Victimology and the Criminal Justice System PDF

Victimology and the Criminal Justice System \[C02A0a\] Inhoudsopgave {#inhoudsopgave.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ============= [1. Introduction 2](#introduction) [2. Victimology: history and perspectives 5](#victimology-history-and-perspectives) [International legal perspectives 6](#international-legal...

Victimology and the Criminal Justice System \[C02A0a\] Inhoudsopgave {#inhoudsopgave.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ============= [1. Introduction 2](#introduction) [2. Victimology: history and perspectives 5](#victimology-history-and-perspectives) [International legal perspectives 6](#international-legal-perspectives) [3. Who is the victim? 14](#who-is-the-victim) [3.1. Defining the term victim 15](#defining-the-term-victim) [3.2. Defining the term victim, some and more complexities 15](#defining-the-term-victim-some-and-more-complexities) [3.3. Primary, secondary and tertiary victims 18](#primary-secondary-and-tertiary-victims) [3.4. Primary, secondary and tertiary victimization 18](#primary-secondary-and-tertiary-victimization) [3.5. The word victim 19](#the-word-victim) [3.6. Different perspectives on victimization in academic research: the case of IPV 20](#different-perspectives-on-victimization-in-academic-research-the-case-of-ipv) [4. Becoming a victim: risk and labelling 23](#becoming-a-victim-risk-and-labelling) [4.1. What are the crime data sources? 23](#what-are-the-crime-data-sources) [4.2. What do we know statistically about victimization? 26](#what-do-we-know-statistically-about-victimization) [4.3. How can we the explain the occurrence of victimization? 28](#how-can-we-the-explain-the-occurrence-of-victimization) [4.4. What do we know about fear of crime and punitiveness? 30](#what-do-we-know-about-fear-of-crime-and-punitiveness) [4.5. What do we know about the risk of victimization of children? 31](#what-do-we-know-about-the-risk-of-victimization-of-children) [5. The consequences of victimisation 33](#the-consequences-of-victimisation) [5.1. Some general thoughts about consequences of victimization 33](#some-general-thoughts-about-consequences-of-victimization) [5.2. Traumatic stress a key lens for emotional and psychological consequences 33](#traumatic-stress-a-key-lens-for-emotional-and-psychological-consequences) [5.3. Consequences related to different forms of victimization: 37](#consequences-related-to-different-forms-of-victimization) [5.4. Victimisation by sexual violence 38](#victimisation-by-sexual-violence) [5.5. Being bereaved by murder 41](#being-bereaved-by-murder) [5.6. Victimisation by cybercrime 42](#victimisation-by-cybercrime) [5.7. Victimisation by hate crime 44](#victimisation-by-hate-crime) [5.8. Victimisation by terrorism 46](#victimisation-by-terrorism) [6. Reacting to victimisation 48](#reacting-to-victimisation) [7. Victims in action 61](#victims-in-action) [7.1. Help-seeking behavior 61](#help-seeking-behavior) [7.2. Modelling reporting to the authorities 63](#modelling-reporting-to-the-authorities) [7.3. Actions within the criminal justice process 64](#actions-within-the-criminal-justice-process) [7.4. Actions towards the offender 68](#actions-towards-the-offender) [7.5. Collective actions 72](#collective-actions) [8. Victim policy: restorative justice 74](#victim-policy-restorative-justice) [8.1. What is restorative justice? 74](#what-is-restorative-justice) [8.2. What do you think is the value of restorative justice for victims? 80](#what-do-you-think-is-the-value-of-restorative-justice-for-victims) [8.3. For which victims do you think restorative justice might be particularly valuable? What are risks? 81](#for-which-victims-do-you-think-restorative-justice-might-be-particularly-valuable-what-are-risks) [9. Victim policy: criminal justice 82](#victim-policy-criminal-justice) [9.1. The contents of the Directive and the Recommendation how this relates to victimological knowledge 82](#the-contents-of-the-directive-and-the-recommendation-how-this-relates-to-victimological-knowledge) [9.2. A brief history of the involvement of European international bodies with the subject of victims of crime 89](#a-brief-history-of-the-involvement-of-european-international-bodies-with-the-subject-of-victims-of-crime) [10. Victim policy: criminal justice; support and care 97](#victim-policy-criminal-justice-support-and-care) [10.1. Victims provisions/ rights in three relationships 97](#victims-provisions-rights-in-three-relationships) [10.2. Relationship A: victim -- state "Administrative law" 97](#relationship-a-victim-state-administrative-law) [10.3. Relationship B: offender -- state "Criminal law" 100](#relationship-b-offender-state-criminal-law) [10.4. Relationship C: victim -- offender "Civil law/ restorative justice" 103](#section-1) Description of evaluation: Written Type of questions: Open questions The evaluation (20p) of Victimology and the Criminal Justice System is based on the following summarised component: The exam (20p) tests the accurate knowledge and insight, the application skills to real situations and the critical-reflective ability.\ Various components of the course must be mutually integrated. If a student does not pass in the first examination period, a resit exam is provided in the second examination period.\ If a student does not pass in the second examination period, the entire course has to be retaken. *  Knowledge*: historical and theoretical developments in victimology, with a focus on the role of victimology towards criminology in general; empirical research findings (taking into account research methodology) on the phenomenon of victimisation, victims\' needs and the effectiveness of victim assistance programmes; the institutional and legal frameworks which are relevant for victims, in particular in the context of criminal justice; policy developments at both national and international level. The process of acquiring knowledge is characterised by an optimal integration of historical, theoretical, empirical, practice and policy oriented aspects, and the contextualisation of developments in an international environment.\ \ **  ***Skills*: studying the subject matter in an autonomous way according to the concept of guided self-study: analysing literature, applying victim related provisions to concrete cases, confronting the subject matter with personal knowledge and life situation, and with current developments in society; further consulting different sources in an independent way; developing on-going knowledge.\ \ **  ***Attitudes*: adopting a critical attitude vis-à-vis the phenomenon of crime, victimisation and societal/judicial interventions; recognising personal attitudes and feelings with regard to the subject matter. 1. Introduction --------------- **Who are we?** - Georgina Colomé - Teaching assistant/ junior researcher - Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) - E-mail: - Antony Pemberton - Professor, Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) - Senior researcher, Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, NSCR, Amsterdam - E-mail: **Some more introduction** - Political science (MA), Criminology/ Criminal Justice (PhD) - Practitioner/ policy maker at Slachtofferhulp Nederland before becoming an academic - Still involved in policy both in the Netherlands and in Europe - Teaching in Leuven: - Victimology - Restorative Justice - Narrative criminology - Research line on Restorative Justice and Victimology - European Forum for Restorative Justice - Centre for Religion, Ethics and Detention **Education activities** - Live weekly lectures, at **14.00 on Monday!** - Preferably as interactive as possible, do not hold back with your thoughts and ideas, questions, anything that it is or was unclear! - Submission of questions and ideas, preferably via e-mail - Lectures available online - Additional material online - For instance online questionnaire, poll, small assignment to aid studying, interview à check Toledo! If not di **Outline of the course** - Within the programme: part of the *criminology* programme - However here the focus is on crime and the reaction to crime from the perspective of the *victim* - Explicitly *interdisciplinary*: legal, sociological, psychological and cultural perspectives, as well as the interaction between these perspectives; - *Complementary* to other introduction courses **Goals** - Acquiring *knowledge of and insight* into victimological perspectives - Development of *competencies*: applying social science theories to societal phenomena, approaching societal phenomena from *different perspectives* - Developing a *critical attitude* to criminological-victimological phenomena **Victimology: history and perspectives** Victimology: since when? A: 33 AD B: 1885 C: 1948 D: 1985 - See also Brison 1993 (Toledo) - Illustrating some of the main themes of this course - While listening to the excerpt, try to think what strikes you as important - After the segment, discuss with your neighbour - I will give some of my own thoughts after our discussion **Except 1 (p.2)** - What struck you? - Write down your main thoughts about the excerpt - Discuss with your neighbour **What struck me?** - Importance of different feelings and different emotions - Which ones did Brison mention? What other ones might be important in the aftermath of victimisation? - The importance of victims' experiences with criminal justice actors - The manner in which this influences and interacts with the primary experience of victimisation - The way others react to victimisation: - The importance of explanations and sense-making: people try to look for an explanation - The difference/ conflict between the reaction of the social surroundings and the victim's experiences - Importance of the way people experience their own victimization - "Phenomenology" of victimization: victims attempt to find meaning, trying to understand it **Excerpt 2 (p.3 and 10)** - What struck you? - Write down your main thoughts about the excerpt - Discuss with your neighbour **What struck me?** - Societal reaction to victimisation - You must have done something to deserve it - 'Just world theory': I believe that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Someone must have done something to deserve it - Victimization statistics - How do we know that only one in ten rapes are reported? The International Crime Victim Survey - Jan van Dijk (emeritus professor INTERVICT and former policy maker in the Netherlands and the UN) - First survey in 1966 in US, from 1972 onwards nationally - In 1973 in the Netherlands, 1989 ICVS - Winner of the Stockholm-prize 2012 (sort of Nobelprize for criminology!) **What struck me (2)** - The conflicting demands of viewing victimisation: - Sympathy for the victim, distress and aversion for the situation - Recognition of the need for relief and restoration, but lack of practical abilities to do so **Excerpt 3 (p.7)** - What struck you? - Write down your main thoughts about the excerpt - Discuss with your neighbour **Hans Von Hentig** - German professor - Fled to the US from Nazi-Germany - 'The criminal and his victim' from 1948 - Seen to be the founder of victimology **'Victim precipitation'** - Von Hentig: 'why in history has everyone always focused on the guy with the big stick, the hero, the activist, to the neglect of the poor slob who is at the end of the stick, the victim, the passivist -- or maybe, the poor slob (in bandages) isn't all that much of a passivist victim -- maybe he asked for it?' - Role of the victim in the event of crime - Positive: how can (potential) victims protect themselves, see also crime prevention. - Negative: should we blame the victim for his or her conduct? **Who is the more likely victim?