Unit 1 Discussion Forum

ANDREW KARMEN John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publisher: Linda Ganster

Senior Acquiring Sponsoring Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Assistant Editor: Rachel McDonald

Editorial Assistant: Virginette Acacio

Associate Media Editor: Andy Yap

Senior Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Senior Marketing Communications Manager: Heather Baxley

Manufacturing Planner: Judy Inouye

Rights Acquisitions Specialist: Don Schlotman

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

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/ Tim Heraldo

Cover Image: © Image Source/Corbis

© 2013, 2010 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

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

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

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

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

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012934422

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

ISBN-10: 1-133-04972-9

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

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

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

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

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

To those whose suffering is needlessly intensified or prolonged because of

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

recovery.

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

1 What Is Victimology?

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Plight of Crime Victims

Studying Victimization Scientifically

Why Objectivity Is Desirable

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

Sources of Bias

Victimology’s Undeserved “Bad Reputation”

The Origins of Victimology

Victimology Compared to Criminology

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

What Victimologists Do

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

Summary Key Terms Defined in the Glossary

Questions for Discussion and Debate

Critical Thinking Questions

Suggested Research Projects

LEARNING OBJECTIVES To appreciate why objectivity is worth striving for

when examining the victims’ plight.

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

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

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

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

1

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

THE PLIGHT OF CRIME VICTIMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 3

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

STUDYING VICTIMIZATION SCIENTIFICALLY

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

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

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

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

■ ■ ■

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

■ ■ ■

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

■ ■ ■

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

4 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

WHY OBJECTIVITY IS DESIRABLE

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

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

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

Victims or Offenders?

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

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 5

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

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

■ ■ ■

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

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

■ ■ ■

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

6 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminals as Victims

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victims versus “Good Guys”

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

8 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 9

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCES OF BIAS

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

10 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 11

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

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

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

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

Victimology’s Undeserved “Bad Reputation”

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

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

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

12 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 13

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

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

THE ORIGINS OF VICTIMOLOGY

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

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

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

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

The context and then the statement denouncing “victimology”

Concerning male/female relations:

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

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

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

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

Concerning heterosexual/homosexual relations:

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

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

Concerning race and ethnic relations:

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

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

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

Concerning international relations:

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

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

14 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning “Culture Wars”:

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

Concerning courtroom strategies:

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

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

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

Concerning academia and life on college campuses:

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

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

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

Concerning everyday life:

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

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

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VICTIMOLOGY COMPARED TO CRIMINOLOGY

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

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

Parallels between Criminology and Victimology

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

16 CHAPT ER 1

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

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

Year Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1968 Stephen Schafer writes the first textbook about victims.

Early 1970s

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

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

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

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

Mid- 1970s

Prosecutors initiate victim–witness assistance programs.

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

Year Event

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

1979 The World Society of Victimology is founded.

1981 President Reagan proclaims Victims’ Rights Week every April.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1990 Congress passes the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act.

1994 Congress passes the Violence Against Women Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17

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

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

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

Both criminologists andvictimologists place a great emphasis on following the proper ways of gathering and interpreting data.Criminologists and victimologists rely upon the samemethods used by all social scientists: case studies, surveys and polls based on questionnaires and interviews, carefully designed social experiments, content analyses of various forms of communication (like movies and song lyrics), secondary analyses of documents and files, and up-close and personal ethno- graphic approaches relying upon systematic observa- tions. Criminologists and victimologists calculate statistics, compute rates, compile profiles, draw graphs, and search for patterns and trends. Criminologists

collect and analyze information about individuals engaging in illegal behaviors, such as their typical ages and social backgrounds. Victimologists look over statis- tics about the ages and social backgrounds of the people who are harmed by unlawful activities.

Criminologists apply their findings to devise local, regional, and national crime-prevention strategies. Victimologists scrutinize the patterns and trends they detect to develop personalized victimization- prevention strategies and risk reduction tactics.

Both criminologists and victimologists study how the criminal justice system actually works, in contrast to the way the system is supposed to work according to agency regulations, official roles, federal and state legislation, court decisions, and politicians’ promises. Criminological research reveals how suspects, defen- dants, and convicts are really handled, while victim- centered studies examine the way injured parties are actually treated by police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. Criminologists assess the needs of offenders for counseling, psychotherapy, additional education, job training, and drug treatment. In addi- tion, criminologists evaluate the effectiveness of vari- ous rehabilitation programs offered behind bars or available to probationers or parolees that are intended to reduce recidivism rates. Similarly, victimologists want to diagnose the emotional problems that beset people after they have been harmed by offenders, and to test out the usefulness of programs designed to facil- itate their recovery (see Roberts, 1990; and Lurigio, 1990). Criminologists try to calculate the social and economic costs that criminal activity imposes on a community or on society as a whole. Victimologists estimate the losses and expenses that individuals and businesses incur due to acts of violence, theft, or fraud.

Differences and Boundaries

Criminology and victimology differ in several impor- tant ways. For starters, criminology is several hundred years old, whereas victimology did not emerge until the second half of the twentieth century.

Criminologists agree among themselves that they should limit their studies to illegal activities, and should exclude forms of social deviance that do not violate any criminal law. For instance, the

18 CHAPT ER 1

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

unwanted attention and advances that constitute “sexual harassment” at a workplace are no longer considered to be a private matter or a personal prob- lem but are a type of discriminationwhich can lead to a lawsuit—but not an arrest. Similarly, certain aspects of bullying are clearly against the law (physical attacks), while other expressions (mocking, teasing, taunting) are upsetting and ought to be discouraged but are not illegal acts. Both criminologists and vic- timologists would study bullying in those instances where the intentional acts of aggression rise to the level of criminal behavior and result in vandalism or theft, or, worse yet, erupt into violence (such as the object of scorn suffering a severe beating; or con- versely, when the pushed-around individual switches roles by bringing a deadly weapon to school to fight back against his tormentors) (see DeGette, Jenson, and Colomy, 2000; Unnever and Cornell, 2003; and Lipkins, 2008).

However, victimologists, unlike criminologists, cannot reach a consensus about the appropriate outer limits of their field. Some victimologists argue that their scientific studies should not be restricted to criminal victimization. They believe that additional sources of harm and loss are worthy of systematic analysis: vicious political repression (brutality, torture, execution) caused by despotic regimes that violate basic human rights, man- made slaughters (such as wars and genocide), natural disasters (such as floods and earthquakes), and maybe even sheer accidents (like meltdowns of nuclear power plants). The common thread would be to understand the nature of suffering, and the consistent goal would be to develop effec- tive strategies for short-run relief as well as long- term solutions to alleviate emotional and physical pain stemming from all kinds of calamities.

However, the majority of victimologists believe that their studies should remain focused on criminal victimization so that there are precise, readily identifi- able limits and clear directions for further research and theorizing. Actually, criminal victimizationmay not be more serious (financially), more injurious (medically), ormore traumatic and longer lasting (emotionally) than other types of harm. But it is necessary to rein in the boundaries of the field in order to make it manageable

for the practical purposes of holding conferences, pub- lishing journals,writing textbooks, and teaching college courses. (For the pros and cons of these alternative visions of what the scope of victimology ought to be, see Schafer, 1968; Viano, 1976, 1983, and 1990a; Galaway and Hudson, 1981; Flynn, 1982; Scherer, 1982; Schneider, 1982; Friedrichs, 1983; Elias, 1986; Fattah, 1991; and Dussich, 2009b.)

The dividing line between victimology and mainstream criminology is not always clear-cut. Invariably, the two fields overlap. Historically, much of criminology can be characterized as “offenderol- ogy” because of its preoccupation with the question of etiology: the wrongdoers’ motives and the under- lying causes of criminal behavior. Lawbreakers always have been under a spotlight while the people they harmed remained shadowy figures on the fringes. But now victimology enriches criminology by yielding a more balanced and comprehensive approach that sheds light on both parties and their interactions.

To illustrate the central concerns of each field and their areas of common interest, consider the problem of sexual predators preying on youngsters. Uncovering the kinds of emotional disorders and cul- tural themes about domination and exploitation that drive adults to molest and rape children are obviously subjects for criminological research, as is the contro- versy surrounding the alleged ineffectiveness of vari- ous “cures” for pedophilia. Whether threats of harsher punishments actually deter future attacks andwhether electronic monitoring of certain catego- ries of formerly incarcerated offenders is a worthwhile investment of government funds also falls squarely within the realm of criminology. Criminologists might launch their inquiries by examining the files maintained by police departments to draw a profile of the typical molester. Victimologists would use the same records to derive a statistical portrait of the chil- dren most at risk (in terms of age ranges, gender, class, race, and ethnicity, for example). Victim-oriented researchers would focus their inquiries on which treatments best speed the recovery of sexually abused children, and whether reforms in the way their cases are handled in court are minimizing the stress endured by these young witnesses who testify for

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 19

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

the prosecution. Whether the relatively recent and rapidly spreading community notification policies (such as “Megan’s Law”) about the arrival of a new resident with a past history of sexual predation eases or intensifies parental fears for their children’s safety is a subject for criminological research (because it explores the reactions of the general public to the threat of crime). Whether this kind of advanced warning about potentially dangerous strangers in the neighborhood who should be avoided makes previ- ously molested children feel more or less anxious is a topic for victimologists to investigate. Whether these community notification requirements actually lead to fewer incidents is a research topic that straddles the line between criminology and victimology (because it leads to the calculation of crime rates which are simultaneously victimization rates).

Another way to differentiate the priorities of criminology versus victimology is to examine the social reaction to crime as opposed to the social reaction to victimization.

Once again, it is difficult to try to draw a sharp line between what issues criminologists should explore in contrast to what parallel or comparable topics victimologists should scrutinize. Yet such an exercise might be worthwhile because it helps clar- ify how the two fields have different focuses and also points to areas where research about victims and victimization remains sparse.

Since the offender is of primary interest to crim- inologists, analyzing the social reaction to lawbreak- ing might include issues like the public’s willingness to pay for increased criminal justice expenses (enlarg- ing police forces and building more prisons or invest- ing in rehabilitation and reentry programs) and the degree of voter support for tough new laws or for stiffening existing penalties (such as “three strikes” legislation or expanded use of executions) or for police crackdowns (zero tolerance campaigns). The focus remains on the wrongdoers and how to best handle them, whether through punishment or treat- ment. Long-term crime prevention strategies that criminologists propose and debate include efforts to eradicate the social roots of street crime, such as pov- erty, unemployment, failing schools, and dysfunc- tional families.

For victimology, the emphasis shifts to the public’s reaction to the plight of injured parties. Consequently, researching the social reaction to victimization translates to examining the degree of voter support for victims’ rights initiatives and the willingness of taxpayers to earmark revenue for government-run assistance programs and compen- sation funds. Also of great interest are the many self- help and direct aid projects set up by former victims, such as child-search organizations, shelters for battered women, crisis centers for rape victims, and advocacy organizations. Another dimension of the social reaction is the many steps fearful indivi- duals might undertake to reduce their risks of becoming victimized. These “victimization preven- tion” efforts on a personal level (in contrast to crime prevention efforts on a community or societal level) include taking self-defense classes and buying guns for self-protection; purchasing antitheft devices (such as burglar and car alarms); and buying insur- ance policies for reimbursement of crime-inflicted losses (life, health, home, and car insurance as well as identity-theft and fraud protection).

Police officers can be counted upon to enter a fray and attempt to rescue a victim. But what about other passersby? One of the most intriguing aspects of the social reaction to victimization is how often and in what manner bystanders intervene while a crime is in progress (see Box 1.4).

The Interface with Other Disciplines

A number of academic orientations enrich victimol- ogy. Victimologists who pursue a mental health/ forensic psychology orientation might explore how victims react to their misfortunes. They ask why some injured parties experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while others who suffer through comparable calamities do not. Members of the helping professions also want to find out more about “resiliency”—the ability to bounce back. What personality traits, coping skills, inner resources, and belief systems (perhaps based on spirituality and religiosity) enable individuals who have endured shat- tering experiences to get through their period of bereavement, recover from depression, reconsider

20 CHAPT ER 1

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

their priorities, and reorient their lives (see Ai and Park, 2005)? Professionals engaged in therapeutic rela- tionships with survivors of vicious violence need to discover which crisis intervention techniques work best (see Roberts and Roberts, 2005). Victimologists

who take an historical perspective trace developments from the past to better understand the present, while those who adopt an economic perspective try to mea- sure individual and collective costs, losses, and expenses that result from criminal activities. The anthropological

B O X 1.4 The Social Reaction to Victimization: A Look at the Interaction between Victims, Offenders, and Bystanders

When an offender confronts a victim, a third party may be present. According to an annual government survey, one or more onlookers were watching in about 70 percent of all fights, 50 percent of robberies, and almost 30 percent of sexual assaults. Members of the audience who witness a crime in progress as it unfolds before their eyes may react in essentially three ways. First of all, there is nonintervention: bystanders may avert their gaze, steer clear of trouble, “mind their own business,” and not get involved in the dispute. Or they may simply watch and express confusion but not do anything to help out. In extreme cases, they may run the other way, as when shots are fired. Second, onlookers could take indirect actions while a crime is in progress, like screaming for help, or dialing 911. Third, they might directly intrude themselves into the fray in an attempt to turn the tide, thwart the attack, rescue the victim, and even appre- hend the suspect via a citizen’s arrest (see Shotland and Goodstein, 1984).

