nils Christie’s ‘Ideal victim’ theory (1986: 18) refers to victims of crime who can attain the status of a legitimate victim in the eyes of the public. Christie outlines a criteria which needs to be followed in order to gain this full status of a ‘legitimate victim’. Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ however is not the same as a legal victim and often real victims of crime deviate far from the concept of the ideal victim (Beck & Janbakhsh 2010). This therefore means that using Christie’s ideal victim theory to give someone the title of a legitimate victim is often detrimental. Male victims of sexual assault often deviate from the ‘ideal victim’ criteria set out by Christie, this means that when they encounter the justice system, their experiences are often marginalised or discounted entirely.
In the article, Abuser & Victim…Alike, the author argues that both the abuser and the victim share responsibility for their situations. This is only true if we choose to believe that such people voluntarily stay and allow the abuse to continue. In this sense, some truth might exist, however, we must remember the lack of control felt by each victim, as well as the emotional torment they experience that serves to trap them in their current situations. Alternatively, it would be difficult for the author to validate such a claim of shared responsibility if the abused were a child, disabled or mentally handicapped person. To a certain degree, the author himself contradicts his previous statement when he comments that “abusers have all the power”.
Society have an important role to play in the criminal justice system by being actively encouraged by community programs to report information about criminal activity. Crimes will usually be reported by a person who has knowledge of the crime, or has witnessed the crime. Citizens have the right to actively participate in the identification of a crime and exercise their
There is an idea that we have become a nation of victims. Some psychologist and most people have a don’t blame the victim mentality. While other psychologist look at the victims as being held accountable in some cases. Looking at the data and validity of these arguments, I believe that neither one should be used but instead we should shy away from the blame approach and develop a better understanding of the role victims play in violent situations
The term is often related with negative meanings of powerlessness, passivity, and some victims could be even perceived as inferiors. It is also important to note that when the word ‘victim’ is gendered, it is biased towards the female sex. Therefore, assumptions that females are passive and weak also coincide with the assumptions of victims. The alternative term ‘survivor’ is sometimes preferred, particularly by feminists, as it places emphasis on their strength and the severity of the experience with crime. In addition, groups may also be victims; usually involving a type of hate crime such as racism or homophobia.
The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal
“The key characteristics of positivist victimology can be described as, the identification of factors which contribute a non-random pattern of their own victimisation, a focus on interpersonal crimes of violence and a concern to identify victims who may have contributed to their own victimisation.”
The victim precipitation theory, also referred to as the victim precipitation approach, hypothesizes that victims of violent crimes and sexual assault put themselves in harm's way through their own actions. Criminal assailants and their victims are often referred to as penal couples. This concept views the victim as a participant in the crime because her presence provides the offender with the opportunity to commit the offense. (https://www.reference.com)
Since the beginning of the regime on criminal law, countries across the world have been focused on the rights of the accused and not those of victim. This is because of the consideration that the accused is alone and the government as well as the societal machinery is running against him.
From the beginning of time there have always been crimes against persons. People went by the saying “An eye for an eye”. You stole from your neighbor, they stole from you. You hurt someone, they hurt you. It wasn’t until the 1940’s people started taking a closer look into these crimes against person, which they later called victimology. This paper will look into victimology and their theories as we go back into the past and how victimology is now.
The study of victimology includes several different theories. These theories are victim-based, interactional, societal-based, and ecological. However, before on can begin discussing these theories, the history of the development of victimology theories need to be broached. Although victimology may lack a singular theoretical foundation based within the field itself, it can be said that the field as a whole represents the application of several different theoretical insights that were developed from other disciplines. The first of these other disciplines is criminology. From his work, Vold (1958) was able to provide a framework for categorizing theories that relate to victimology. Within this paper the discussion will begin with the early spiritual explanations, followed by
Victimisation is the process of learning the various ways that authority figures determine who is a victim, while also educating the person on how to become the victim. Secondary victimisation, also known as double victimisation refers to the way the state responds to victimisation. The states response has the potential to add further burdens on to the victim. Three main components of the criminal justice system will be focused on in this paper; these are enforcement, adjudication and punishment. This paper will identify why the criminal justice system tend to commit secondary victimisation towards the victims. It will also discuss the pains of victimisation and how secondary victimisation has the ability to amplify these pains. The paper will also identify reforms that have been put in place in order to minimise the occurrence of secondary victimisation.