**  kleinzoon Ook voor personen: de charmante dame rechts is een 75-jarige inwoner van Renkum, ze bridget graag, woont met haar man in een huis bij de bossen. En rechts is haar kleinzoon: (toegegeven het is inderdaad de hoes van de eerste Arctic Monkeys LP, dus wat hierna volgt is niet juist) studeert sociale wetenschappen in Utrecht, woont op kamers, gaat drie of vier keer in de week uit. **Stereotypes**  What's in a name? Een oorlogsmisdaad of collateral damage? En wat doet dat met de slachtofferervaring? Neither of these persons appear to us as victims, just powerful, famous,... **Victims in the criminal justice system** - The good: - Procedural justice - Victims rights - Restorative justice - The bad: - Victim blaming - Secondary victimisation 2. Victimology: history and perspectives ---------------------------------------- At the end of this lecture you: - Have a clear sense of the history of victimology - Have an overview of the main perspectives in victimology **Different perspectives on victimology** - International legal perspectives? - Criminological perspectives - Social psychological perspectives - Justice perspectives - Clinical psychological perspectives - Critical perspectives - Narrative perspectives during this course, bit of history to give us an idea what all the topics above are. **The crime of genocide** Germany, onezee, crime against Armenia by the young Turkish. They got away with a whole population. Shadowing the crime of genocide. The solution was legal genocide but Hitler said not only killing a population but also making the world forget those people actually excisted. Who today remembers the Armenians? **1948: Lemkin: the crime of genocide (Sands, 2016)** - Genocide convention (adopted in 1948) - International crimes/ Crimes against humanity" - So bad, part of crime of genocide to destroy a group **1947: If this is a man** - Primo Levi: If this is a man, aka Survival in Auschwitz - See also Jean Amery At the minds limits - Experiences with the Shoah as important victimological work ### International legal perspectives - Truth commissions most well-known Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa - International Criminal Tribunals of Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s - Rome-statute 1998 - Supranational victimology/ criminology: very recent most work in this area does not refer to victimology: more interest in victimology came Well worth checking out - - **Coined the word victimology? Benjamin Mendelsohn** - Rumanian Lawyer - Coined the word "victimology" #### Hans Von Hentig - German professor - Fled to the US from Nazi-Germany - 'The criminal and his victim' from 1948 - Seen to be the founder of victimology **'Victim precipitation'** - Von Hentigs' theory - 'why in history has everyone always focused on the guy with the big stick, the hero, the activist, to the neglect of the poor slob who is at the end of the stick, the victim, the passivist -- or maybe, the poor slob (in bandages) isn't all that much of a passivist victim -- maybe he asked for it?' - Idea that a crime consists of a perpetrator and a victim who also might have done something. - Role of the victim in the event of crime - Positive: how can (potential) victims protect themselves, see also crime prevention. - Negative: should we blame the victim for his or her conduct? **Examples of the negative and the positive** - Amir: Patterns in Forcible Rape (1973) - Emphasized the role of victims of rape in their victimization - Victimological risk analysis: who runs the most risk of being victimized? **Other main issues in criminological victimology** - Fear of crime - Impact of victimization on punitiveness - Repeat victimization - How do we know these things? - Answer: crime victim surveys - What is the main purpose of crime victim surveys? - Answer: measure the volume (prevalence and incidence) of crime, including the "dark number" **Limitations of official statistics** - **The dark number** - Not all crimes are reported or detected by police - Not all reported crimes are duly recorded - Many crimes rely on victim reports - How many crimes remain hidden/how many victims of crime are there??? - **Accuracy of official statistics** - Differences in/changes in definitions - Depend on willingness/ ability to register - Can be manipulated police - Difficulties for cross-country comparison and understanding trends - Lack of variables for further study **All problems solved?** - **Well no....** - **Much depends on the questions asked** (how they are formed) - **For instance: prevalence of sexual violence in Belgium** - Pieters et al 2010 lifetime prevalence 5,6% women and 0,8% man - Schapanksy et al 2021 lifetime prevalence 81% women and 47% man (other study gives super different percentages) - Why? - Schapansky et al use BSQ: behavior specific questions: "has anyone kissed you against your will?/has anyone undressed you againstyour will? **Criminological perspectives** - Starting point for criminological perspectives on victimisation - How much crime is there, and what role do victims play in crime? - Largely relatively routine forms of crime - A key issue: - Difficulties in defining criminal victimization (who gets to define it?) **Classic experiments in social psychology** WOII 2 experiments - Stanford prison experiment: he made a mok prison and divided people into two groups (gards and inmates). He wanted to study the roles of the experiments. He had to shut down the experiments because the violence of the gards. - External factors of roles in the way people behave - Roberts cave experiment: roles in group obedians leads to bad outcomes **Classic experiments in social psychology and the relationship to history** - Milgram experiment: people played educators and every time when they made a mistake and gave them an electric shock with someone next to them in a white coat telling them it was important for the experiment, a lot of volts. - Ordinary men: ended up 50.000 jewes **Classic experiments in social psychology** - Milgram Obedience Study - Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment - Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment - See also Darley's Bystander effect all explained why the WOII happened. We might all do it. You assign a person to a rol vb. Gard. - Rooted in the desire to try to explain the occurrences in the Second World War: - The idea of Ordinary Men is important here: to what extent do social forces and roles end up defining who is a killer and who is a victim? **Some specific relevant issues in social psychology** - Lerner and Simmons (1968): the belief in a just world - Thibaut and Walker (1975): the role of procedures in getting just outcomes - Baumeister and colleagues (1990): the magnitude gap between "offenders and victims" - Haslam (2006): Dehumanization - Noor et al (2012): Competitive victimhood ------------------------------------------ -------------- ------------------- **"victim"** **"perpetrator"** Happy end 29% 52% Negative consequences 73% 39% Actions of the offender where senseless 55% 12% The perpetrator meant to harm the victim 31% 7% Victims reaction is exagerated 16% 49% Victims anger is justified 94% 54% ------------------------------------------ -------------- ------------------- **Baumeister, Stillwell and Wortman** The magnitude gap between "offenders and victims" - Simple assignment to a group of psychology students. Asked people to write 2 stories, one about a situation where u made someone angry (perpetrator) and second story was where someone made u angry (victim) - They found a pattern in these stories (see table) - Read as "who's most likely to say that..." - Offender most likely to write a story about a happy end ***'The Moralization Gap' (Baumeister, 1997)*** - Differences in the moral tone: - Perpetrator sees justifications, victims see actions as wholly unjustified - Differences in impact - Perpetrator minimizes magnitude, sees impact as reparable, victim emphasizes severity and irreparable nature of crime - Differences in the role of the context - Perpetrator attributes the event to context-factors, victim attributes the event to the perpetrator - Differences in time frame - Perpetrator sees pre-cursors and aftermath limited in time-frame, victims' narrative extends through time What you did to me is always worse than I did to you. ***The "perpetrator's" narrative (S. Pinker, 2011, The better angels of our nature)*** *The story starts with the event that caused the damage. At that moment I had good cause to do what I did. Maybe I reacted to a provocation. And likely I reacted like anyone would in that situation. It is a bit unfair to blame me for what happened. The damage was limited and can be easily repaired. It is time for us to move on, let sleeping dogs lie.* exactly the same thing happened but the understanding of a situation is different. ***The victim's narrative (Pinker, 2011)*** *The story begins long before the harmful act, which was just the latest incident in a long history of mistreatment. The perpetrator's actions were incoherent, senseless, incomprehensible. Either that or he was an abnormal sadist, motivated only be a desire to see me suffer, though I was completely innocent. The harm he did is grievous and irreparable, with effects that will last forever. None of us should ever forget it.