The following example, which took place on a busy big city street, illustrates the full spectrum of possibilities:

A man angrily confronts a woman and threatens violence. A homeless immigrant who sometimes works as a day laborer comes to her aid and is stabbed. A nearby sur- veillance camera records how he collapses and lies face down on the street for over an hour. Passersby show some curiosity but hurry along. One man lifts the wounded Good Samaritan’s body, sees a pool of blood, and then walks away. Another snaps a photo and then departs. By the time the police are summoned and help arrives, he is dead. (Sulzberger and Meenan, 2010)

The social reaction of the bystander(s) may decisively shape the outcome of an attempted crime. The presence of onlookers might cause the would-be offender to back down, or cut short his attempt to inflict harm. On the other hand, the existence of an audience might cause both parties to escalate their conflict in order to save face and protect their reputations on the street, and might encourage the aggressor to deliver additional wounds in order to demonstrate his prowess, as in clashes between gang members. When sur- veyed about whether the presence of a third party helped or

worsened the situation, half of all victims reported “neither helped not hurt.” But when bystanders actively interceded, victims judged the impact of their actions as “helpful” more often than as “harmful.” Passersby play a constructive role if they prevent further injuries and recover stolen property, and their intervention is counterproductive if they further enrage the attacker (Hart and Miethe, 2008).

A phenomenon known as the “bystander effect” has been studied extensively by social psychologists, often by simulating emergencies in an experimental setting. Their findings reveal that as the number of bystanders increases, the likelihood that any particular individual will intervene decreases. Also, as the number of onlookers increases, the time that elapses until someone takes action increases. Bystanders are more inclined to get involved if they are directly beseeched for assistance. When bystanders are slow or reluctant to make a move, it may be due to “audience inhibition” (each person is afraid of being publicly embar- rassed if the effort fails) or because of the “diffusion of responsibility” (each onlooker assumes someone else will take charge of the situation and take the first step) (see Scrog- gins, 2009).

Passersby might have a moral duty to be “their brother’s keepers,” but in most states there is no legal obligation to undertake any risks. Laws shielding Good Samaritans from out-of pocket expenses and lawsuit liability are meant to encourage individuals to get involved. Police departments and community organizations sometimes help set up civilian anticrime patrols and neighborhood watch committees. On some college campuses, rape prevention campaigns include efforts to train potential bystanders (especially male athletes and sorority sisters) to step in to discourage classmates from carrying out sexual assaults. Onlooker intervention (in the role of “capable guardians”) is counted upon by some vic- timization prevention strategies (such as alerting the authorities if an alarm goes off). Honoring those who place themselves at risk as “heroes” demonstrates the public’s appreciation for coming to the assistance of victims when a crime is in progress (Hart and Miethe, 2008; Lateano et al., 2008; Reynald, 2010; Gidcyz et al., 2011; and Moynihan et al., 2011).

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 21

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

orientation compares victimization in other societies far away and long ago in order to transcend the limitations of analyses rooted in the here and now. Victimologists who adopt a sociological perspective develop victim profiles (statistical portraits), analyze the interactions within the victim–offender relation- ship, examine the way other people and social institu- tions (such as the public welfare and health care systems) deal with injured parties, and seek to evaluate the effectiveness of new policies and programs. Victimologists who apply a legalistic/criminal justice orientation explore how victims are supposed to be handled by the police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, and parole boards, and they scrutinize the provisions of recently enacted laws designed to empower victims as the adversary system resolves “their” cases.

Divisions within the Discipline

Victimology does not have the distinct schools of thought that divide criminologists into opposing camps, probably because this new subdiscipline lacks its own well-developed theories of human behavior. However, in both criminology and vic- timology, political ideologies—conservative, liberal, and radical left/critical/conflict—can play a signifi- cant role in influencing the choice of research topics and in shaping policy recommendations.

The conservative tendency within victimology focuses primarily upon street crimes. A basic tenet of conservative thought is that everyone—both vic- tims and offenders—must be held strictly account- able for their decisions and actions. This translates into an emphasis on self-reliance rather than gov- ernmental assistance. Individuals should strive to take personal responsibility for preventing, avoid- ing, resisting, and recovering from criminal acts and for defending themselves, their families, and their homes from outside attack. In accordance with the crime control model of criminal justice, lawbreakers must be strictly punished on behalf of their victims (retribution, or just desserts). Inflict- ing suffering on lawbreakers should further general deterrence (to make a negative example of them, to serve as a warning to other would-be offenders that

they should think twice and decide not to break the law), and specific deterrence (to teach them a lesson not to commit any harmful acts in the future). Inca- pacitating predators behind bars keeps them away from the targets they would like to prey upon.

The liberal tendency sees the scope of the field as stretching beyond street crime to include crimi- nal harm inflicted on persons by reckless corporate executives and corrupt officials. A basic theme within liberal thought is to endorse governmental intervention to try to ensure fair treatment and to alleviate needless suffering. This position leads to efforts to extend the “safety net” mechanisms of the welfare state to cushion shocks and losses due to all kinds of misfortunes, including crime. To “make the victim whole again,” aid must be available from such programs as state compensation funds, subsidized crime insurance plans, rape crisis centers, and shelters for battered women. Some liberals are enthusiastic about restorative justice experiments that, instead of punishing offenders by imprisoning them, attempt to make wrongdoers pay restitution to their victims so that reconciliation between the two estranged parties might become possible.

The radical left/critical/conflict tendency seeks to demonstrate that the problem of victimization arises from the exploitative and oppressive relations that are pervasive throughout the social system. Therefore, the scope of the field should not be lim- ited simply to the casualties of criminal activity in the streets. Inquiries must be extended to cover the harm inflicted by industrial polluters, owners and managers of hazardous workplaces, fraudulent advertisers, predatory lenders (for example, of mort- gages with deceptive provisions for repayment of the loan), brutally violent law enforcement agen- cies, and discriminatory institutions. Victims might not be particular individuals but whole groups of people, such as factory workers, minority groups, customers, or neighborhood residents. From the radical/critical/conflict perspective, victimology can be faulted for preferring to study the more obvious, less controversial kinds of harmful beha- viors, mostly acts of personal violence and crude theft by desperate individuals, instead of the more fundamental injustices that mar everyday life: the

22 CHAPT ER 1

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

inequitable distribution of wealth and power that results in poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, fam- ily dysfunction, chronic structural unemployment, substance abuse, and other social problems. The legal system and the criminal justice apparatus are considered part of the problem by criminologists as well as victimologists working within this tradition because these institutions primarily safeguard the interests of influential groups and privileged classes (see Birkbeck, 1983; Friedrichs, 1983; Viano, 1983; Elias, 1986, 1993; Fattah, 1986, 1990, 1992a, 1992b; Miers, 1989; Reiman, 1990; Walklate, 1991; and Mawby and Walklate, 1993).

Why Study Victimology and “Survivorology”?

One last parallel between criminology and victim- ology merits highlighting. Criminology and victim- ology are not well-paying fields ripe with opportunities for employment and advancement. Becoming a criminologist or a victimologist rarely leads to fame and fortune, and certainly doesn’t make a person invincible to physical attacks, thefts, or swindles. Yet for several reasons a growing num- ber of people are investing time, energy, and money to study victimology.

First of all, victimologists benefit intellectually, as do all social scientists, by gaining insights into everyday life, solving puzzling and troubling issues, better appreciating life’s subtleties, seeing phenom- ena more clearly, and understanding complex situa- tions more profoundly. Second, individuals profit from pursuits that expand their horizons, transcend the limits of their own experiences, free them from irrational fears and unfounded concerns, and enable them to overcome gut reactions of fatalism, cyni- cism, emotionalism, and deep-seated prejudices. Third, the findings generated from theorizing and applied research have practical applications that simultaneously ease the suffering of others and give the victimologist a sense of purpose, worth, accomplishment, and satisfaction.

It is true that criminologists and victimologists may appear to be guilty of impersonal detachment when, for example, they study murder victims by

counting corpses and noting the circumstances of death. But the dilemma of treating real flesh- and-blood casualties as mere “cases” or “abstract sta- tistics” is largely unavoidable and arises just as sharply in other fields, such as medicine, military history, police science, and suicidology. The redeeming value of victimology lies in its potential for human betterment. Victimology’s allegiance to the principle of striving for objectivity when conducting research doesn’t detract from the discipline’s overall commit- ment to alleviate needless suffering.

Criminologists generally study people who are labeled as “predators” and “convicts” because of the most antisocial and harmful acts they are known to have committed. Victimologists also generally study people at the most vulnerable and miserable points in their lives. But the range in reactions of persons under attack also provides victimologists with an opportunity to see people at their best, not just at their worst. Consider how these individuals who were targeted by offenders responded in ways that might be considerable worthy of respect, even admiration:

A 27-year-old woman who stands four feet, five inches and weighs 90 pounds is behind the counter of her family’s suburban convenience store when a six-foot-tall man wearing a mask pulls a gun and brandishes it in her face. The angry gunman screams, “Hurry up! Give me the money!,” but she stalls and makes believe she can’t open the cash register. When the robber turns to see if anyone is looking, she grabs a three-foot ax hidden behind the counter and starts swinging it wildly, yelling, “Get out of here!” He flees empty-handed. She confides to detectives and a reporter that “I was scared, I was shaking. I didn’t want to hit him, I just wanted him to get out.” (Crowley, 2007)

■ ■ ■

A 31-year-old social worker is about to go to dinner after a long day on a cold night when he is sud- denly confronted by a teenager wielding a knife. He hands over his wallet to the young robber and then offers him his coat too, surmising, “If you are willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 23

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

I guess you must really need the money.” Then he takes the emotionally confused adolescent to a res- taurant. When it is time to pay for the meal, the teenager gives back his wallet, and even hands over his knife. The social worker sums up their encounter to an interviewer: “If you treat people right, you can only hope that they treat you right. That’s as simple as it gets in this complicated world.” (NPR, 2008)

■ ■ ■

A “gentleman” holds a lobby door open for a 101- year-old woman who is on her way to church. But then he hits her so hard that blood spurts out her mouth and nose. A surveillance camera in the hall- way shows the robber striking her over and over until she finally relinquishes her grip on her handbag con- taining $23. Her face bleeds for two weeks and her right arm never heals properly. But nearly a year later, she hobbles into a courtroom to identify the 45- year-old defendant as the man who mugged her. Her testimony at this special evidentiary hearing is pre- served on videotape just in case she is unable to appear as a witness for the prosecution at the trial. (Farmer, 2008)

■ ■ ■

A 35-year-old woman is beaten, robbed, and repeatedly raped for two hours in a dingy garage. In court, the courageous single mother testifies that while the gunman kept sexually assaulting her, “I had to keep myself from going crazy. I just hummed to myself.” Realizing that the humming also calmed the rapist, she begins to give him a massage and to talk soothingly to him. As they converse, the 45-year-old assailant apologizes, and then discloses his name and even his date of birth, which later leads to his arrest. (Shifrel, 2007a)

■ ■ ■

A 45-year-old teacher is kidnapped in a shopping mall parking lot by a gun-toting teenage carjacker. She secretly turns on a micro-cassette recorder to gather evidence just in case she can’t convince the youth to let her go. During her final 46 minutes,

she persuades the carjacker to discuss his childhood and his experiences in the military, descriptions which later provide detectives with valuable clues. She also reads passages to him from a psychology textbook; urges him to live a meaningful life and to find God; promises to help him land a job; and sobs as she describes how she treasures being a mother to her young son. But it is all to no avail. He doesn’t shoot her, but smothers her with her own coat, which contains the tape recorder in a pocket. (Jones, 2007)

Victimology is not the cold or dismal discipline it might appear to be at first glance. Victimologists are not morbidly curious about or preoccupied with misfortune, loss, tragedy, pain, grief, death, and mourning. Of course, because of its inherently negative subject matter, the discipline is problem- oriented by nature. However, victimologists also take part in furthering positive developments and constructive activities when they seek to discover effective ways of coping with hardships, transcend- ing adversity, reimbursing financial damages, speed- ing up recovery, promoting reconciliation between parties enmeshed in conflicts, and restoring har- mony to a strife-torn community.