* Two problems with the study: No way to know whether the participants were telling the truth, and no way to know whether ***The 'moralization gap' (Pinker, 2011)*** - Differences in narratives form part of the explanation for cycles of revenge - Even when retaliation is exactly balanced, its story will not be - See also "The Myth of Pure Evil" viewing offenders through the "perpetrator's narrative" #### Social psychological perspectives - Starting point for social psychological perspectives on victimisation - Processes of victimization are largely determined by social forces and social roles - This also applies to our reactions to victimization - The goal is to capture the universal causal determinants of processes of perpetration and victimization - A key issue: - Experimental approaches have considerable methodological strengths but also have their own drawbacks - Do these approaches pay too little attention to context, history, and identity? #### Justice perspectives - Key starting point: victims are also part to a crime occurring - Adversarial versus inquisitorial systems: do you know the differences? **Adversarial versus inquisitorial systems** - Adversarial: (two sides vb. Prosecutors and judge) - No role for "civil parties" in criminal trials (geen burgerlijke partijen) - Emphasis on hearing in court as the place for presenting evidence - Inquisitorial: (judge is involved like prosecutor in finding the truth) - Civil/ adhered parties/ auxiliary prosecutors - Pre-trail investigation by magistrate - Adversarial system - No role for victims, further reduced by plea bargaining practices - Testifying in court as a source of "secondary" victimisation - Inquisitorial: - Victims as civil parties - Testifying in re-trial investigation less burdensome (drukkend/belastend) than in court (?) - In which systems do you think explicitly victim's rights emerged? - Indeed, in adversarial systems: - Position of victims was the weakest there. - The burden of victimisation was larger, more need for victims rights. - Need to maintain legitimacy of criminal justice process and maintain victims' cooperation with criminal processes. **1950s until 1970s** - Initially activity in the Anglo-Saxon countries - Victims' rights in the US - Victim support in the UK - Victim (state) compensation in New Zealand - New-Zealand: evidence of the role of a particular campaigner: Marjory Fry - Difference between US and UK remains until this day: important distinction between the priority for *services to* victims and *rights for* victims *after this moved to other parts of the world* **1970s onward global expansion** - International Symposia on Victimology since 1973. - World Society of Victimology in 1979 - And following the example of the new emphasis on *individual* human rights approaches in the 1970s - UN Declaration of Basic principles of Justice for victims of crime and abuse of power in 1985 #### Main victims' rights - To respect and recognition at all stages of the criminal proceedings. - To receive information and information about the progress of the case. - To provide information to officials responsible for decisions relating to the offender. - To have legal advice available. - To protection, for victims' privacy and their physical safety. - To compensation, from the offender and the State. - To receive victim support. - To mediation. - Still visible to this day! **Key issues in justice perspectives** - Role of compensation and restitution (Fry, 1962) - Secondary victimization: burden of interacting with the legal system (Brownmiller, 1975) - Procedural justice: importance of process itself (Thibaut and Walker, 1975) - Victims' perspectives on the outcome see also the emergence of Victim Impact Statements (Roberts and Erez, 2004) - Victims and the role of emotions in criminal justice (Bandes, 1996) - Victims perspectives and their connection to revenge and retribution (Wenzel et al, 2008) - The development of victims' rights (Elias, 1993) -...also, in international contexts (Groenhuijsen, 2014) - The form, function and purpose of victim participation largely inspired by restorative justice (Christie, 1977; Braithwaite, 1989; Zehr, 1990) ***One example: Revenge and retribution*** Difference between revenge and retribution (difference lays in punishing and preventing) - Bacon: *Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man\'s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out.* - Sarat: *"Vengeance is at once the \'threatening evil\' which provides the raison d\'etre of law, and an unwelcome guest which is nonetheless indispensable to legal justice itself"* - The inclusion of victims highlights the difficulty of separating out revenge and retribution **Revenge and retribution: similar structure** (what they have in common) - Imposition of a penalty on the offender - Penalty is for the wrongdoing: punish someone for doing something wrong, not for prevention - The perpetrator should be made aware that the penalty is for wrongdoing - By someone who is aware of these three points ***A modern-day depiction of revenge*** John Wick (hitman): someone he loves dies; he kills 700 people for his dog being murdered. = revenge But criminal justice system reacts different **Retribution and revenge differences (Nozick, 1981)** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | - For a wrong | - May be for harm or slight | | | | | - Sets a limit | - Limitless | | | | | - Guided by general principles | - No need for consistency | | | | | - No emotional tone | - Emotional tone | | | | | - Impersonal | - Personal | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ #### Justice perspectives - Starting point for justice perspectives on victimisation - Need to accommodate victims' views and perspectives in criminal justice processes for the purpose of maintaining legitimacy of the system/securing cooperation of victims - A key issue: - Point of departure is invariably the perspective of the system, rather than the perspective of victims  **The trauma of 1974 (and 2010)** (clinical/psychological) It might be hard to imagine but the word trauma, which is used often today in various meanings, was virtually unknown a few decades ago. The best example of this drift in the Netherlands is what is known is the trauma of 1974. That was the year that the Dutch soccer team, even though they played the best football in the world, lost the final of the World Championship to West-Germany. More recent the Dutch people had a similar experience, Spain beat them last year to take the title, but the extent to which this was traumatic was surely reduced by the fact that Spanish was (much) better and the Dutch team was quite uncharacteristically violent! Trauma and victimisation have strong connections. Victims are often described or viewed as traumatised, and the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is seen as the 'victims' disease'. **Why was the phrase trauma of 1974 not used at that time?** A. The Netherlands was initially happy to have come second B. The Dutch people preferred a stiff upper lip to this kind of psychological mumbo-jumbo C. At the time the term trauma was not in popular use to describe this kind of psychological anguish D. It was initially known as the Munich debacle **Clinical psychological perspectives: origins of the term PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder)** Returning soldiers (Shaftan, 1972; Lifton, 1972) - Not extreme psychological reaction to the war in Vietnam, but delayed onset - Extreme forms of survivor guilt: why did my mate get killed and I didn't - Feeling scapegoated/ betrayed by country - Rage at society - Emotional numbing - Disconnected from other people - Inability to love - Lack of support for veterans - Part of their actual scapegoating - And of the explanation that psychological problems were pre-existing, not a consequence of Vietnam - Or part of a "malingering" attempt to gain benefits - Psychiatrists felt they needed to help. - But how? They developed a category for the medical condition **How to help?** - Attempt to develop an "objective" category, that would make veterans eligible for a right to support and benefits (DSM) - Also related to wider manner in which social problems in the 1970s became to be tackled in the United States - Use of objective categories and rights-based approaches - Disease: "Post-Vietnam Syndrome" **First attempt failed:** - Not accepted by the APA for inclusion in the DSM - Argument covered by other diagnoses - Against particular aetiology of psychological ailment - A diagnose related to one historical event? **However: at the same time** feminism: more people are suffering from abuse **Move from the experience of war to other experiences** - Connection to other events: child abuse, sexual abuse, Holocaust survivors - See also publication of Horowitz' Stress response syndromes (1976) - Medical diagnosis seen as part of recognition of their enduring suffering - Included/ defined symptoms (criteria B (intrusion), C (avoidance and D(hyperarousal)) in a manner that (seemed to) fit different situations - Named post-traumatic stress disorder in DSM-III (1980) ##### Clinical psychological perspectives - Prevalance of PTSD (Kessler et al, 1995) - Mechanisms of PTSD (Brewin, 1996; Ehlers and Clark, 2000) - Development of techniques to combat PTSD (Foa & Rothbaum, 1998, including EMDR, Shapiro, 1995) - Post-traumatic growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004) - PTSD and the justice process: see also "therapeutic jurisprudence" (Wexler & Winick, 1996, Herman, 2003) **Clinical psychological perspectives: some critical issues** - PTSD and social context? (Maercker and Horn, 2013) - PTSD and cultural context? (Hinton & Good, 2016) - PTSD and "therapy culture"? (Furedi, 2004) - Starting point for clinical psychological perspectives on victimization: - Impact of victimization (not only by crime and moral transgression) on victims mental health - A key issue: - It frames victimization in terms of mental health disorder, rather than as a moral/ meaningful issue **Critical perspectives** - Address some of the key issues mentioned before (Mawby and Walklate, 1994): - Who gets to define victimization? - Should we look at victims from the perspective of the system, rather from their own perspective? What role does institutional power play in these processes? - What happens when we frame victims for instance through the lens of clinical disorder? - Do our approaches to studying victimization do sufficient justice to the lived experiences of victims? **Which victim is readily accepted?** - The Ideal victim (Christie, 1986): - Weak in relation to offender - Legitimate - Blameless - Unrelated to offender - Offender is big and bad - The 'little old lady' (Is the ideal victim) that is most easily seen as the victim - But not necessarily always have all these characteristics, doesn't rule out other ideal victims **The non-ideal victim** - The young man in the bar (the grandson, bandmember of artic monkeys) - He was strong. - He was not carrying out any respectable project. - He could and should have protected himself by not being there. - He was as big as the offender. - And he was close to the offender. - Witches from game of thrones **Shifting ideal victims?** - Polar bear is ideal victim of climate change rather than insects - Ideal victim of domestic violence is the woman/bride - Framing of victims - Not one type of victim, but there are more ideal victims and also non-ideal victims **The non-ideal offender** - "Narco-shark" drug roller hardly blameless victims - Violent offenders violent victims - Norwegian concentration camp guards ordinary men #### Contrast with the reality of victimization Certain people will be rather given the label 'victim' and it doesn't have to do with the reality of most victims. - High levels of co-occurring victimization and delinquency among: - Homeless people - Those suffering from severe mental health problems - Children and adolescents - 'Illegal' immigrants - Child soldiers - Existence of larger grey areas: - Big and bad offender? - Debates about who is the victim - Moral "ambiguity" **Narrative perspectives (later in the course)** - Related to critical perspectives - The importance of the storied nature of victimization **Stories of Injustice** - Four areas relevant to narrative victimology (Pemberton et al, 2019) - The impact of victimization on victim's life stories - Victimisation as a 'narrative rupture' (Crossley, 2000) - The storied nature of the aftermath of victimization: how do victims talk about their experiences (Van de Ven, 2022) - Narrative victimology and the justice process (Pemberton, 2015) - Stories as property: interacting with different narratives in the aftermath of victimization (Pemberton et al, 2019) - See also the moralization gap, the justice motive and issues of framing - Outline At the end of this lecture you: - Have a clear sense of the history of victimology - Events, experiments,... - Have an overview of the main perspectives in victimology #### Different perspectives on victimology - International legal perspectives? - Criminological perspectives - Social psychological perspectives - Justice perspectives - Clinical psychological perspectives - Critical perspectives (vb. Nils Christie) - Narrative perspectives 3. Who is the victim? --------------------- At the end of this lecture you: - Have a clear sense of the meaning and definitions of the term victim - Understand why this is not a straightforward matter - Understand the complexities of defining victimisation and using definitions to do research into victimological phenomena **EU Victims Directive/ Cof E victims recommendation** (don't study for the EXA) \(a) 'victim' means: \(i) a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was **directly** **caused** by a criminal offence; \(ii) family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person\'s death; Family were not having the same rights as victims ### 3.1. Defining the term victim Some questions - - - Vb. Getting spiked: people don't know a lot of the time and does it matter to feel like a victim? - - **Victims and perpetrators of crime?** Vb. Nelson Mandela: 27 years in jail, 4 years after became president on list Edward snowden: spying on people Pretty woman: romcom about prostitution In Sweden: prostitution is illegal, paying for sex is illegal so Richard Gere doing the wrong ### 3.2. Defining the term victim, some and more complexities **Some questions** - - Natasha campus: abducted in basement but she doesn't want to be called a victim Andres Brevik: Norwegian who shot 78 people, bomb **Victimisation: who gets to decide?** - - - ***EU Victims Directive/ Cof E victims recommendation*** *(a) 'victim' means:* *(i) a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a* **criminal offence;** *(ii) family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person\'s death;* **Different perspectives on crime** - Legalistic position (Tappan, 1947): look into the criminal law - An intentional act in violation of the criminal law without defence or excuse, and penalized by the state. - We need independent criteria besides the law book - Social science critique of the legalistic position (Sellin, 1938): - The unqualified acceptance of the legal definitions of the basic units or elements of criminological inquiry violates a fundamental criterion of science. - The scientist must have freedom to define his own terms, based on the intrinsic character of his material and designated properties in that material which are assumed to be universal. **Critical approaches to criminology** - - - - - - **The changing/ differing views on criminal offences** - - - - - - - - See who is a freedom fighter or who is wrong **For instance: Broderick-Terry and Rainey Bethea**  Rainey Bethea: Last person to be publicly hanged in the USA Broderick-Terry: Last incidence by duel **For instance: marital rape** - - Before 1991: you couldn't prosecute marital rape - **Changing political perspectives** Stalin: 20^th^ century: killed millions of people across Ukraïne by starving them Mandela: seen as criminal, after that as a freedom fighter **Contested nature of "criminal offence": even serious ones see the crime of aggression (De Hoon, 2018)** After fall of the Sovjet union Stalin was seen as a criminal, since Putin took over moved back to be seen as a hero. Perspectives on crime and victimization change (sometimes for the better and sometimes not) - Crime of aggression: why Putin, because of the crime in Ukraïne destinction between the question "who is the aggressor?" **EU Victims Directive/ Cof E victims recommendation** \(a) 'victim' means: \(i) a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a **criminal offence;** \(ii) family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person\'s death; directly caused by criminal offence, something happens to someone is directly caused by criminal offence. Vb. A burglary or assault, when do we know if it happened? When do we know if there was a crime? **But when do we know whether a criminal offence has occurred/happened?** When someone is convicted, at the end of a trail When do victims need to be supported? **EU Directive: preamble 19** - - At that point we don't know if it was a criminal offence **Definition of a victim according to EU Directive** - - - - - - **Presumption of victimhood** - - - "The rights set out in this Directive are without prejudice to the rights of the offender. The term 'offender' refers to a person who has been convicted of a crime. However, for the purposes of this Directive, it also refers to a suspected or accused person before any acknowledgement of guilt or conviction, and it is without prejudice to the presumption of innocence." **Big discussion** - - **In my view:** (don't know this by heart) - - - - **DSM-V Criterion A Posttraumatic Stress Disorder** (important for us to see) - Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways: - Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s). - Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others. - Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental. - Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). Note: Criterion A4 does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related **Differences definition of victimization, with definition of (potentially) traumatic event?** **Differences definition of victimization, with definition of traumatic event?** - Victim: also economic harm, financial loss, intentional harm without injury - Trauma: only death, threatened-death, sexual violence and serious injury - Trauma: also non-intentional accidents natural disaster, traffic accidents, medical incidents - Victim: only caused by criminal offence **Summary: defining victimisation, some complexities** - What counts as victimisation? Do you have to be sure to be a victim? - Victims and perpetrators - Who gets to define victimisation? Do we do it for victims or can they do it for themselves - Social construction of (victimisation by) crime, it's changes - The presumption of victimhood: from which moment do victims need to be treated like victims? - Difference between victimhood and trauma ### 3.3. Primary, secondary and tertiary victims **Circles of victims** - Primary victims: direct victim - Secondary victims: the family of the primary victim, first responders to victimization vb. Boyfriend,... - Tertiary victims: others similar to the victim, the wider public - What kind of victimization might lead to tertiary victims?  **Examples of crimes with tertiary victims** Terrorism: harder to define, what it always contains: direct act that has a direct harm, is being used to communicate to a wider group of people Vb. 9/11, to use the attack on a direct subject Vb. Hate crimes: against one person of a minority group (tertiary victim, you still feel victimized) ### 3.4. Primary, secondary and tertiary victimization **Secondary victimization** - Further injustice that happens to the victim in response to the primary victimization - Media blasting stories - Blaming the victim? "His mistake" - Intrusive nature of media reaction - Social surroundings might do it aswell - Belief in a just world? - Framing/ stereotyping? Often an injustice that occurs during interactions with criminal justice systems, - Primary area for this experience: The criminal justice system is: 1. Blaming the victim vb. Why did you wear a skirt? 2. Excluding the victim 3. Disrespecting the victim 4. Making the process difficult to understand ***Secondary victimization and epistemic injustice (Pemberton & Mulder, 2023)*** - *Connects the experience of secondary victimization to the notion of **epistemic injustice**:* - *= "Harm done to someone specifically in his or her capacity as a **knower"*** - *Being blamed for your own position* - ***Either through testimonial injustice or hermeneutical injustice*** ***Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice (2007)*** - ***Testimonial** injustice: **unwarranted prejudice against credibility** of people's input* - *At an unfair disadvantage* - ***Hermeneutic** injustice: "occurs at a prior stage, when a gap in collective interpretive resources puts someone at an **unfair disadvantage** when it comes to **making sense of their social experiences."*** **For instance: what was it about?** Vb. Gaslight: film about a rich woman, guy makes her feel that she is going mad so she would kill herself and he would inherit her money. Her husband was drugging her and getting other guys to rape her. She though she had memory loss etc... **Gaslighting victims** - Making victims feel that their own experience/ understanding of their situation is mistaken - This happens in chronic forms of victimization themselves - But also in the reaction to victimization - Different forms of secondary victimization can be understood as individual or indeed institutional forms of gaslighting **Tertiary victimization (Green et al, 2021)?** - - - - ### 3.5. The word victim **What's in a word?** - - **Images of victimisation** ways how we think about victims The lamb of god Scape goat (zoned bok) **The victim label** - - - - - - - **Scapegoating victims?** - Van Dijk emphasizes how in the past victims had a right to revenge - Replaced by an appeal to (private) forgiveness - Sacrifice of victim in public criminal justice scapegoating practices (Girard) - Excluding the victim - Strength of scapegoating as a means to achieve community coherence - Not strong, vengeful, angry victims - Passive role for victims in Western criminal justice due to this victim label - Compare the Sharia **Contrasts with description of victims** - Unexpected strengths - Angry at offenders even though not necessarily more punitive - They want to have a bigger role in the systems - Posttraumatic altruism - In other words desire to achieve agency --own actions- and communion -- connection to others **"Secondary victim blaming"** - Negative reactions to victims who do not follow the frame/ the script - Not behaving like a victim should - You do not expect "scapegoat" to have too much to say **Rise of the victim across Western societies** - How do you think Van Dijk explains the emergence of victims' rights/ improvement of victim's position across Western societies in the past decades? - We believe that the victim should behave like jesus christ - Why do they now get a larger role? - Secularisation: we don't buy into Christianity anymore, less attatched to it, that is the reason says Van Dijk - In heterosexual couples: who is normally the victim and who is normally the perpetrator of intimate partner violence? - Woman as the victims, men are the perpatrators ### 3.6. Different perspectives on victimization in academic research: the case of IPV **Different approaches** - Family violence researchers will say: woman hit men just as much as men hit woman - Gendered violence research **Family violence research** - Violence between partners resulting from a family conflict - There is a continuum of non-violent and violent conflict behaviour - Use of survey research using the Conflict Tactics Scale vb. Partner shouted to me **Conflict Tactics Scale** - Measures frequency of behavior toward and by partner in the past year - 39 items, in 5 categories: - Physical Assault: \"I slapped my partner.