The field of victimology has a potentially upbeat tendency within it, which could be termed “survivorology.” Just as gravely ill persons, refu- gees fromwar-torn countries, those who were cruelly tortured, or severely wounded soldiers can demon- strate resiliency and make impressive strides to piece back together their disrupted lives, so toomight indi- viduals who sustained vicious attacks make the tran- sition from victim to survivor. Researchers—and the general public—can find the outlooks and actions of certain individuals who have suffered through shocking ordeals to be admirable, uplifting, exem- plary, even inspiring. Within victimology, survivor- ology could focus on these success stories, in which individuals whose lives looked so bleak in the immediate aftermath of a terrible crime made great progress, surmounted obstacles, overcame severe limitations, transformed a crisis into an opportunity, and made the most out of an otherwise shattered life.

24 CHAPT ER 1

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

The overarching theme of survivorology could be to “discover the common threads that underlie the secrets of their success” and determine how they did it: Was their recovery and new trajectory built upon faith and spirituality; inner strengths and out- standing character traits; the crucial support provided by others (family members, close friends, volunteers and mentors, or perhaps fellow sufferers in self-help groups); immersion in activism; or some other source of courage and perseverance? And what forms of encouragement and aid plus special opportunities would other individuals in similar dire straits need to make a successful “reentry” back into society? What insights that could advance survivorology might be gleaned from these cases:

A mentally deranged 60-year-old woman shoots a member of a sheriff’s department SWAT team in the neck. Formerly known as “the most in shape” dep- uty by his fellow officers, he wakes up as a quadri- plegic, confined to a wheel chair. But with great determination he remains focused on his goal of returning to work at a desk job in the narcotics squad, observing “Your future is kind of bleak when you’ve got tubes coming out of you and everyone is saying you’ll never walk again.… But if you stay mad about it all the time, you’re not doing anything good for yourself.” Supported by his family and colleagues, he optimistically reports signs of progress. “There have been a lot of little instances, like being able to pick up a … potato chip and eat it with my hands.” (Young, 2008)

■ ■ ■

A member of congress is shaking hands with consti- tuents at a supermarket, when a deranged college student emerges from the crowd and opens fire.

Six people are killed, and thirteen are wounded, including the congresswoman, who is shot in the forehead. Doctors estimate she has a one in ten chance to live, but she pulls through. At her lowest ebb, she is not even able to smile, and experts doubt that she will ever speak or walk again. But with the help of her astronaut husband, her family, and dedicated members of the hospital staff, she summons up

astonishing tenacity and one breath and one hard fought word at a time, recovers from her catastrophic head wound better than expected. When asked in a television interview if she was ever angry about what happened to her, she replies haltingly, “No. No. No. Life. Life.” (Curry, 2011; and Freking, 2011).

Evidently, studying how injured parties respond to their plight can yield some unanticipated benefits. Victimologists can gain a more complete under- standing and appreciation of the full range of possi- ble reactions to attacks. Some victims cope with their misfortunes in ways that are clever, bold, even courageous, and demonstrate a determination to behave with dignity and to pursue a commit- ment to justice. These individuals can serve as posi- tive role models for recovering from setbacks and overcoming adversity. The more its survivorology tendency is developed, the less victimology will be mired in suffering and negativity.

WHAT VICTIMOLOGISTS DO

The current parameters of the field are evident in the kinds of questions victimologists try to answer. In general, these questions transcend the basics about “who, how, where, and when,” and tackle the questions of “why?” and “what can be done?” Victimologists explore not only the interactions between victims and offenders, but also victims and the criminal justice system as well as victims and the larger society.

A selection of some intriguing and imaginative studies that illustrate the kinds of issues addressed by victimologists over the years appears in Box 1.5.

Victimologists, like all researchers, must adopt a critical spirit and a skeptical stance to see where the trail of evidence leads. In the search for truth, myths must be exposed, unfounded charges dismissed, and commonsense notions put to the test. The follow- ing guidelines outline the step-by-step reasoning process that victimologists should follow when carrying out their research (see Parsonage, 1979; Birkbeck, 1983; and Burt, 1983).

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 25

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

Step 1: Identify, Define, and Describe the Problem

Themost basic task for victimologists is to determine all the different ways that a violation of the law can inflict immediate and long-term harm: the extent of any

physical injuries, emotional damage, and economic costs, plus any social consequences (such as loss of sta- tus). For example, severely abused childrenmight suffer frompost-traumatic stress disorder, dysfunctional inter- personal relationships, personality problems, and self- destructive impulses (see Briere, 1992).

B O X 1.5 A Sampling of the Wide Range of Studies Victimologists Undertake

Identifying the Cues That Trigger a Mugger into Action

Pedestrians, through their body language, may signal to prowling robbers that they are “easy marks.” Men and women walking down a city street were secretly videotaped for sev- eral seconds, about the time it takes a criminally inclined person to size up a potential victim. The tapes were then shown to a panel of “experts”—prisoners convicted of assaulting strangers—who sorted out those who looked as if they would be easy to corner from those who might give them a hard time. Individuals who received high muggability ratings tended to move along awkwardly, unaware that their nonverbal communication might cause them trouble (Grayson and Stein, 1981).

Explaining Public Indifference toward Victims of Fraud and Con Games

People who have lost money to swindlers often are pictured as undeserving of sympathy in the media, and they may encounter callousness, suspicion, or contempt when they turn to the police or consumer affairs bureaus for help. This second-class treatment seems to be due to negative stereo- types and ambivalent attitudes that are widely held by the public as well as criminal justice officials. A number of aphorisms place blame on the “suckers” themselves—”fraud only befalls those of questionable character,” “an honest man can’t be cheated,” and “people must have larceny in their hearts to fall for a con game.”

For example, white-collar crime investigators picture even sophisticated investors, who lose their money to scam- mers in Ponzi schemes, as being so blinded by their greed for suspiciously high returns that they ignore the red flags that should have alerted them to the likelihood that they were being drawn into a too-good-to-be-true business arrangement (Goldstein, 2011).

Con artists count on exploiting the anticipated behavior of their “marks.” Their targets may get so preoccupied with some “convincer” (such as a large sum of money awaiting them) that they are too distracted to realize what is really going on. Marks could be socially compliant to someone impersonating an authority figure (for example, they reveal their password in response to an e-mail allegedly from a

bank’s security officer and subsequently are taken in by a “phishing” scheme). They may let their guard down and assume there is safety in numbers if it seems that lots of other people are willing to take a chance on some risky ven- ture. They may be willing to do something illegal (such as to buy stolen goods) and end up too compromised to go to the police. They could be so trusting and naïve that they fall for tear-jerking emotional appeals for financial help. And under pressure to “act now or it will be too late,” they could make impulsive decisions they later regret. In well-planned con games pulled off by professionals, nothing is what it seems to be (Stajano and Wilson, 2011).

The stereotype of defrauded parties is that they disregarded the basic rules of sensible conduct regarding financial matters. They don’t read contracts before signing and don’t demand that guarantees be put in writing before making purchases. Their apparent foolishness, carelessness, or com- plicity undermines their appeals for redress and makes others reluctant to activate the machinery of the criminal justice system and regulatory agencies on their behalf. Their claims to be treated as authentic victims worthy of support may be rejected if they are scorned as money-hungry “dupes” who were merely outsmarted (Walsh and Schram, 1980; Moore and Mills, 1990; and Shichor, Sechrest, and Doocy, 2001).

Using a broad definition of fraudulent schemes (includ- ing various rip-offs such as dishonest home, auto, and appli- ance repairs and inspections; useless warranties; fake subscription, insurance, credit, and investment scams; phony charities, contests, and prizes; and expensive 900-number telephone ploys), a nationwide survey found victimization to be widespread. More than half the respondents had been caught up in some scam or an attempt at deception at least once in their lives, costing an average loss of more than $200. Contrary to the prevailing negative stereotype, the elderly were not any more trusting and compliant; in fact, they were deceived less often than younger people (Titus, Heinzelmann, and Boyle, 1995).

Examining How Pickpockets View Their Targets

According to a sample of 20 “class cannons” (professional pickpockets) working the streets of Miami, Florida, their

26 CHAPT ER 1

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

Sometimes a group is difficult to study because there isn’t an adequate expression to describe its common misfortune or capture the nature of its plight. Now that terms like date rape, stalking, cyberstalking, carjacking, battering, elder abuse, identity theft, and bias crime have entered everyday

speech, government agencies and researchers are exploring in what manner and how frequently peo- ple are harmed by these offenses. On occasion, vic- timologists help break the silence about situations that long have been considered taboo topics by studying activities such as sibling abuse, incestuous

preferred marks (victims) are tourists who are relaxed, off guard, loaded with money, and lacking in clout with criminal justice officials. Some pickpockets choose “paps” (elderly men) because their reaction time is slower, but others favor “bates” (middle-aged men) because they tend to carry fatter wallets. A “moll buzzer” or “hanger binger” (sneak thief who preys on women) is looked down on in the underworld fra- ternity as a bottom feeder who acts without skill or courage. Interaction with victims is kept to a minimum. Although pickpockets may “trace a mark” (follow a potential target) for some time, they need just a few seconds to “beat him of his poke” (steal his wallet). This is done quietly and deftly, without a commotion or any jostling. They rarely “make a score” (steal a lot in a single incident). The class cannon “passes” (hands over) “the loot” (wallet, wad of bills) to a member of his “mob” (an accomplice) and swiftly leaves the scene of the crime. Only about one time in a hundred do they get caught by the mark. And on those rare occasions when the theft is detected, they can usually persuade their victims not to call the police. They give back what they took (maybe more than they stole) and point out that pressing charges can ruin a vacation because of the need to surrender the wallet as evidence, plus waste precious time in court appear- ances. Cannons show no hatred or contempt for their marks. In general, they rationalize their crimes as impersonal acts directed at targets who can easily afford the losses or who would otherwise be fleeced by businesses or allow their money to be taken from them in other legally permissible ways (Inciardi, 1976).

Exploring the Bonds between Captives and Their Captors

Hostages (of terrorists, skyjackers, kidnappers, bank rob- bers, rebelling prisoners, and gunmen) are used by their captors to exert leverage on a third party—perhaps a fam- ily, the police, or a government agency. These captives could react in an unanticipated way to being trapped and held against their will. Instead of showing anger and seek- ing revenge, these pawns in a larger drama may emerge from a siege with positive feelings for, and attachments to, their keepers. Their outrage is likely to be directed at the authorities who rescued them for acting with apparent

indifference to their well-being during the protracted nego- tiations. This surprising emotional realignment has been termed the Stockholm syndrome because it was first noted after a 1973 bank holdup in Sweden. Several psychological explanations for this “pathological transference” are plausi- ble. The hostages could be identifying with the aggressor, and they might have become sympathetic to acts of defi- ance aimed at the power structure. As survivors, they might harbor intense feelings of gratitude toward their keepers for sparing their lives. As helpless dependents, they might cling to the powerful figures who controlled their every action because of a primitive emotional response called “traumati- cal infantilism.” After the ordeal, terrorized hostages need to be welcomed back and reassured that they did nothing wrong during—and right after—their captivity. People in occupations that place them at high risk of being taken prisoner—ranging from convenience-store clerks and bank tellers to airline personnel and diplomats—need to be trained about how to act, what to say, and what not to do if they are held and used as a bargaining chip during a stand-off. Law enforcement agencies need to set up and train hostage negotiation units as an alternative to solely relying on heavily armed SWAT teams whose military style assaults endanger the lives of the captives they are trying to save. Crisis negotiators no longer consider the bonding that may occur between captives and captors to be detri- mental. The development of the Stockholm syndrome actu- ally can increase the hostages’ chances of surviving the ordeal. However, it could also mean that law enforcement cannot count on the victims’ cooperation in working for their own release, and for later prosecuting their violent and dangerous kidnappers in court. In terms of frequency of occurrence, it is likely that this type of coping mechanism by captives has been overemphasized and inaccurately assumed in cases that were diagnosed by commentators in the media. Identifying with the aggressor and seeing res- cuers as adversaries rarely takes place, according to an analysis of the narratives contained in the FBI’s Hostage/ Barricade Database System (see Ochberg, 1978; Fattah, 1979; Symonds, 1980a; Turner, 1990; Louden, 1998; Fuselier, 1999; and De Fabrique et al., 2007).

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 27

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

sexual impositions in stepfamilies, and marital rape (see Hines and Malley-Morrison, 2005).