\" \"I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt." - Injury: \"I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with my partner.\" \"I needed to see a doctor because of a fight with my partner, but I didn\'t.\" **CTS (cont)** - Psychological Aggression: \"I shouted or yelled at my partner.\" \"I stomped out of the room or house or yard during a disagreement." - Sexual Coercion: \"I insisted on sex when my partner did not want to (but did not use physical force).\" \"I used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have sex." - Negotiation: \"I said I cared about my partner even though we disagreed.\" \"I suggested a compromise to a disagreement.\" **Overall results** - Annual assault rate: 16% - Injury rate (percentage of assault leading to hospital visit): 1-3% - Male (perpetration) rate: 12.2% - Female (perpetration) rate: 12.4% - Male -- female ratio: 1:1 **Overall conclusion about intra familiar partner voilence** - Violence in the family is very common - Equally perpetrated and suffered by men and women in heterosexual couples - Most violence in the family is not serious - Results largely from frustration and escalation in routine conflict in the home **Gendered violence research** - - - - **Overall results (example from the National Crime Victim Survey and Police call data)** - Annual assault rate: 0,9% (NCVS), 0,2% (police call data) - Injury rate (percentage of assault leading to hospital visit): 52% (NCVS) - Male (perpetration) rate: 0,76% (NCVS), 0,18% (police call data - Female (perpetration) rate: 0.11% (NCVS), 0,02% - Male -- female ratio: 7:1 (NCVS), 9:1 (police call data) **Overall conclusion** - Intimate partner violence is frequent (an annual prevalence of about 1% still means that a large minority and even possible a majority of women experience intimate partner violence) but much less prevalent than in family violence research - Victims are most often women, perpetrators are men à patriarchy and opinions about sex roles - Violence has serious consequences for the victim, and is likely to escalate - What is the way out of this debate Michael Johnson suggested? By saying: there is a difference between the duck and the rabbit. Two different things partner violence is not 1 phenomenon **Johnson (2006)** - \(a) partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon, - \(b) the two groups of researchers generally use different sampling strategies, - \(c) the different sampling strategies tap different types of partner violence, and - victims and perpetrators of severe forms of IPV will not participate in surveus, while only the more severe cases reach agencies or experienced as crime - \(d) these types differ in their relationship to gender Division, four forms of partner voilence - Intimate "terrorism" - = cohesive control, escalation violence, primarily male perpetrated - Leading op to bad ending (Death) - Not allowed to do things, go out of the house, live their own life... - Mutual violent control - Violent resistance - Situational couple violence - = Communication, annoyed with each other, drink to much, when they live together sometimes things go wrong **What form of intimate partner violence is depicted here?** Intimate terrorism (till death do us apart) - What is the main differentiating variable in Johnson's typology? - What is the main differentiating variable in Johnson's typology? - Answer: (coercive) control Most important: difference between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence - Intimate "terrorism": one partner is violent and controlling (most of the time woman is being controlled) - Mutual violent control: both partners are violent and controlling - Violent resistance: one partner is violent vb. So frustrated that become violent - Situational couple violence: both partners are non-controlling, violence occurs as a result of other stresses in the family **Table from Johnson (2006, p.1010)** - Intimate "terrorism": frequent violence, escalating, male-perpetrated - Situational couple violence: incidence of violence is less frequent, less serious, gender symmetry  **Variety in samples** Differences in percentages - What is the most relevant sample frame? - What is the most relevant sample frame? - Depends on the question you would like to answer **Key issues** - Differences between family violence and gendered violence researchers - Intimate partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon, not 1 thing - Importance of (coercive) controlling behaviour of the perpetrator as a variable explaining diversity 4. Becoming a victim: risk and labelling ---------------------------------------- ### 4.1. What are the crime data sources? - What are the most dangerous countries in the world? **UNODC Homicide Monitor 2023**  **What is missing?** For instance - Syrian civil war: more than 600.000 fatalities - South Sudan civil war: more than 400.000 fatalities - Yemeni civil war: more than 200.000 fatalities **Key risk profiles (GHM, UNODC, 2023)** - Men are more likely to become a victim of murder but also more perpatrators of murders **Homicide rates in Europe** - Russia has higher homicide rate (same for USA) - Related to firearms **Firearms in homicide? (GHM, 2023)** - Albania, mentenegro **Femicide rates in Europe** - Interpartner related **Crime data sources** Variety of Ways to Measure Crime - Official statistics - Data from police and courts - Victim surveys - (Inter)national Crime Victims Survey - For instance British Crime Survey - Self-report studies à offending behaviour - For instance National Youth Survey Difficulty between doing a comparison of official registration between different countries and over time. - Just one comparison **Police recorded number of crimes in Belgium: 2000-2012 Source: Crime Barometer** amount of crimes in BE **Reported crime in the Netherlands 2005-2012 (in 1000s). Source: WODC** -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- **2005** **2010** **2012** Total 1350 1190 1140 Property 790 700 620 Violent 120 110 110 Public order 230 180 160 Traffic 160 150 140 Drugs 19 17 16 -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- - Two countries: in NL twice as many inhabitants, but same crime risk **Conclusions?** - There was a crime drop in the Netherlands and a crime on the rise in Belgium between 2005-2012? - More crime in Belgium per capita than in the Netherlands? - B: 9500 reported crimes per 100.000 inhabitants - N: 6700 reported crimes per 100.000 inhabitants #### 4.1.1. Official statistics **Take a guess** - What are the countries in Europe with the highest number of recorded crimes per 100.000 inhabitants? - What are the countries in Europe with the lowest number of recorded crimes per 100.000 inhabitants? ------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- **2014** **2015** **2016** Azerbaijan 266 260 274 Armenia 603 566 625 Cyprus 796 698 Montenegro 917 843 775 Georgia 813 941 968 Moldova 1174 1119 1124 Switzerland 8098 7649 7119 Finland 7666 7552 7503 Belgium 8742 8191 7857 England and Wales 6565 7633 8232 Sweden 14969 15423 15330 Iceland 20277 21385 25794 ------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- **Reported crime in the Europe 2014-2016 (per 100.000 inhabitants): European Sourcebook (6^th^ edition)** Iceland highest number of crimes most dangerous places in Europe...? No, official statistics are limited **Limitations of official statistics** - **The dark number** - Not all crimes are reported or detected by police - Not all reported crimes are duly recorded - Many crimes rely on victim reports - How many crimes remain hidden/how many victims of crime are there??? - **Accuracy** - Differences in/ changes in definitions of crime in countries - Depend on willingness/ ability to register by police - Can be manipulated by the police - **Difficulties for cross-country comparison and understanding trends** - **Lack of variables for further study** Two examples: - Which country has the highest prevalence of victimisation? - What are the trends in victimization?  **Police data (Van Dijk, 2007)** **Police data versus victim surveys** Very different number and show a completely different picture than the police data **Trends in violent crime in the NL (Wittebrood and Nieuwbeerta,2002)** They don't show the same trends In 1999 there were hardly no ICT **Quick question** - Why (probably) the enormous rise in reported crime in the period 1975 until 2000? **Reporting rates across Europe (Van Kesteren et al, 2007)** **Conclusions?** - Crime drop in the Netherlands, crime on the rise in Belgium? - This could be true, but not on the basis of official statistics - Differences in "responsive securitization"? - More crime in Belgium per capita than in the Netherlands? - No. This could also explained by for instance a higher percentage of crime being reported in Belgium! #### 4.1.2. Victim surveys These are surveys of people who are asked to report all cases where they have been a victim of a crime recently. - Victim surveys offer insight into the extent of crime, who is likely to be a victim and people's fears about crime - To measure dark numbers of crime - They highlight the risk of repeat victimisation - They measure perceptions of crime and justice and monitor victim satisfaction with police ### 4.2. What do we know statistically about victimization? **ICVS: international crime victim survey** - One of the initiators is Prof. dr. Jan van Dijk - (Stopped by the UK, they were already doing a survey but now went on themselves) - Large scale international survey project - 80 participating countries - 6 waves (period of 20 years) - 1989, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2005, 2010 - Nationally representative sample of households - Examines individuals' experience with crime, policing, crime prevention and feelings of insecurity in a large number of nations - Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), and face-to-face - International comparative data **ICVS: experiences with crime (questions in these surveys)** - Experiences in the past five years vb. Did someone enter your home without permittion? - Experiences in the past year - Number of experiences in the past year - Reporting to the police/ experiences with the police - Seriousness of experience - Experiences with victim support - We were just talking about reporting rates. What reasons do you think victims have for not reporting their crimes? - No trust in authorities or institutions - People became a victim abroad - Shame - Fear of titillation or in a relationship with someone - Victim is unaware of the crime - Participated willingly -... see below - Which types of victimization are likely to have higher reporting rates? **Reasons for not reporting** - Victim is unaware that a crime has been perpetrated - Victim participates willingly - Victim