Victimologists analyze how the status of being a “legitimate victim” is socially defined. They explore why only some people who suffer physical, emotional, or economic harm are designated and treated as full-fledged, bona fide, and officially rec- ognized victims and as such, are eligible for aid and encouraged to exercise rights within the criminal justice process. But why are other injured parties left to fend for themselves? One key question is, “Is the social standing of each of the two parties taken into account when government officials and members of the general public evaluate whether one person should get into legal trouble for what happened and the other should be granted assis- tance?” Another important query is, “Who decides what is unacceptable and illegal?” For example, what official action should be taken when workers are killed in on-the-job incidents? Are they victims of criminal negligence? When customers claim they were deceived by exaggerated claims in advertise- ments, are they victims of fraud, and therefore enti- tled to certain legal remedies? In what situations should elementary school students who are sub- jected to corporal punishment by headmasters, deans, and teachers (even with parental permission) be considered victims of a physical assault?

Clearly, the status of being an officially recog- nized victim of a crime is “socially constructed.” The determination of who is included and who is excluded from this privileged category is carried out by actors within the criminal justice process (police officers and detectives, prosecutors, judges, even juries) and is heavily influenced by legislators (who formulate criminal laws) and the media that shapes public opinion about specific incidents.

Step 2: Measure the True Dimensions of the Problem

Because policy makers and the general public want to know how serious various kinds of illegal activities are, victimologists must devise ways to keep track of the frequency and consequences of prohibited acts. The accuracy of statistics kept by

government bureaus and private agencies must be critically examined to ferret out any biases that might inflate or deflate these estimates to the advan- tage of those who, for some self-serving reason, wish to either exaggerate or downplay the real extent of the problem.

In order to make measurements, victimologists have to operationalize their concepts by develop- ing working definitions that specify essential char- acteristics and also mark boundaries, clarifying which cases should be included and which should be excluded. For example, when trying to deter- mine how many students have been victims of school violence, should youngsters who were threatened with a beating be counted, even if they were not actually physically attacked? Once victimologists measure the frequency of some unwanted event per year, they can begin to search for changes over time to see if a particular type of criminal activity is marring the lives of a greater number or fewer people as time passes. To grasp the importance of making accurate measurements, consider the problem of child abuse. Suppose that statistics gathered by child protection agencies indi- cate a huge increase in the number of reported instances of suspected abuse. How can this upsurge be explained? One possibility is to interpret this spike as evidence that parents are neglecting, beat- ing, and molesting their children these days like never before. But another explanation could be that new compulsory reporting requirements recently imposed on physicians, school nurses, and teachers are bringing many more cases to the atten- tion of the authorities. Thus, a sharp rise in reports might not reflect a genuine crime wave directed at children by their caretakers but merely a surge in official reports because of improvements in detect- ing and keeping records of maltreatment. Victimol- ogists can make a real contribution toward resolving this controversy by devising ways to estimate the actual dimensions of the child abuse problem with greater precision. Other pressing questions that can be answered by careful measurements and accurate statistics include the following: Are huge numbers of children being snatched up by kidnappers demanding ransoms? Or are abductions by strangers

28 CHAPT ER 1

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

rare? Are husbands assaulted by their wives about as often as wives are battered by their husbands? Or is female aggression of minor concern when com- pared to male violence? Is forced sex a common outcome at the end of an evening, or is date rape less of a danger than some people believe (see Loseke, Gelles, and Cavanaugh, 2005)?

Once injured parties have been identified, and their ranks measured, researchers can carry out a needs assessment through interviews or via a sur- vey to discover what kinds of suffering they are experiencing and what sorts of assistance and sup- port they require to resolve their problems and return to the lives they were leading before the crime occurred. Such studies might reveal their unmet material and emotional needs, any weak- nesses in existing programs and policies, the help- seeking behaviors they initiate on their own, and the significant contributions informal support sys- tems (primarily family and friends) may make.

Step 3: Investigate How Victims Are Handled

Victimologists scrutinize how victims actually are treated by the criminal justice and social service systems that are ostensibly designed to help them. Researchers carry out needs assessments to identify just what the injured parties want, require, and get. Studies pinpoint the sources of tension, conflict mistreatment, and dissatisfaction that alienate vic- tims from the agencies that are supposed to serve them. Program evaluations determine whether stated goals are being met. For instance, victimolo- gists want to know how well or how poorly the police, prosecutors, judges, and family therapists are responding to the plight of abused children and battered women (see Hilton, 1993; Roberts, 2002; Hines and Malley-Morrison, 2005; and Bar- nett, Miller-Perrin, and Perrin, 2005). Similarly, victimologists explore whether promises are being kept, and if reforms granting new rights are having any impact on business as usual within the legal system. Are most victims wasting their time if they appear before parole boards to argue that the prisoners who harmed them should not receive early release, or are victims’ arguments taken

seriously? Additionally, victimologists monitor the way the public, the news media, elected officials, nonprofit organizations, and profit-oriented enter- prises react to the plight of people who are robbed, raped, beaten, or murdered.

Step 4: Gather Evidence to Test Hypotheses

Victimologists investigate all kinds of hypotheses: suspicions, hunches, impressions, accusations, asser- tions, and predictions. Like all social scientists, when presented with claims about what is true and what is false, their proper response is not to accept or reject the assertion but to declare: “Prove it! Show me! Where is the evidence?”

Testing hypotheses yields interesting findings, especially discoveries that cast doubt on common- sense notions (challenging what everyone “knows” to be true) and widely held beliefs. A major goal is try to sort out myths from realities.

Collecting data and assembling research find- ings helps build victimology’s knowledge base. Some studies are not only interesting academically, but also have obvious practical applications: why might wives, who are beaten mercilessly by their husbands, be reluctant to flee their unhappy homes? Is it because they are too frightened of being hunted down and killed? Are restraining orders issued by judges merely pieces of paper that consistently fail to protect battered women? Should teenage girls and young women who have suffered physical assaults during courtship or cohabitation take swift action on the basis of these warning signs of turbulent times ahead, and quickly break- up with their abusive boyfriends, or can these trou- bled relationships be salvaged (see Roberts and Roberts, 2005)? Will the “dos and don’ts” tips offered on websites for women who are being stalked by ex-lovers actually work to reduce the risks of violent outbursts; or are these bits of advice largely ineffective; or does following these instruc- tions actually heighten dangers?

In order to illustrate each of the four steps that victimologists might follow when researching some type of suffering, a systematic analysis of the prob- lem of “road rage” is presented in Box 1.6.

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 29

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

B O X 1.6 An Illustration of How to Analyze a Problem: Road Rage

Step 1: Identify, Define, and Describe the Problem:

The analysis begins with a brief history that recounts when the problem was recognized and the way in which the victim’s plight was originally portrayed.

Late at night, trapped in a traffic jam on a highway, a driver who has been drinking at a bar exchanges angry words with the driver of a car carrying three young men who had been drinking heavily in a park. The feuding duo swerve in and out of lanes and cut each other off, and then exit the highway and merge on to a city street. The infuriated driver with the two passengers speeds up, pulls even with the other vehicle, and uses his fingers to make a gesture that resembles pointing a gun and pulling the trigger. The other driver lowers his window and fatally shoots him. Nearly 19 hours later, he turns himself in, claims he acted in self-defense, and reveals that he is an off-duty police officer. A grand jury decides not to indict him for any crime. (Eligon and Baker, 2008)

For decades, concern about the risks surrounding auto- mobile travel centered on accidents caused by hazardous road conditions, speeding, and drunk driving. Although flare-ups between motorists with short fuses must have been taking place since the onset of the automobile age well over 100 years ago, they remained under the radar until the news media began to report on a spate of “freeway shootings” (in California in 1977; in Houston in 1982; in Los Angeles in 1987; and in Detroit in 1989). Newspaper headlines originally dubbed the frightening situations as “road assaults,” “free- way free-for-alls,” “highway violence,” “highway hostility,” “motorist mayhem,” and even merely “unfriendly driving.” Yet concerns about becoming a casualty of one of these confrontations on wheels did not mount until a media account coined the phrase “road rage” in 1988; the catchy alliteration was meant to capture the essence of an armed attack in which a Florida driver shot a passenger in a car that had cut him off (see Best, 1991; and Roberts and Indermaur, 2005). During the 1990s, the sudden emergence and rapid diffusion (across the country and around the globe) of sub- stantial media attention to this “new crime” demonstrated how large audiences of frazzled commuters and anxious tra- vellers considered this amorphous yet omnipresent threat to be of great relevance. Colorful accounts—about 10,000 stor- ies between 1990 and 1996, and nearly 4,000 in 1997 alone— described a “spreading epidemic” of “ugly acts of freeway fury” in which cursing, seething, and stressed-out motorists were “driven to destruction,” because it was “high noon on the country’s streets and highways.” Roads were pictured as “resembling something out of the Wild West,” “highways to

homicide,” “shooting galleries,” “war zones,” and even “ter- ror zones.” Drivers lost their tempers and took their frustra- tions out on each other in numerous ways, ranging from intentional collisions to gunfire (see Best, 1991; Mizell, 1997; Fumento, 1998; and Roberts and Indermaur, 2005).

Step 2: Measure the True Dimensions of the Problem

The analysis proceeds by estimating the threat of victimization and examining the victim–offender interaction in order to draw evidence-based portraits of the typical aggressors and their usual targets.

Unfortunately, these chilling accounts were laced with hyperbole and sensationalism. Consequently, heated discus- sions erupted about whether fears were out of proportion to actual threats. Investigations that attempted to estimate the actual toll that road rage imposed on motorists adopted definitions that were way too broad: media coverage, and even some of the earliest research undertakings, character- ized road rage as extremely aggressive driving habits that embodied hostility toward other motorists. Part of the con- tinuum included noncriminal acts, such as screaming curses out the window, making threatening or obscene gestures, flashing headlights on and off, honking horns repeatedly, weaving in and out of traffic, cutting others off, tailgating in a way that resembles stalking, and getting out of the vehicle to argue face-to-face. From the targeted motorist’s point of view, as well as from a police and traffic safety perspective, this inclusive definition that ranged from trivial to life- threatening actions seemed to make sense, in terms of rec- ognizing all the different dimensions of an infuriating and ominous encounter. But from the standpoint of both crimi- nology and victimology, the definition should be much more restrictive, and exclude insults and implied threats as well as bad driving maneuvers that at most result in summonses for moving violations in traffic court. A more limited and precise definition of road rage would count only those interpersonal conflicts that are matters for the criminal justice system to resolve: outbreaks of violence in which either one of the drivers—or one of the passengers—intentionally or reck- lessly injures or kills another driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian, or damages a vehicle on purpose; or uses the vehicle to make a serious attempt to do harm to another party embroiled in the fracas (see Smart and Mann, 2002). A driver who is threatened can be considered a victim of harassment, and if a gun is pointed, the crime becomes “menacing.” If a shot is fired, an assault with a deadly weapon has taken place. One difficult methodological decision confronting researchers is whether to include or exclude incidents in which the two warring parties were not

30 CHAPT ER 1

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

complete strangers. For example, some car chases are really extensions of ongoing quarrels that fall under the category of “domestic violence” (Mizell, 1997). Upon investigation, other clashes could turn out to be drive-by shootings involving members of warring street gangs or competing drug-dealing crews. But putting these exceptional cases aside, road rage generally constitutes a type of physical attack perpetrated by a stranger in a vehicle who approaches a victim just by chance in an anonymous public space—a street or highway (Roberts and Indermaur, 2005).

Criminologists zero in on the perpetrators while victi- mologists focus on the injured parties. Both sets of researchers seek to discover how often punishable acts of road rage break out. Not all cases are considered newsworthy by editors and journalists, so scholarly studies must be based on access to “official sources of data”: the arrest records of police departments and the transcripts of court proceedings, perhaps supplemented by the files of insurance companies. However, descriptions of the events leading up to the con- frontation may be fragmentary or incomplete, or the versions of who did what to whom could be completely one-sided. Furthermore, just as with media coverage, official statistics present an underestimate. Some criminal acts that could lead to arrest and prosecution go unreported because the author- ities were not notified by either party or by eyewitnesses. On the other hand, accounts from unofficial sources could yield overestimates because the working definition of road rage used by the general public and the media has expanded far beyond the original narrower notion of violence on wheels. Other unofficial sources of data, including the findings of surveys that ask motorists if they were ever subjected to or eyewitnesses to road rage may be cluttered with huge num- bers of judgmental interpretations about incidents that would not wind up in the criminal justice system. For exam- ple, using a broad definition, an annual survey estimated that the most afflicted cities in 2009 were New York, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Atlanta; far fewer incidents reportedly took place in Portland, Cleveland, Sacramento, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh (AP, 2009). Several websites that welcome postings by motorists infuriated by encounters with inconsiderate, rude, careless, or just plain inept drivers also use a definition that is too vague and inclusive. Overly broad definitions tend to generate exagger- ated estimates. The prevalence rate of ever experiencing, perpetrating, or witnessing road rage can approach 100 per- cent if the database includes motorists’ complaints about drivers who suddenly cut in front of them, honked inces- santly, braked hard without warning, swerved dangerously, hurled insults, or even forced them on to the shoulder. These

experiences might be unnerving and insulting, and some might be violations of traffic ordinances, but as merely sub- jective and uninvestigated accusations, they don’t rise to the level of criminal matters, so the aggrieved parties are not genuine “victims” of physical violence or deliberate property destruction.

The task for scholarly researchers is to sort through this collection of media and police reports about aggressive and reckless driving and focus on the incidents of intentional collisions, assaults, shootings, and even murders. For exam- ple, a comprehensive review of over 10,000 records of events that took place from 1990 through 1996 yielded an estimate of over 200 deaths and about 12,600 injuries directly attrib- utable to road rage, or an incidence rate of about 1,500 casualties a year resulting from collisions arising from dan- gerously aggressive driving (see Mizell, 1997; and Garase, 2006). On the other hand, as real as the threat may be, criminal acts of road rage seems to be a relatively infrequent event, statistically speaking, at least according to self-report surveys of drivers (Roberts and Indermaur, 2005).

Researchers are in a position to develop a portrait of the participants once road rage is operationalized in a restrictive manner to include only incidents in which one driver know- ingly injures or kills another motorist, passenger, or pedes- trian or uses a vehicle as a weapon to attack someone or something. Journalists, reflecting the popular movies of their day, originally branded offenders as “road warriors” and “Rambos,” who rejected the prevailing outlook of “have a nice day” in favor of a “make my day” chip-on-the-shoulder approach to dealing with strangers (see Best, 1991). Unlike journalists, criminologists should focus their attention on the defendants who get arrested and prosecuted for their angry outbursts, by asking questions like: Do people who pick fights when driving also start altercations in everyday life? Do they drive as they live? Do these hyperaggressive drivers differ demographically and socially from average motorists? Psychologically oriented criminologists ask whether these belligerent drivers are burdened with pent up anger, poor impulse control, “short fuses” and “hair triggers” that reflect deep-seated personality problems (and maybe even mental disorders) that make them a danger to themselves and any- one who strays into their path. These emotional disturbances might include an obsession with minimizing travel time to the point of always being in a great rush; a need to try to come in first in a highly competitive environment; a ten- dency to perceive the driving mistakes of others as personal attacks on themselves or their vehicles; and even a sense that they need to punish others to teach others a lesson to improve their driving skills (see Ayar, 2006).

(Continued)

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 31

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

B O X 1.6 Continued

But these issues about the presumed shortcomings of offenders are not the immediate focus of victim-centered investigations, which seek to expand and balance out the inquiry into the hostile encounter by paying close attention to the injured party and to the behaviors of both individuals during their confrontation. The victim–offender interaction must be carefully reconstructed. Two strikingly different pos- sibilities arise. The first scenario is that road rage casualties were innocent travelers who were cruising along and just minding their own business when they were randomly targeted by overly-aggressive drivers. This image of a routine activity being interrupted “out of the blue” by senseless violence is especially chilling because automobile travel unavoidably brings strangers from very different social backgrounds into close proximity as they attempt to share the road with one another. Road rage is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately if ordinary motorists can become embroiled in a feud without warning; if some hothead’s wrath can be vented on anyone who is unlucky enough to gets in his way; and if any motorist—just like getting into a collision—can find himself under attack at anytime.

But the alternative scenario paints an entirely different picture: that the injured party was a violence-prone individual himself. He was spoiling for a fight and was easily inflamed and incited into action. These mutual combatants overreacted to each other’s overtures. The initial event was misperceived as embody- ing a hostile intent, and this presumed threat was countered with an inappropriately bellicose response, thereby escalating the incident to the point of bloodshed or a crash. The misbehavior of the victim can be as important a catalyst in this interaction as the aggressive actions of the assailant. In essence, offenders and vic- tims “find each other” as they interact within a vast pool of fellow drivers. The question arises, in what proportion of cases are the injured parties not totally innocent victims? How often do those who get wounded or killed share some degree of responsibility with the complete strangers who attacked them? Presumably, the violations of traffic laws would not have spiraled into a criminal matter were it not for the victim’s inadvertent triggering of the aggressive driver’s violent response; or worse yet, the victim’s furious overreaction to the offender’s bad driving led to the next round of escalating hostilities. Researchers who examine the vic- tim–offender interaction can provide estimates of the percent of cases in which victims are totally innocent of any incitement to violence, and the remaining percent in which those who wind up hurt are partially at fault for triggering the aggressive driver’s illegal response.

Media accounts portray road rage victims as tending to be young males in their twenties and thirties (Asbridge, Smart, and Mann, 2003). Some researchers who have studied both

parties suggest that they have uncovered situations that illustrate the principle of homogamy: that both offenders and victims share a great deal in common, socially and demo- graphically (according to surveys about aggressive driving that asked about lesser skirmishes in addition to violent episodes). The picture they have painted from their data is that the two persons caught up in the confrontation tend to closely resemble each other. Both usually are males; often in their 20s and 30s; generally of lower socioeconomic status; frequently with drug and drinking problems; perhaps exhibiting a “macho” personality; sometimes driving around in a high- performance vehicle or sports car with tinted windows; and most disturbingly, all too often going around armed with guns (see Asbridge, Smart, and Mann, 2003, 2006; Roberts and Indermaur, 2005; Hemenway, Vriniotis, and Miller, 2006; and Fierro, Morales, and Alvarez, 2011). These angry young men, who have poor impulse control and a propensity to get into fights while trying to share the road, seem to be one and the same as those who spend a lot of time away from home and get into brawls on street corners and in bars. Additional studies that derive profiles of both parties from police files and court proceedings could settle this question about the possibility of homogamy. The research hypotheses would be that both the offenders and their victims would tend to be low–income, young, urban males, rather than females, older persons, sub- urbanites or rural residents, and more affluent people (Asbridge, Smart, and Mann, 2002).

Step 3: Investigate How Victims Are Handled

Zero in on the criminal justice system’s response. Motor vehicle collisions are a major cause of injury, dis-

ability, and death, especially of young people. On a societal level, vehicle crashes are a major source of shattered lives, emotional damage (including phobias, and in extreme cases, post-traumatic stress disorder), truncated opportunities, missed work, and other losses and expenses. Since some unknown proportion of highway carnage is attributable to road rage, this societal problem may impose serious unrecognized conse- quences for public safety and social well-being. How are the police, courts, and insurance companies addressing the needs and plight of these victims of physical violence?

Criminologists and criminal justice officials debate whether offenders might need to be punished (through stiff fines and time behind bars) to teach them a lesson not to drive recklessly again (specific deterrence), and to hold them up as negative role models to serve as a warning to other would-be road warriors (general deterrence). Incapacitation (through license suspensions and incarceration) will serve to protect other motorists by removing them from the driver’s

32 CHAPT ER 1

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

seat. Treatment (such as anger management, time manage- ment, and stress management) might be called for if that is the source of their dangerously aggressive behavior behind the wheel. But what could and should be done for the objects of their wrath? If the homogamy thesis is correct, then vic- tims might be negatively stereotyped as potential perpetra- tors themselves. The authorities might automatically handle the “ostensible targets” of road rage differently than other innocent victims of physical violence because these indivi- duals might bear some responsibility for the breaking of laws this time—and the next time, they could be the offenders.

Victim-centered questions that researchers need to address include these: What happens in police stations, courtrooms, and in insurance offices when the authorities believe that both parties are partially to blame? Are charges against the defendant reduced or dismissed if it appears that the injured party contributed in some way to the escalation of the confrontation? Do insurance companies reduce the amounts of reimbursement for damages or medical treatment, or deny the applications entirely, in cases of mutual combat? In contrast, in cases where the injured parties are blameless, are the sentences harsher on those convicted of highway mayhem than of comparable street brawls? Do innocent tar- gets of road rage get the same assistance and exercise the same rights as innocent victims of violent street crimes? How these victims’ cases actually are handled ought to be a focal concern of victimologists.

Step 4: Gather Evidence to Test Hypotheses

See if this criminal activity is linked to other social problems and whether effective responses have been devised and implemented.

Now that the term road rage is firmly entrenched in the vocabulary of law, criminal justice, and journalism, discus- sions of the problem generate many interesting hypotheses. For example, a number of possible societal causes have been suggested. Can increases or decreases in road rage be corre- lated with other indicators of changes in the pace of life and the level of tension, frustration, alienation, and cutthroat competition in an area at a given time and place? Does the problem have deeper societal roots than just the chance encounter of two foul-tempered/short-fused individuals? To what extent is road rage the outgrowth of underlying social problems, such as alcohol consumption and drug abuse; overall levels of aggression, rage, and untreated mental ill- ness; as well as increases in commuting time, road traffic, construction delays, and rush-hour congestion (see Smart and Mann, 2002; and Asbridge, Smart, and Mann, 2003).

Another interesting hypothesis that needs investigation is: Does the yearly incidence of highway violence closely track the level of violence on the streets—in other words, if public safety improves and the streets become more peaceful, does the occurrence of road rage also decline?

The next set of hypotheses to be tested is whether the measures to curb road rage are working effectively. Legisla- tures in a number of states passed tough new laws against recklessly aggressive driving, hoping to deter or weed out the problem drivers who are at high risk of causing road rage incidents. Police departments and state highway patrol agencies devised new ways of monitoring and videotaping traffic flow and accidents, and launched crackdowns to vig- orously enforce traffic laws. Criminologists need to evaluate whether these crime control strategies are bringing roadway violence under control.

At the same time, the National Safety Council, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, insurance companies, and gov- ernment agencies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed awareness and education cam- paigns, warning the public about how quickly minor traffic confrontations could escalate into dangerous showdowns. Is there much that fearful motorists can do to minimize their chances of becoming the target of another driver’s wrath, or at least to halt the up-and-back interplay before it spirals out of control? As soon as the problem was recognized, articles in the popular press and road safety educational materials alerted motorists about “How to avoid getting shot at” and “How to handle on-the-road hostility” plus other practical suggestions for those on the receiving end of aggressive driving (see Best, 1991; and Mizell, 1997). In 2007, the governor of Michigan, and in 2009, the governor of Alabama, responding to an edu- cational campaign against “emotional driving” sponsored by a self-help group founded by a parent of a woman killed in an incident, proclaimed the middle of July as “Road Rage Aware- ness Week” (Targeted News Services, 2009). Are the pragmatic tips disseminated in driver education campaigns really effec- tive as a way of preventing victimization? If road rage incidents decline after practical advice is widely disseminated, then these victim-oriented countermeasures might deserve some credit for helping concerned motorists stay out of trouble. Comparisons of changes in the levels of reported road rage crimes in similar jurisdictions that did and did not implement these strategies should shed light on this matter.

Finally, what have been the long-term trends over the decades? Is road rage (as distinct from changes in media coverage) genuinely increasing or decreasing as the years roll by? In 1997, the House Subcommittee on Surface Transpor- tation held hearings about a reported epidemic of “auto

(Continued)

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 33

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

SUMMARY

Victimization is an asymmetrical relationship that is abu- sive, parasitical, destructive, unfair, and illegal. Offenders harm their victims physically, financially, and emotion- ally. Laws that recognized that injured parties deserved governmental support and economic aid were passed centuries ago, but until themiddle of the twentieth cen- tury, the plight of crime victims was largely overlooked, even by most criminologists. When some researchers began to study victims, their initial interest betrayed an antivictim bias: they sought evidence that the victims’ behavior before and during the incidents contributed to their own downfall. Since the 1960s, themajority of the social scientists attracted to this new discipline have labored to find ways to ease the suffering of victims and to prevent future incidents. But a commitment to strive for objectivity rather than to be reflexively “pro-victim” is the best stance to adopt when carrying out research or evaluating the effectiveness of policies.

Victimology is best viewed as an area of spe- cialization within criminology. Both criminologists and victimologists seek to be impartial in their roles as social scientists when investigating lawbreaking, its social consequences, and the official responses by the justice system. But much of criminology in the past can be characterized as “offenderology,” so the new focus on those who suffer provides some bal- ance and rounds out any analysis of problems arising from lawbreaking behavior.

Victimologists carry out studies that seek to identify, define, and describe all the ways that illegal activities harm targeted individuals; to measure the seriousness of the problem; to discover how victims’ cases are actually handled by the legal system; and to test research hypotheses to see if they are sup- ported by the available evidence.