is unable to report the offence (e.g. a child) - Victim is threatened to prevent revelation - Victim is worried about the consequences of reporting - Victim considers that the offence is too trivial to report - Victim does not want to see the offender punished - Victim considers that the official system is inappropriate - Victim has nothing to gain from reporting the offence - Victim does not want others to know the offence has happened - Victim was involved in illegitimate activity themselves - Victim is ashamed - Others? **Reporting rates (2005): ICVS** --------------- --------------- -------------- ------------- **Car theft** **Burglary** **Robbery** Belgium 91 90 64 Germany 77 86 36 Netherlands 95 92 52 Sweden 93 77 49 United States 87 77 61 Average 83 74 46 --------------- --------------- -------------- ------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------- **Sexual incidents** **Assault/ threats** **Overall** 39 37 63 9 24 52 35 33 52 61 35 58 35 43 48 25 33 51 ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------- Sexual offences is least reported **Victimization surveys: not without their problems** - - - Reverse: people report a crime to the police, vb. Burglary, half year later a survey asks have you been a victim and only ½ of the victims only said it to the people of the survey who called them - Forward: looking into police data of a registration, only a third said it when there was no record. - **Victims surveys vs. police reports** - - - - 48% of individuals in victim surveys did not mention victimisation even though it appeared in police registration - - 29% said to have reported to the police, but no record **What country was not in the top 4 in the FRA Study of the prevalence of violence against women?** - Sweden? 46% - Denmark? 52% - Poland? 19% - The Netherlands? 45% Poland was not in the top 4 **Equality and violence** Countries with higher levels of equality, have higher rates of reported violence against woman. Problems with domestic violence: used to be seen normal, important for crime with violence, it need to be interpreted as wrong **Problems with victim surveys** - 1\. Not knowing that the behavior is what they are asking you - See FRA survey: is violence in the family also violence? - 2\. Forgetting that they were a victim/ not mentioning that they can't remember - Conscious - Too personal for instance - Unconscious - See reverse record check - 3\. Giving inaccurate information - Forward telescoping: moving experience forward in time to fall in the period of the survey - You can't tell if it happened to you or your neighbour - Something that happened in 2018 for instance - Mentioning other people's experiences - 4\. Differences in "productivity" - Filling out a survey/ answering questions is more difficult for people with a lower education - More difficult for them and may be tired of the questions - 5\. Increasing difficulty of achieving a representative sample - Reaching respondents - Not responding to a unknown number - Correlation between non-response and victimisation? ### 4.3. How can we the explain the occurrence of victimization? **Victimological risk analysis** - Which groups of the population are most at risk to be victimized by crime? - Stereotype: the old frail lady - The ideal Victim (Christie, 1986) - Comparing actual victimization rates per group and calculation of risk factors, controlling for other characteristics **Main risk factors (universally)** - Young people - Middle class (car theft) - Single, no relationship - Outgoing, people who go out (at night) - Male (most for contact crimes by strangers) - Young females (sexual offences) **Understanding victimization risk -- Theory I** ***Lifestyle exposure theory*** - Certain lifestyles increase exposure to criminal offenders - Exposure to potential offenders (geographical & social proximity) - You are attractiveness - You are accessibility of victims (social & technical accessibility) - Reactions to crime **Understanding victimization risk -- Theory II** ***Routine Activities Theory*** - Victimization results from the interaction of everyday factors (these 3 factors occur) - Presence of *motivated* offenders - Availability of *suitable* *targets*: value, physical visibility, accessibility, inertia - Absence of capable guardians vb. No police officer, large gate,... - The relationship among opportunity, routine activities, and environmental factors increases victimization potential.  **The CRAVED-principle** thing that are these things - Concealable - Removable - Available - Valuable - Enjoyable - Disposable **Crime generators** - Antwerp en Amsterdam central station - Good place to become a victim - There are a lot of people/suitable targets (on their phone, not paying attention, always have a bag, are tourists, ) **The highest chance of burglary?** - Expensive house, for instance a large villa? - Cheap apartment, in an area with many offenders? - A house that has been recently burgled? - This one has the highest chance - Once they burgled, they know where everything is **Repeat victimization** - Individuals who have been a crime victim have a significantly higher chance of future victimization - Once Bitten, Twice Bitten - Risk heterogeneity (flag) -- victims often belong to high-risk groups - Event dependency (boost) -- affects offender and victim - Offenders try again some months later - Victims develop symptoms which make them more vulnerable to be revictimized - NB repeat victimization is NOT secondary victimization - Where does repeat victimization occur? - Most common in high crime areas - Lacking the means to block subsequent victimization - Hot spots - When does repeat victimisation occur? - Soon after the initial victimisation - Insurance effect Als het kalf verdronken is in de put, doen we iets aan de put. Dus wanneer het te laat is. Time to do prevention after something bad has just happened. Repeat victimization studies suggests that moment after victimization is a good time to do something about prevention of victimization. ### 4.4. What do we know about fear of crime and punitiveness? Who is the most afraid of crime? Grandma, but grandson has highest risk. Vb. Grandson thinks he can control the situation when he could become a victim, for the grandma it's different **What is fear of crime?** - Fear of crime is composed of three tightly correlated dimensions (Hale, 1996): - Risk: of becoming a victim - Consequences (how bad you think being a victim might be?) - Control: you might have to become a victim - Fear of crime and risk perceptions are two different things! - Fear victimization paradox à lack of fear can lead to victimization! - Vb. People who don't see that they are in a risky situation end up in a bar fight - Recent victimization increases fear of crime - Does increase the fear of crime, being a recent victim **ICVS -- Attitudes to crime** Question 1. - Question 2. - Being victimized makes you feel more afraid **But...** - Answers to fear of crime questions depend to a great deal on how the question is phrased. - "Do you feel safe in your area" people feel a lot safer - 'Old' standard measures may imply a greater prevalence of fear than is commonly found with specific measures of frequency - General fear of crime, higher rates than specific "in your area" - Is it always fear of crime that is measured? Or concern about crime? Or even anger at crime? - Not always clear **The final question** - People have different ideas about the sentences, which should be given to offenders. Take for instance the case of a man of 21 years old who is found guilty of burglary/housebreaking for the second time. This time he has taken a colour TV. Which of the following sentences do you consider the most appropriate for such a case? - What kind of sentence would you give? **Percentages supporting prison** in Japan: half the time would give a prison sentence in BE: 1/6 times would give a prison sentence - It doesn't matter if people had just been a victim - Not more punitive than non-victims **Victims and punitiveness** - No difference between victims and non-victims on sentencing an offender to imprisonment (Hough & Roberts, 1999) - But what happens if you take severity into account? - Victims often in favour of rehabilitation - More concerned with addressing the root causes of crime? ### 4.5. What do we know about the risk of victimization of children? **Child victimization: developmental victimology** - Do children run a higher risk of victimization than adults? - What are the main differences between victimization of children and adults? - What are the main difficulties in attempts to protect child victims? **Comparing child and adult victimization: an example from the United States (Baum, 2005)** **Importance of developmental victimology** - Prevalance - Children run a greater risk of becoming a victim - But child victimization is often not detected/ reported - Smaller chance that they will go tell someone - Poly-victimization: 10% of young victims suffered more than seven instances of victimization in one year - Consequences of becoming a victim as a kid - Including hazards for development - Might slow down the development - Mental health, including depression, eating disorders, substance abuse - Suicide ideation and attempts - Increases risks of victimization in adulthood -...and of delinquency as well, committing a crime of your own **Typology of child victimization by prevalence** - "Pandemic" (NOT THAT ONE!) victimization: which happens to a majority of children: for instance, sibling and peer assault - Vb. Sibling abuse: as an adult it would count as violence - "Acute" victimization: sizable minority: for instance abuse and neglect, family abduction - Vb. One partent illegally takes away their child - "Extraordinary" victimization: very low prevalence: homicide and stranger abduction - A lot of attention goes to this one Abducting children: high profile media events when things happen to childer but takes all the attention away of other child victimizations, or not seen as crime. **Tales of extraordinary victimization** **Typology of child victimization by prevalence** - Most attention to extraordinary victimization - Pandemic victimization often seen as non-crime **Complexities of child victimization** - Crime: Conventional crimes with child victims - Child-maltreatment: Acts that violate a child's welfare statute (abuse and neglect, also including "indirect" victimizations) - Can only happen to a child because it is part of the care-responsibility as an adult - Non-crimes: acts that would be crimes if occurring between adults, but are generally not seen so between children - Is the division correct, in particular the last category? - Many assumptions about child victimizations have a questionable evidence base - See changing debates about spanking, child sexual abuse - Not long ago was still acceptable - Overlap between categories **See diagram by Finkelhor** **The importance of dependency** - Stranger danger? - most likely **Relationship with the victimizer across childhood (Finkelhor, 2007)** - Person most likely is a family member - Acquaintance becomes more important - Hardly never a stranger **Prevalence of different forms of victimization across childhood (Finkelhor, 2007)** - Hardly no property crime because children have no property - Children are aware from the age of 8 **Key issues:** - High prevalence of child victimization - Importance of development - Limited evidence base of common sense notions about child victimization 5. The consequences of victimisation ------------------------------------ ### 5.1. Some general thoughts about consequences of victimization - Protection and prevention - (Immediate) medical assistance - Financial consequences - Emotional and psychological consequences - Social consequences see next week - Legal consequences see following weeks **Protection and prevention** - Safety: ensure the event has passed/ the perpetrator poses no danger any more - Prevention of re-occurrence: in particular for repeat/ chronic victimization, but also for one-off cases - Helps victims to regain a sense of control - Can be both immediate and ongoing: see also witness protection programmes **Immediate and ongoing medical assistance** - One in three victims of violent crime need some medical assistance, are very harmed - About 1% require extensive hospitalization - Physical consequences can also be a result of emotional sequelae of victimisation and vice versa - Direct fysical but also suffer psychological trauma vb. depressed **Financial and material consequences** - Direct, stolen goods for instance - Consequences of physical damage - Direct, immediate consequences of fatalities - Damage to infrastructure, if that is required for employment - Required safety measures, change in behaviour - Consequences of emotional damage - Phenomenon of "scarring": lifetime income effects of victimisation - Because of the trauma, they might suffer from negative income effects - Ability to acquire income **Emotional/ psychological/ social impacts** (most examined) - Key issue of trauma in the aftermath of victimization - Not only the effect of the event itself but also of social reaction see next week - Loss of connection to social surroundings, see also BJW and framing/ stereotyping see next week ### 5.2. Traumatic stress a key lens for emotional and psychological consequences **Traumatic stress** - Characteristics of PTSD - Prevalence of PTSD - Mechanisms in PTSD **Criteria of PTSD in DSM-V** - A: an event - B: intrusion - C: avoidance - D: negative alterations in mood/ cognition - E: hyperarousal - F-H: severity - Like all categories of the DSM, severe to count as PTSD **PTSD: Criterion A: Unique, only a disorder that is defined by the event that's causing it** - The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, in the following way(s): - Direct exposure - Witnessing the trauma - Learning that a relative or close friend was exposed to a trauma - Indirect exposure to aversive details of the trauma, usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, medics) - Might also respond to PTSD **Criterion B: Intrusion** - The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): - They feel like it is actually happening again vb. A smell or image - Unwanted upsetting memories - Nightmares - Flashbacks - Emotional distress after exposure to traumatic reminders - Physical reactivity after exposure to traumatic reminders **Criterion C: Avoidance** - Avoidance of trauma-related stimuli after the trauma, in the following way(s): - Trauma-related thoughts or feelings vb. Thinking about it or things that remind you of it - Trauma-related external reminders **Criterion D: negative alterations in cognitions and mood** - Inability (not able) to recall key features of the trauma - Overly negative thoughts and assumptions about oneself or the world - Exaggerated blame of self or others for causing the trauma - Negative affect, thoughts about themselves - Decreased interest in activities - Feeling isolated - Difficulty experiencing positive affect, feeling numb **Criterion E: alterations in arousal and reactivity** - Trauma-related arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the trauma, in the following way(s): - Irritability or aggression - Risky or destructive behaviour - Hyper-vigilance - Heightened startle reaction - Difficulty concentrating - Difficulty sleeping - Criterion F: duration - Symptoms last for more than 1 month. - Criterion G: functional significance - Symptoms create distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). - Criterion H: exclusion - Symptoms are not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. **Reactions to (relatively) severe victimisation** - A majority of victims of potentially traumatic events (80% will display some of these) - Intrusion (nightmares, involuntary thought) - Avoidance (of places, memories and thoughts) - Arousal - Only when serious complaints last for a period longer than a month (acute PTSD), or three months (chronic PTSD) - Most people do not develop PTSD, symptoms diminish without professional support/help - Importance of early recognition of signs, preventive support - Importance of social support/ acknowledgement Severe form of violent crime, but also other potentially traumatic events, disasters, traffic accidents, : de dood in de ogen gekeken hebben. Bij de meeste mensen nemen de klachten vanzelf af. Geen psycholoog bij nodig, Debriefing **Life-time prevalence of "Criterion A stressors" (Kilpatrick et al, 2013)** - Over our lifecourse, 90% experience something traumatic vb. Death of a friend, accident,... **Prevalence of PTSD (Breslau, 2009)** - Most of it won't lead to PTSD - Different forms have higher chance on PTSD - Victims of rape high percentage of ptsd **Risk factors** (3 categories) might lead to PTSD - Pre-trauma: previous trauma, other life stressors, other psychological issues - Have gone to trauma before - Trauma: nature of the event involving death, or rape; immediate reaction "mental death" - Vb. Sexual violence - Feeling of dying but are alive (mental death) - Post-trauma: social support/acknowledgement, additional stressors, repeated victimization **Cognitive model of PTSD** - Those who suffer from PTSD differ from those who do not (Ehlers and Clark, 2000): - 1\. Interpretation of the event and their own reactions to it - 2\. The manner in which the memory of the event is embedded in their autobiographical memory - 3\. Positive feedback-loops between these phenomena  **Interpretations associated with PTSD, examples from Ehlers and Clark** - People might think that they are uniquely vulnerable ,... - Traumatic memories? **Traumatic memories** - 1\. Difficulty in conscious recall, to remember - Fragmented: lack precision - Missing details - Difficulty in remembering chronology - 2\. Involuntary triggered memories: vivid and highly emotional - As if it is happening again: feeling of reliving, rather than remembering - As right now and not as a memory - Sensory, not cognitive - Do not change with later information, including the fact that one survived the attack - Someone tells you details, it doesn't seem to change - Fact that you survived doesn't register - Connected to cues that are solely temporally connected to the victimization like smell **A particular traumatic trigger** - Smell of a perfume of their rapist **Some background of traumatic memories** - Your memory is like "a cupboard": - You store memories under certain headings (e.g. Time, person, activity), and in connection to other events - This allows you to recall them, remember them - And prevents you from "bumping into" them when you want to think about something else - As well as giving memories their "in the past" quality - Traumatic memories are not "stored" correctly because of the stress - Difficulty in conscious recall where is the memory? - Not clearly connected with things - Seeming randomness of triggers "bumping into" the memories vb. A smell - Lack chronological order with other memories - Immune to new information do not seem to change - Instead of in the past, felt like happening now re-experiencing **Some consequences of traumatic memories** - Both the re-living of the event and the impossibility of conscious recall gives the sense to the victim that they are going mad - The re-living of the event gives rise to avoidance behaviors for instance of places and activities that the victim (consciously) associates with the event, but also of thoughts: - Vermijden van plekken, proberen er niet aan te denken - The victim tries not to think about the event **Try not to think about..** A white bear, difficult time not to think about something **The "White Bear"- effect in victims with traumatic memories** - Trying not to think about something in fact leads to more thinking about it the white bear effect (Wegner, 1987) - They end up thinking about it more - The victim is mostly unaware of what -- in fact- triggers the traumatic memories avoids the wrong places/ thoughts - Meaning that these types of attempts to cope are counterproductive  **Counterproductive coping strategies (Ehlers and Clark, 2000)** - Avoid triggers of flashbacks - People experience somethings, try to avoid them that end up being counterproductive ### 5.3. Consequences related to different forms of victimization: **Some issues relating to traumatic stress** **Associated with traumatic stress** - Shattered assumptions - Particularly clear example in co-victims of homicide - Blaming - Control - Support **Blaming** - Blame the offender? - Others? - Often also the self (Janoff-Bulman, 1979) - Characterological self-blame remember hate crime? - Behavioural self-blame - Is the latter more helpful? **Control (Frazier et al, 2003)** - Blame often takes the form attempting to control the past - Is that helpful? - Can we redo the past? Rhetorical question... - Rather focus on what they can control now - Frazier et al: focus on past, associated with poorer coping - However: if it what happened remains unclear, disputed or unacknowledged, this can be an important issue. - Temporality of control: - Paths towards the future? - Or even better: controlling the present: - Best coping strategy: what can I do now? **What can I do now?** - Remember from a few weeks ago, importance of action to prevent repeat victimization? - Activities of meaning making - See next week - Importance of participation in one's own case - See future lessons on justice processes **Social support** - Key protective factor against the development of traumatic complaints (Brewin et al, 2000; Ozer et al, 2003): - Social support/ acknowledgement - Why is it important? - Practical: access to other means (legal, health, etc.) - Opposite of secondary victimization adds on to primary victimization - Confirms reality of victims experiences - Reduces necessity of ruminating about the past see under blaming/ control - Contributes to meaning making opportunities to talk about victimization/ clarify it **Van den Ven (2022): the role of social support in the aftermath of victimization: interpersonal aspects of recovery** - Importance of peer support/ mutual aid: - Opportunity to do something oneself see above - Focus on finding a shared language/ story difficulty of putting words to what happened: - The notion of a *"narrative playground"* **Easier to talk to someone with the same experience?