KEY TERMS DEFINED IN THE GLOSSARY

crime control, 22

criminology, 16

direct or primary victims, 2

ideal type, 5

ideology, 13

incidence rate, 31

indirect or secondary victims, 2

just desserts, 22

muggability ratings, 26

needs assessment, 29

objectivity, 4

operationalize, 28

post-traumatic stress disorder, 20

prevalence rate, 31

Stockholm syndrome, 27

subjective approach, 4

survivors, 2

survivorology, 24

victim, 2

victimism, 13

victimization, 2

victimology, 2

anarchy” that was “transforming the nation’s roadways into crime scenes.” In the midst of all this publicity, however, skeptics pointed out that statistics showed that the numbers of accidents, highway deaths, and crash-related injuries actually were trending downward, especially when the increases in the number of drivers, registered vehicles, and the total miles traveled were taken into account. Perhaps the entire road rage problem had been blown way out of

proportion right at the outset by journalists trying to attract large audiences, politicians seeking campaign donations and votes, therapists looking to profit from heightened fears of a newly recognized emotional “disorder,” and lobbyists repre- senting publicity-hungry agencies and organizations (see Drivers.com staff, 1997; Fumento, 1998; Rathbone and Huckabee, 1999; Hennessy and Wiesenthal, 2002; and “Rising Rage,” 2005).

B O X 1.6 Continued

34 CHAPT ER 1

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

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE

1. Why should victimologists strive for objectivity rather than automatically adopt a pro-victim bias?

2. Give several examples of the kinds of research questions that victimologists find interesting and the kinds of studies they carry out.

3. In what ways are victimology and criminology similar, and in what ways do they differ?

4. What are some of the important milestones in the history of victimology and victim assistance?

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

1. How should the police and the public react when hard-core criminals, such as mobsters, drug dealers, and street gang members become victims of violence?

2. Generate a list of questions about forcible rapes that would be of great interest to a victimolo- gist working within (a) an anthropological framework, (b) an historical approach, and (c) an economic perspective.

SUGGESTED RESEARCH PROJECTS

1. Perform a keyword search of a comprehensive database of magazines and newspaper articles to discover whether the term victimology is still being misused and confused with the ideology of victimism.

2. Use a comprehensive database of magazines and newspaper articles to determine whether any cases currently in the news illustrate the difficulty of identifying which party clearly is the criminal and which is the victim.

WHAT I S V I C T IMOLOGY ? 35

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

2 The Rediscovery of Crime Victims

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Discovery of Crime Victims

The Decline of Crime Victims

The Rediscovery of Crime Victims

Social Movements: Taking Up the Victims’ Cause Elected Officials: Enacting Laws Named after Victims The News Media: Portraying the Victims’ Plight Commercial Interests: Selling Security Products and Services to Victims

Victimology Contributes to the Rediscovery Process

Stage 1: Calling Attention to an Overlooked Problem Stage 2: Winning Victories, Implementing Reforms Stage 3: Emergence of an Opposition and Development of Resistance to Further Changes

Stage 4: Research and Temporary Resolution of Disputes

Rediscovering Additional Groups of Victims

Summary

Key Terms Defined in the Glossary

Questions for Discussion and Debate

Critical Thinking Questions

Suggested Research Projects

LEARNING OBJECTIVES To trace how changes in the criminal justice system

over the centuries have impacted the role of victims in the legal process.

To discover how and why the plight of victims has been rediscovered in recent decades by various social movements and groups.

To become familiar with the stages of the rediscovery process.

To apply the concept of rediscovery to specific groups of victims mentioned in the news.

36

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

THE DISCOVERY OF CRIME VICTIMS

Each law that prohibits a certain act as being harm- ful defines the wrongdoer as a criminal subject to punishment, and at the same time specifies that the injured party is a victim deserving some sort of redress. The laws forbidding what are now called street crimes—murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, and theft—can be traced back several thousand years. When the 13 American colonies were settled by immigrants from Great Britain, the earliest penal codes were based on religious values as well as English common law. Hence, victims of interpersonal violence and theft were “discovered” ages ago, in the sense that they were formally identified and officially recognized.

THE DECLINE OF CRIME VICTIMS

Scholars of the history of the legal system report that in past centuries, victims played a leading role in the resolution of criminal matters. To discour- age retaliation by victims and their families—acts that could lead to endless feuding if offenders and their kin counterattacked—societies in simpler times established direct repayment schemes. Legal codes around the world enabled injured parties to receive money or valuables from wrongdoers to compensate for the pain, suffering, and losses they endured.

This process of victim-oriented justice pre- vailed mostly in small villages engaged in farming, where social relations were based on personal obli- gations, clear-cut family ties, strong religious beliefs, and sacred traditions. But the injured party’s role diminished as industrialization and urbanization brought about business relations that were volun- tary, secular, impersonal, rationalized, and contrac- tual. Over the centuries, victims lost control over the process of determining the fate of the offenders who harmed them. Instead, the local governmental structure dominated judicial proceedings and extracted fines from convicts, physically punished them, or even executed them. The seriousness of the wounds and losses inflicted upon victims were

of importance only for determining the charges and penalties wrongdoers faced upon conviction. Restoring injured parties to the condition they were in before the crimes occurred was no longer the main concern. In fact, the recovery of damages became a separate matter that was handled in another arena (civil court) according to a different set of rules (tort law) after criminal proceedings were concluded (Schafer, 1968).

Historically, in the United States and in other parts of the world, the situations of victims followed the same evolutionary path from being at the center of the legal process to being relegated to the side- lines. During the colonial era, police forces and public prosecutors had not yet been established. Victims were the key decision makers within the rudimentary criminal justice system and were its direct beneficiaries. They conducted their own investigations, paid for warrants to have sheriffs make arrests, and hired private attorneys to indict and prosecute their alleged attackers. Convicts were forced to repay those they harmed up to three times the value of the goods they had damaged or stolen (Schafer, 1968).

But after the American Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, crimes were reconceptualized as hostile acts directed against the authority of the government, which was defined as the representative of the peo- ple. Addressing the suffering imposed upon indivi- duals was deemed to be less important than dealing with the symbolic threat to the social order posed by lawbreakers. Public prosecutors, acting on behalf of the state and in the name of the entire society, took over the powers and responsibilities formerly exercised by victims. Federal, state, and county (district) attorneys were granted the discre- tion to decide whether to press charges against defendants and what sanctions to ask judges to impose upon convicts.

The goals of deterring crime through punish- ment, protecting society by incapacitating danger- ous people in prisons or through executions, and rehabilitating transgressors through treatment came to overshadow victims’ demands to be restored to financial, emotional, and physical health.

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 37

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

Over the last two centuries, the government increasingly has assumed the obligation of providing jail detainees and prison inmates with food, clothing, housing, supervision, medical care, recreational opportunities, schooling, job training, psychological counseling, and legal representation—while leaving victims to fend for themselves. As they lost control over “their” cases, their role dwindled to just two con- tributions: filing a complaint with the police that initi- ated an investigation and, if necessary, testifying for the prosecution as another piece of evidence in the state’s presentation of damning facts against the accused.

When plea negotiation (a settlement worked out by the prosecutor and the defense attorney) replaced a trial as the most common means of resolv- ing criminal cases, victims lost their last opportunity to actively participate in the process by presenting their firsthand experiences on the witness stand to a jury. Victims rarely were included and consulted when the police and prosecution team decided upon their strat- egies and goals. To add insult to injury, often they were not even informed of the outcomes of “their” cases. Thoroughly marginalized, victims frequently sensed that they had been taken advantage of twice: first by the offender and then by a system that ostensi- blywas set up to help thembut in reality seemedmore intent on satisfying the needs of its core agencies and key officials (see Schafer, 1968; McDonald, 1977; and Davis, Kunreuther, and Connick, 1984).

THE REDISCOVERY OF CRIME VICTIMS

After centuries of neglect, those on the receiving end of violence and theft were given renewed attention and, in effect, were rediscovered during the late 1950s and early 1960s. A small number of self-help advocates, social scientists, crusading journalists, enlightened crim- inal justice officials, and responsive lawmakers helped direct public concern to a serious problem: the total disregard of the needs and wants of victims. Through publications, meetings, rallies, and petition drives, these activists promoted their message: that victims were for- gotten figures in the criminal justice process whose best interests had been systematically overlooked but

merited attention. Discussion and debate emerged during the late 1960s and has intensified throughout the following decades over why this injustice existed, and what could be done about it. Various groups with their own distinct agendas formed coalitions and mobilized to campaign for reforms. As a result, new laws favorable to victims are being passed and criminal justice policies are being overhauled.

Social Movements: Taking Up the Victims’ Cause

Aside from suffering harm at the hands of criminals, victims as a group may have very little else in com- mon. They differ in terms of age, sex, race/ethnic- ity, religion, social class, political orientation, and many other important characteristics. Therefore, it has been difficult to organize them into self-help groups and to harness their energies into a political force for change. Despite these obstacles, a crime victims’ movement emerged during the 1970s. It has developed into a broad alliance of activists, sup- port groups, and advocacy organizations that lob- bies for increased rights and expanded services, demonstrates at trials, maintains a variety of web- sites, educates the public, trains criminal justice pro- fessionals and caregivers, sets up research institutes and information clearinghouses, designs and evalu- ates experimental policies, and holds conferences to share experiences and develop innovative programs.

The guiding principle holding this diverse coa- lition together is the belief that victims who other- wise would feel powerless and enraged can attain a sense of empowerment and regain control over their lives through practical assistance, mutual sup- port, and involvement in the criminal justice pro- cess (see Friedman, 1985; Smith, 1985; Smith, Sloan, and Ward, 1990; and Weed, 1995).

The victims’ movement has greatly benefited from the work of advocates, who, by definition, speak in behalf of someone else, especially in legal matters. Originally, advocates were referred to as “ombudsmen.” Rape crisis centers and shelters for battered women were the first to empower their cli- ents in the early 1970s by furnishing them with the services of dedicated and knowledgeable consultants

38 CHAPT ER 2

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

who understood how the criminal justice process worked and how tomake the systemmore responsive to their clients’ needs. These pioneers in advocacy usually were former victims who knew firsthand what the injured parties were going through. A Florida police department and a Chicago legal services organization were the first components of the justice system to routinely provide advocates in the mid- 1970s. Shortly afterward, prosecutors’ victim–witness assistance programs (VWAPs) and family courts (responsible for assigning guardians ad litem to rep- resent the best interests of abused children) followed suit. In addition to survivors and volunteers, profes- sionals in the helping fields (such as social workers, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and lawyers) began to offer their specialized skills. Agen- cies provided short-term training in crisis intervention techniques and practical assistance with financial claims, court proceedings, and referrals to medical, mental health, and legal services. Courses and career preparation became available on college campuses. Two forms of advocacy developed: Case advocacy involves a one-on-one relationship with a client who needs specific assistance and focused guidance for a short period of time. System advocacy involves representing an entire group as part of an organized lobbying campaign to bring about procedural reforms that will ease their plight (Dussich, 2009a).

Major Sources of Inspiration, Guidance, and Support Several older and broader social movements have greatly influenced the growth and orientation of the victims’movement. The most important contri- butions have been made by the law-and-order movement, the women’s movement, and the civil rights movement.

The law-and-ordermovement of the 1960s raised concerns about the plight of victims of street crimes of violence and theft. Alarmed by surging crime rates, conservatives adopted the “crime control” perspective and campaigned for a hard-line, get-tough policies. They insisted that the criminal justice system was society’s first line of defense against internal enemies who threatened chaos and destruction. The “thin blue line” of law enforcement needed to be strength- ened. A willingness to tolerate too much misbehavior

was viewed as the problem and a crackdown on social and political deviants who disobeyed society’s rules and disrupted the lives of conventional people was offered as the solution. To win over people who might have been reluctant to grant more power to government agencies—police, prosecutors, and prison authorities—they argued that the average American should be more worried about becoming a victim than about being falsely accused,mistakenly convicted, and unjustly punished (Hook, 1972). Conservative crime control advocates pictured the scales of justice as being unfairly tilted in favor of the “bad guys” at the expense of the “good guys”—the innocent, law- abiding citizens and their allies on the police force and in the prosecutor’s office. In a smooth-running justice system that they envisioned, punishment would be swift and sure. Attorneys for defendants would no lon- ger be able to take advantage of practices that were dismissed as “loopholes” and “technicalities” that undermined the government’s efforts to arrest, detain, convict, imprison, deter, incapacitate, and impose ret- ribution on wrongdoers.

“Permissiveness” (unwarranted leniency) and any “coddling of criminals” would end: more offen- ders would be locked up for longer periods of time, and fewer would be granted bail, probation, or parole. Liberals and civil libertarians who opposed these policies as being too repressive and overly puni- tive were branded as “pro-criminal” and “anti- victim” (see Miller, 1973; and Carrington, 1975).

In contrast, liberal activists in the women’s movement have focused their energies since the late 1960s on aiding one group of victims in partic- ular: females who were harmed by males and then failed to receive the support they deserved from the male-dominated criminal justice system. Feminists launched both an antirape and an antibattering movement. The antirape movement set up the first rape crisis centers in Berkeley, California, and Washington, D.C., in 1972. These centers were not just places of aid and comfort in a time of pain and confusion. They also were rallying sites for outreach efforts to those who were suffering in isolation, meeting places for consciousness-raising groups exploring the patriarchal cultural traditions that encouraged males to subjugate females, and hubs

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 39

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

for political organizing to change laws and policies (see Rose, 1977; Largen, 1981; and Schechter, 1982). Some antirape activists went on to protest the widespread problem of sexual harassment on the street, uniting behind the slogan “Take back the night” (see Lederer, 1980).

Other feminists helped organize battered women’s shelters. They established the first “safe house” in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1974. Campaigns to end battering paralleled activities to combat rape in a number of ways. Both projects were initiated for the most part by former victims who viewed their plight as an outgrowth of larger societal pro- blems and institutional arrangements, rather than as personal troubles stemming from their own indi- vidual shortcomings. Both sought to empower women by confronting established male authority, challenging existing procedures, providing peer support and advocacy, and devising alternative places to seek help in a time of need. The overall analysis that originally guided these pro-victim efforts was that male versus female offenses (such as rape, wife beating, sexual harassment in the streets and at work, and incest at home) pose a threat to all women; and that this kind of illegal sexual oppression slows progress toward equality between the sexes. The gravest dangers are faced by women who are socially disadvantaged because of racial discrimination and economic insecurity. According to this philosophy, girls and women vic- timized by boys and men cannot count on the pri- vileged males at the helm of criminal justice agencies to lead the struggle to effectively protect or assist them—instead, women must empower each other (see Brownmiller, 1975).

Similarly, liberal activists in the civil rights movement focused their energies on opposing entrenched racist beliefs and discriminatory practices that encouraged members of the white majority to intimidate, harass, and attack people of color. Over the decades since the 1950s, this movement has brought together organizations representing the interests of a wide range of minority groups, in order to direct attention to the special threats posed by racist violence, from lynch mobs to Ku Klux Klan terrorism in the form of bombings and assassinations.

In recent years, one of the movement’s major concerns has been convincing the government to pro- vide enhanced protection to individuals who are the targets of bias crimes, which are motivated by the perpetrators’ hatred of the “kind of person” the victim represents. Bias crimes can range from harassment and vandalism to arson, beatings, and slayings. Civil rights groups have been instrumental in lobbying state leg- islatures to impose stiffer penalties on attackers whose behavior is fueled by bigotry and in establishing spe- cialized police squads to more effectively deter or solve these inflammatory violations of the law. Oth- erwise, these divisive crimes could polarize communi- ties along racial and ethnic lines and thereby undermine the ongoing American experiment of fos- tering multicultural tolerance and the celebration of diversity (see Levin and McDevitt, 2003).

Civil rights organizations also try to mobilize pub- lic support to demand evenhandedness in the adminis- tration of justice. A double standard, although more subtle today than in the past, may still infect the opera- tions of the criminal justice system. Crimes by black perpetrators against white victims always have been taken very seriously—thoroughly investigated, quickly solved, vigorously prosecuted, and severely punished. However, crimes by white offenders against black vic- tims, as well as by blacks against other blacks (see Ebony, 1979) have rarely evoked the same govern- mental response andpublic outrage.Themore frequent imposition of the death penalty on murderers who kill whites, especially blacks who slay whites, is the clearest example of a discriminatory double standard (see Baldus, 2003). Civil rights activists also point out that members of minority groups continue to face graver risks of becoming victims of official misconduct in the formof police brutality—or evenworse, the unjustified use of deadly force—as well as false accusations, frame- ups, wrongful convictions, and other miscarriages of justice.

Additional Contributions by Other Social Movements Social movements that champion the causes of civil liberties, children’s rights, senior citizens’ rights, homosexual rights, and self-help also have made significant contributions to bettering the situation of victims.

40 CHAPT ER 2

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

The civil liberties movement’s primary focus is to preserve constitutional safeguards and due- process guarantees that protect suspects, defendants, and prisoners from abuses of governmental power by overzealous criminal justice officials. However, civil liberties organizations have won court victories that have benefited victims of street crime in two ways: by furthering police professionalism and by extend- ing the doctrine of “equal protection under the law.”

In professionalized police departments, officers must meet higher educational and training require- ments and must abide by more demanding stan- dards. As a result, victims are more likely to receive prompt responses, effective service, and sen- sitive treatment. If they don’t, channels exist through which they can redress their grievances. Guarantees of equal protection enable minority communities to gain access to the police and pros- ecutorial assistance to which they are entitled and to insist upon their right to improved, more profes- sional law enforcement in contrast to the underpo- licing they endured until recently. This improves the prospects for sensitive and responsive handling for complainants whose calls for help were given short shrift in the past when officials discriminated against them due to their race, ethnicity, sex, age, social class, disability, or some other disadvantage (Walker, 1982; and Stark and Goldstein, 1985).

Children’s rights groups campaign against sexual abuse, physical abuse, severe corporal punish- ment, gross neglect, and other forms of maltreat- ment of youngsters. Their successes include stricter reporting requirements of cases of suspected abuse; improved procedures for arrest, prosecution, and conviction of offenders; greater sensitivity to the needs of victimized children as complaining wit- nesses; enhanced protection and prevention services; and more effective parenting instruction programs. Activists in senior citizens’ groups have pressured some police departments to establish special squads to protect older people from younger robbers and swindlers and have brought about greater awareness of the problem of elder abuse—financial, emotional, and physical mistreatment by family members or caretakers (see Smith and Freinkel, 1988).

The gay rights movement originally called attention to the vulnerability of male homosexuals and lesbians to blackmail, exploitation by organized crime syndicates that ran bars and clubs, and police harassment of those who deserved protection (see Maghan and Sagarin, 1983). The movement now focuses on preventing street assaults (“gay-bashing”) against suspected homosexuals and lesbians—hate crimes that are motivated by the offenders’ disdain for the victims’ presumed sexual orientation.

Groups that are part of the self-help move- ment have set up dependable support systems for injured parties by combining the participatory spirit of the grassroots protest movements of the 1960s with the self-improvement ideals of the human potential movement of the 1970s. The ideology of self-help is based upon a fundamental organizing principle: that people who have directly experi- enced the pain and suffering of being harmed and are still struggling to overcome these hardships themselves can foster a sense of solidarity and mutual support that is more comforting and effec- tive than the services offered by impersonal bureau- cracies and emotionally detached professional caregivers (Gartner and Riessman, 1980).

Even the prisoners’ rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s may have inspired victim activism. Inmates rebelled at a number of correc- tional institutions, often in vicious and counterpro- ductive ways. They protested overcrowded conditions; demanded decent living standards; insisted on greater ways of communicating with the outside world (via uncensored mail, access to the mass media, more family visits and meetings with lawyers); asked for freedom of religion; called for more opportunities for rehabilitation, education, and job training; and complained about mistreat- ment and brutality by guards (see ACLU, 2008). Many people harmed by these incarcerated offen- ders surely asked, if convicts deserve better treat- ment from the authorities, don’t we, too?

The task for victimologists is to assess the impact these other social movements have had on shaping the course of the victims’ movement over the decades, as well as on alleviating the suffering of persons harmed by criminals these days. How

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 41

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

effective and influential have the victories of these campaigns really been?

Elected Officials: Enacting Laws Named after Victims

Legislators engaged in the political process of enacting new laws have helped rediscover and publicize the plight of victims. Starting in the 1980s, federal, state, and local representatives realized that if they proposed a new law and named it after someone who had suffered terribly in a highly publicized crime, their campaign would gain a great deal of favorable media coverage that would help build support for the law’s passage and for their own reelection. All suggestions for revisions and additions to the existing body of laws can be controversial and might provoke opposition, but officeholders who dare to argue against proposed legislation that enshrines the name of an innocent person harmed by a vicious predator run the risk of being branded “antivictim.”

Probably the best-known example of a law bearing the name of a crime victim is this “Brady Bill,” Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The title hon- ors James Brady, President Reagan’s press secretary, whowas shot in the head in 1981 by an assassin trying to kill the president (the gunfire killed two persons guarding the president). This “Brady Bill,” which Congress passed in 1993, imposed a computer-based FBI criminal background check on anyone who seeks to buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, in a stepped-up attempt to prevent arms purchases by individuals deemed to be dangerous (which had been forbidden by law since 1968, as a reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963).

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (originally referred to as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act) was signed into law in 1990. Named to memorialize a 19-year-old freshman who was raped and murdered in her dorm by another student, the law requires all colleges that receive federal aid to maintain and disclose annual reports about a long list of crimes that take place on or near their campuses.

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act went into effect in 2008. It set up a cold case unit

within the Department of Justice to reinvestigate bias-motivated murders committed before 1970 that had violated a person’s civil rights. Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black teenager, was kidnapped, tortured, shot, and dumped into a river in 1955 by two white racists for flirting with the wife of one of the two men at a grocery store in rural Mississippi (see Anderson, 2011).

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was passed by Congress in 2009. Named to commemorate a gay college stu- dent who was beaten to death by bigots, and an African-American man who was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by white supremacists, the legislation expanded the coverage of the federal government’s hate-crime law, which was originally passed in 1969.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was enacted by Congress in 2006. Named in the memory of a six-year-old who was abducted from a department store and then viciously murdered, the act strength- ened sex offender registration requirements, stiff- ened the penalties of existing laws forbidding sexually abusing and exploiting children, and extended federal authority over kidnappings.

Over the decades, many state legislatures have passed statutes named after victims, such as New Jersey’s Megan’s Law. Commemorating a seven- year-old girl slain in 1994 by her next door neigh- bor, a habitual child molester, each state’s version of Megan’s Law mandates that convicted sex offenders register with their local police department, and that community residents be notified of their where- abouts, so that parents—in theory, at least—can take steps to better shield their children from these potentially dangerous strangers.

Since the 1980s, state and county legislatures nationwide have enacted thousands of new laws named after victims (see Lovett, 2006; and Editors, New York Post, 2006). The rediscovery of the victim’s plight by lawmakers can evoke two very different responses. The first is to view certain highly publicized tragedies as a “final straw” that focused much-needed attention on a festering problem, mobilized public

42 CHAPT ER 2

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

opinion, and triggered long overdue legislative action bywell-meaning elected officials. The other response is to suspect that vote-seeking politicians are exploiting the media attention surrounding highly emotional but very complicated situations for their own personal advantage (to advance their careers). They grab head- lines by proposing a change in the existing body of law that will allegedly prevent such an incident from hap- pening again. The strong feelings evoked by a recent tragedy make it difficult for opponents to question the wisdom of implementing the reforms proposed in the name of the victim.

The task for victimologists is to start out as impartial observers and to gather data to see whether the legislation bearing the name of a victim actually offers any tangible assistance to ease the plight of individuals harmed in this particular manner. Also, are these measures really effective in preventing innocent people from being hurt by these kinds of offenses in the future, or do they just punish offen- ders more severely in behalf of those they already injured? Some of these recent legal reforms enacted to ostensibly reduce the occurrence of a certain kind of victimization might turn out to be ill-conceived, seriously flawed, ineffective, or even counterproduc- tive (for example, see Cooper, 2005).

The News Media: Portraying the Victims’ Plight

The news media deserve a great deal of credit for rediscovering victims. In the past, offenders received the lion’s share of coverage in newspapers, maga- zines, and on radio and television stations. Stories delved into their backgrounds, their motives, and what should be done with them—usually how severely they should be punished. Scant attention was paid to the flesh-and-blood individuals who suf- fered because of the offender’s illegal activities.

But now those who are on the receiving end of criminal behavior are no longer invisible or forgot- ten people. Details about the injured parties are routinely included to inject some human interest into crime stories. Balanced accounts can vividly describe the victims’ plight: how they were harmed, what losses they incurred, what intense emotions

distressed them, what helped or even hindered their recovery, how they were treated by care- givers, and how their cases were handled by the legal system. By remaining faithful to the facts, journalists can enable their audiences to transcend their own limited experiences with lawbreakers and to see emergencies, tragedies, and triumphs through the eyes of the injured parties. Skillful reporting and insightful observations allow the public to better understand and empathize with the actions and reactions of those who suffered harm.

In highly publicized cases, interviews by jour- nalists have given victims a voice in how their cases are resolved in court, and even how the problem (such as kidnappings, easy access to firearms, or col- lisions caused by drunk drivers) should be handled by the criminal justice system. Media coverage has given these individuals with firsthand experiences a public platform to campaign for wider societal reforms (Dignan, 2005).