** - Why? - Connected to shattered assumptions - Alice Sebold (1999) in *Lucky*: "I was now on the other side of something they could not understand... I could not understand it myself." - Better: difficult to understand for oneself, and for someone in the same position, but at least the experience of a *possibility* of understanding is there. **Recap:** - Traumatic stress - Some background on the history, features, and prevalence of PTSD - Blame/ control - Importance of control over the present, but does that not require acknowledgement of the past? - Social support - Protective factor: see also relevance of peer support - Shattered assumptions - Importance (and difficulty!) of meaning making see co-victims of homicide ### 5.4. Victimisation by sexual violence For each of the topics: - Some data on prevalence and incidence - Key features - Noteworthy issues in research, theory and mechanisms - What is the most prevalent relationship with the offender of rape and other forms of sexual violence? - When you think of the experience of victims of rape with the criminal justice system, what comes to mind? **Some features of rape victimization** - Lifetime prevalence of rape in the US: 20% for women. 1/5 - Most women who suffer a rape, experience this the first time before they are 18 - Annual prevalence of rape in the US: 1,6% for women. - High levels of repeat victimization - N.B. Prevalence rates differ to a great degree based on the survey method and questions **Not (so much) stranger danger...** - The perpetrator of rape is most often known to the victim: about 70% of cases - For certain types of rape even higher: for example rape in college samples: 90% is known to the victim. - Certain surveys suggest that about 50% of rapes are committed by an intimate partner of the victim - Rape in relationships is less likely to be perceived as rape. - In reported forms of rape stranger crimes are overrepresented **More features of rape** - 3% of men are also the victim of rape at some point in their life: most often the perpetrator is also a man - In the United States 81.000 inmates become victimized by rape annually, of which 56.000 by penitentiary staff. - Studies suggest that GB-men and LB-women run a larger risk of being the victim of sexual violence - Studies suggest that being a victim of sexual abuse --particularly in childhood - is a predictor of revictimization, but is also correlated with sexually deviant behaviour - Victim when your young predictor of being a victim when your older **Impact of rape** - High impact on mental health of victims: - High risk (40-70%) of developing post-traumatic stress disorder and/ or other often overlapping disorders, including depression and anxiety disorders - Estimates in the Netherlands - Unacknowledged cases of sexual victimization in youth a causal factors of 60-70% of cases seeking professional mental health services in adulthood - Impact on relationships and sex life - Repeat victimization and victim-offender cycles - Recorded rates of rape cases in Europe. What country do you expect to have the highest relative number? Sweden - Reporting rates of rape are lower than for other crimes, what about attrition? - Also higher, reporting rates are higher, suffering rape will rarely lead to someone being convicted of these crimes - Reporting rate is relatively low  **Recorded rape rates (per 100.000) in Europe: European Source Book of Criminal Statistics** **Rape victims and criminal justice** - The reporting rate of rape is relatively low: depending on country and source about 25% - The attrition rate of rape cases in the criminal justice system is high: - 8% of all rapes are prosecuted, 3% result in a conviction, 2% lead to the offender being incarcerated - False reports/allegations? - Difficult to research, but most evidence suggests prevalence of false reports is much lower than true reports that are not believed or followed up by the police - Secondary victimization **Traumatic memories** - 1\. Difficulty in conscious recall - Fragmented: lack precision - Missing details - Difficulty in remembering chronology - 2\. Involuntary triggered memories: vivid and highly emotional - As if it is happening again: feeling of reliving, rather than remembering - Sensory, not cognitive - Do not change with later information, including the fact that one survived the attack - Connected to cues that are solely temporally connected to the victimization à like smell **Some background of traumatic memories** - Your memory is like "a cupboard": - You store memories under certain headings (e.g. Time, person, activity), and in connection to other events - This allows you to recall them - And prevents you from "bumping into" them - As well as giving memories their "in the past" quality **Some consequences of traumatic memories** - Both the re-living of the event and the impossibility of conscious recall gives the sense to the victim that they are going mad - The re-living of the event gives rise to avoidance behaviors à for instance of places and activities that the victim (consciously) associates with the event, but also of thoughts: - The victim tries not to think about the event **Unfortunately, these features of traumatic memories make victims seem unreliable** - It is more difficult for the victim to recount the experience with main/ many details - True for all victims? - The lack of details might give rise to repeated questioning à while questioning is a great burden for the victim - In the repeats the victim might give different accounts due to the traumatic nature of the memory - Repeatedly asking the victim about its trauma doesn't lead to better evidence but worse - These features mean that the victim might be seen as unreliable or even to be lying **Key issues** - Lifetime prevalence of rape: about 20%, most often known to the victim - Traumatic memories - Complexity of interaction with the criminal justice system ### 5.5. Being bereaved by murder **Co-victims of homicide** **Stories of co-victims** Wanda Beemsterboer's dochter Nadine (20) werd vermoord door haar ex Arsene van Nierop's daighter Hester (28) werd verkracht en vermoord terwijl ze op reis was in Mexico. **Prevalence** - Homicide rate in Belgium 1.7 per 100.000, about 180 homicides per year (source: UNODC, Global homicide report) - 7 to 10 close relatives per homicide 1300 to 1800 co-victims of homicide per year in Belgium - Men are more often victims than women, but even more often perpetrators - 50% of the homicides concerns family or acquaintances - 20% related to (organized) crime - 10% related to robbery - 4% related to sexual crimes - 4% fights between strangers - Men are more often victims than women, but even more often perpetrators **Homicide versus nonviolent death** - Different? - Things in common: - Grief - Financial stressors loss of income - Large number of practical matters **Specific for homicide** - Nearly always sudden. - Connected to sudden forms of death - Violent event: loved one may have suffered or been afraid before dying - Feelings of guilt. Could I have done something? - Vb. Stayed home that day - Involvement of criminal justice and media - Stigma involved in murder ("Mark of Abel) - First murdered victim in the bible - People start avoiding them, distance between them,.. - Making sense and meaning of murder - Making books about it,.. - Combination of grief and trauma **Complicated grief** - Trauma and grief are similar but can also be contradictory: - *The bereaved feels loss. The victim feels like a loser. The bereaved feels sad. The victim feels humiliated.* (Ochberg, 1988) - Traumatic memories versus the desire to remain in contact with the loved one **Shattered Assumptions by murdered (Janoff-Bulman, 1992)** - More general view on the experience of victimisation - Janoff-Bulman (1992) we hold three fundamental assumptions: - *"The world is meaningful" thought is shattered after the event* - *"The world is benevolent"* - *"The self is worthy"* - That are shattered by extremer forms of victimisation - Aftermath, often for many years following the homicide victims attempt to make sense and give meaning to the event - Can include revenge (incl. by legal means) vb. Killing the murderer of your child - Blame including self-blame - Shared meaning and language is often also important peer support groups - Often try to offer new ways of being in the world after the loss etc.. - Armour (2003): examples of meaning making - Declarations of truth: identify hypocrisies/ injustices in the way their case was dealt with - Fighting for what's right - Living in ways that give purpose to the loved one's death **Key issues with co-victims of homicide** - Lower prevalence, large impact - "Complicated grief" - Grieving and trauma - How to make meaning in the aftermath of homicide? ### 5.6. Victimisation by cybercrime - What kinds of cybercrime victimization do you know? - One form is Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA). What do you think are the main characteristics of IBSA? **Email extortion scam** - Anyone of you received an email that started with: - *I hacked your device, because I sent you this message from your account.* **Prevalence victimisation by cybercrime** Annual rates (Reep & Junger, 2018) - Online shopping fraud 1-3% - Online banking fraud 1-2% - Cyberbullying, stalking, harassment 2-3% - Hacking 1-6% - Malware 2-15% - Image based sexual abuse, including sextortion, "revenge" porn (lifetime prevalence, Sparks, 2021): 10-15% **Four broad categories of cybercrime victimization** - Victimization of cyber dependent crimes (malware, hacking) - Three categories of cyber enabled crime - Victimization of financial crime online (fraud) - Victimization of interpersonal crime online (cyberbullying, threats) - Victimization of sexual crime online (IBSA) - Often a combination **Consequences (Notté, Leukfeldt & Malsch 2021)** - Similar to offline versions of crime: - Financial consequences - Psychological/ emotional consequences - Loss of trust/ self-esteem - Powerlessness - Shame and embarrassment - Is it my own fault? - Complicity? - Uncertainty about whether victimization is over - Pictures might resurface again/ malware might be on computer - Other remedies needed - Victim blaming, can involve a large group of people online - For instance when it relates to sextortion, revenge porn and other forms of IBSA **Jessica Logan** - Jessica Logan was a victim of IBSA from 2006 until 2008 - "Revenge porn" - And subsequently "slut shaming" and cyberbullying - She ended her own life - In Ohio the Jessica Logan Act Criminalizes IBSA **Five forms of IBSA** - \(1) relationship retribution, - \(2) sextortion, - \(3) voyeurism - \(4) sexploitation - \(5) sexual assault **Some key issues in IBSA victimisation** 1. Time-related features - Photos/ videos may re-emerge at any time - How to know whether or not the victimisation is past? 2\. Complicity of/ precipitation by victims? - Blamed by others - Blamed by themselves 3\. Role of others in victimisation - Participation in victimisation à viewing material. IBSA perpetration prevalence as much as 10% - Viral nature of distribution - Reaction to victimisation à "slut-shaming" 4\. Novelty: is it effectively criminalized? - Is it a crime, and is it a crime for the right reasons? - Are sufficient remedies available? - Right name