However, victims—and if they perish vio- lently, their next of kin—often complain about sensationalism, a kind of coverage that has been branded as “scandal-mongering,” “pandering,” “yellow journalism,” and “tabloidism.” Newspa- pers, magazines, radio stations, and television net- works are prone to engage in sensationalism because they are profit-oriented businesses. Shock- ing stories attract readers, listeners, and viewers. Blaring headlines, gripping accounts, colorful phrases, memorable quotes, and other forms of media “hype” build the huge audiences that enable media enterprises to charge advertisers high rates. Producers, editors, and reporters who seek to play up the human-interest angle may exploit the plight of persons who have suffered devastating wounds and losses, having found that crime stories attract a lot more notice if they are spiced up with a heavy dose of sex, gore, and raw emotions. In the quest for higher ratings, coverage can sink to an “If it bleeds, it leads” orientation that infects commer- cially driven “infotainment.” If reporters turn a per- sonal tragedy into a media circus and a public spectacle, their intrusive behavior might be consid- ered an invasion of privacy. Overzealous journalists frequently are criticized for showing corpses lying

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 43

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

in a pool of blood, maintaining vigils outside a grieving family’s home, or shoving microphones into the faces of bereaved, dazed, or hysterical rela- tives at funerals. The injured party receives unwanted publicity and experiences a loss of con- trol as others comment upon, draw lessons from, and impose judgments on what he or she allegedly did, or did not do, or should have done. It appears that incidents receive intensive and sustained cover- age only when some aspect of the victim–offender relationship stands out as an attention-grabber: The act, the perpetrator, or the target must be unusual, unexpected, strange, or perverse. Causing harm in ways that is typical, commonplace, or predictable is just not newsworthy. Editors and journalists sift through an overwhelming number of real-life trag- edies that come to their attention (largely through contacts within the local police department) and select the cases that are most likely to seize center stage, shock people out of their complacency, or arouse the public’s social conscience.

The stories that are featured strike a responsive chord in audiences because the incidents symbolize some significant theme—for example, that anyone can be chosen at random, simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time; that complete strangers cannot be trusted; and that bystanders might not come to a person’s aid, especially in anonymous, big-city settings (Roberts, 1989). Historically, heinous crimes that have received the most press attention have had one or more of these elements in common: Either the injured party or the defendant is a child, woman, or a prominent or wealthy person; intimations of “promiscuous” behavior by the victim or defendant help explain the event; and some doubts linger about the guilt of the convict; and the circumstances surrounding the slaying seemed unusual (Stephens, 1988; and Buck- ler and Travis, 2005). For example, it is predictable that the unsolved Christmas Eve murder of a six- year-old beauty contest winner in her own upscale home, with her parents and brother upstairs, would be the subject of incessant tabloid sensationalism (Johnson, 2008). Similarly, the disappearance of a 24-year-old intern after jogging in a park set off an avalanche of lurid speculation when it was revealed that she was having an affair with a married

Congressman (the case was solved years later when her killer turned out to be a complete stranger who had attacked other women in that same park at about the same time) (Tavernise, 2011). Further- more, media coverage may reflect the unconscious biases of talk show hosts, correspondents, and editors whowork in the newsroom. For example,members of minority communities have charged that national news outlets, especially those on cable TV, focus relentless attention on the disappearance of attractive white peo- ple, particularly young women and children, but over- look equally compelling cases involving individuals who do not share these characteristics (see Lyman, 2005; Memmott, 2005; and Gardiner, 2008).

If these charges are true, the problem may go deeper and may reflect the shortcomings of market- driven journalism. The gatekeepers, under organi- zational pressures to sell their product, sift through a huge pool of items and select stories they perceive will resonate with the general public, at the expense of presenting an accurate sampling of the full range of tragedies taking place locally, nationally, and around the world (see Buckler and Travis, 2005).

And yet, it can be argued that media coverage of crime stories is an absolute necessity in an open society. Reporters and news editors have a consti- tutional right, derived from the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, to present information about lawbreaking to the public without interfer- ence from the government. Illegal activities not only harm particular individuals but also pose a threat to those who may be next. People have a right as well as a need to know about the emer- gence of dangerous conditions and ominous devel- opments, and the media has an obligation to communicate this information accurately.

The problem is that the public’s right to know about crime and the media’s right to report these incidents clash with the victim’s right to privacy. Journalists, editors, and victims’ advocates are addressing questions of fairness and ethics in a wide variety of forums, ranging from blogs and posted comments on the Web and letters to the editor in newspapers, to professional conferences and lawsuits in civil court.

Several remedies have been proposed to curb abusive coverage of a victim’s plight. One approach

44 CHAPT ER 2

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

would be to enact new laws to shield those who suffer from needless public exposure, such as unnec- essary disclosure of names and addresses in news cov- erage or on websites. An alternative approach would be to rely on the self-restraint of reporters and their editors. The fact that most news accounts of sexual molestations of children and of rapes no longer reveal the names of those who were harmed is an example of this self-policing approach in action. A third rem- edy would be for the media to adopt a code of pro- fessional ethics. Journalists who abide by the code would “read victims their rights” at the outset of interviews, just as police officers read suspects their Miranda rights when taking them into custody (see Thomason and Babbilli, 1987; and Karmen, 1989).

Victimologists could play an important role in monitoring progress by studying how frequently and how seriously news reporters insult and defame the subjects of their stories and how successfully the dif- ferent reform strategies prevent this kind of exploita- tion, or at least minimize abusive invasions of privacy.

Then there is the question of accuracy in media imagery. For example, the most publicized stories about mass killings center on a lone gunman who randomly shoots complete strangers in a public set- ting. However, a careful analysis of multiple homi- cides reveals that the most frequent category of mass killings is the head of a household slaying all the members of his family, so the widely disseminated image misidentifies the greatest source of danger (Duwe, 2000). Journalists often put forward intrigu- ing possibilities without sufficient documentation in their coverage of victims’ issues. A story in the news might hypothesize that there are a great many bat- tered women living in insular, devoutly religious communities who are extremely reluctant to turn to outside authorities for help. It is up to victimologists to treat these plausible assertions as research hypothe- ses to be tested, to see if the available data support or undermine these impressions circulating in the media.

Commercial Interests: Selling Security Products and Services to Victims

Just as the rediscovery of victims by elected officials and the news media has benefits as well as drawbacks, so too does the new attention paid to injured parties

by businesses. The development of this newmarket of people seeking out protective services and antitheft devices simultaneously raises the possibility of com- mercial exploitation. Profiteers can engage in fear mongering and false advertising in order to cash in on the legitimate concerns and desires of customers who feel particularly vulnerable and even panicky. In situations where entrepreneurs issue bold claims about their products’ effectiveness, objectivity takes the form of scientific skepticism. Victimologists must represent the public interest and demand, “Prove those assertions! Where is the evidence?”

Consider the question of whether expensive automobile security systems actually work as well as their manufacturers’ advertisements say they do. For instance, do car alarms really provide the layer of protection against break-ins that their purchasers want and that sales pitches claim? In New York, the City Council passed regulations restricting the installation of new car alarms because the devices were deemed to be largely ineffective as well as a serious source of noise pollution. Rather than agree- ing with frustrated motorists that the wailing sirens do no good, or trying to defend the alarm industry’s reputation and profits, nonpartisan victimologists can independently evaluate the effectiveness of these antitheft devices. Are car alarms really useful in deterring break-ins; in minimizing losses of acces- sories such as car stereos, navigation systems, or air bags; in preventing vehicles from being driven away; and in aiding the police to catch thieves red-handed?

VICTIMOLOGY CONTRIBUTES TO THE REDISCOVERY PROCESS

The emergence and acceptance of victimology has furthered the rediscovery of new groups of victims. This process—in which people whose plight was recognized long ago, neglected for many years, and now again gains the attention it deserves—goes on and on with no end in sight. Such rediscovered groups include battered women; females who have suffered date rapes; kidnapped children; people targeted by bigots; drivers attacked by enraged fellow motorists; pedestrians, passengers, and drivers killed in collisions caused by drunkards; prisoners sexually

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 45

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

assaulted by fellow inmates; and detainees killed while in government custody.

The rediscovery process is more than just a well-intentioned humanitarian undertaking, media campaign, or example of special pleading. It has far- reaching consequences for everyday life, and the stakes are high. Injured people who gain legitimacy as innocent victims and win public backing are in a position to make compelling claims on government resources (asking for compensation payments to cover the expenses they incurred from their physical wounds, for example). People who know from first- hand experience about the suffering caused by illegal acts also can advance persuasive arguments about reforming criminal justice policies concerning arrest, prosecution, trial procedures, appropriate sentences, and custodial control over prisoners. Finally, redis- covered victims can assert that preventing others from suffering the same fate requires a change in prevailing cultural values about tolerating social conditions that generate criminal behavior. Victims even can make recommendations that are taken seriously about the ways people should and should not behave (for instance, how husbands should treat their wives, and how closely parents should supervise their children) and even the proper role of government (such as how readily the state should intervene in “private”matters such as violence between intimates).

The process of rediscovery usually unfolds through a series of steps and stages. The sequential model that is proposed below incorporates obser- vations drawn from several sources. The notion of developmental stages arises from the self-definition of the victimization process (Viano, 1989). The natural history, career, or life-cycle perspective comes from examining models of ongoing social problems (see Fuller and Myers, 1941; Ross and Staines, 1972; and Spector and Kitsuse, 1987). The focus on how concerns about being harmed are first raised, framed, and then publicized arises from the con- structionist approach (see Best, 1989b). The idea of inevitable clashes of opposing interest groups battling over governmental resources and influence over legislation comes from sociology’s conflict approach. The realization that there is an ongoing struggle by victimized groups for respect and support

in the court of public opinion is an application of the concept of stigma contests (Schur, 1984).

Stage 1: Calling Attention to an Overlooked Problem

The rediscovery process is set in motion whenever activists begin to raise the public’s consciousness about some type of illegal situation that “everybody knows” happens but few have cared enough to investigate or try to correct. These moral entre- preneurs, who lead campaigns to change laws and win people over to their point of view, usually have firsthand experience with a specific problem as well as direct, personal knowledge of the pain and suf- fering that accompany it. Particularly effective self- help and advocacy groups have been set up by mothers whose children were killed in collisions caused by drunk drivers, survivors of officers slain in the line of duty, and parents who endured the agony of searching for their missing children, among others. Additional individuals who deserve credit for arousing an indifferent public include the targets of hate-driven bias crimes, adults haunted by the way they were molested when they were young, women brutally raped by acquaintances they trusted, and wives viciously beaten by their husbands. These victims called attention to a state of affairs that people took for granted as harmful but shrugged off with a “What can anyone do about it?” attitude.

These activists responded, “Things don’t have to be this way!” Exploitative and hurtful relation- ships don’t have to be tolerated—they can be pre- vented, avoided, and outlawed; governmental policies can be altered; and the criminal justice system can be made more accountable and respon- sive to its “clients.” As Stage 1 moves along, activists function as the inspiration and nucleus for the for- mation of self-help groups that provide mutual aid and solace and also undertake campaigns for reform. Members of support networks believe that only people who have suffered through the same ordeal can really understand and appreciate what others just like them are going through (a basic tenet borrowed from therapeutic communities that assist substance abusers to recover from drug addiction).

46 CHAPT ER 2

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

Activists also state that victims’ troubles stem from larger social problems that are beyond any individual’s ability to control; consequently, those who suffer should not be blamed for causing their own misfor- tunes. Finally, activists argue that recovery requires empowerment within the criminal justice process so that victims can pursue what they define as their own best interests, whether to see to it that the offender receives the maximum punishment permitted by law, is compelled to undergo treatment, and/or is ordered to pay their bills for crime-related expenses.

To build wider support for their causes, moral entrepreneurs and self-help groups organize them- selves into loosely structured coalitions such as the antirape and antibattering movements. Usually, one or two well-publicized cases are pointed to as sym- bolic of the problem. Soon many other victims come forward to tell about similar personal experiences. Then experts such as social workers, detectives, and lawyers testify about the suffering that these kinds of victims routinely endure and plead that legal remedies are urgently needed. Extensive media coverage is a prerequisite for success. The group’s plight becomes known because of investigative reports on television, talk radio discussions, magazine cover stories, newspa- per editorials, and the circulation of these accounts on blogs. Meanwhile, press conferences, demonstrations, marches, candlelight vigils, petition drives, ballot initiatives, lawsuits, and lobbying campaigns keep the pressure on and the issue alive.

Sociologically, what happens during the first stage can be termed the social construction of a social problem, along with claims-making and typification (see Spector and Kitsuse, 1987; and Best, 1989b), when a consensus about a pattern of behavior that is harmful and should be subjected to criminal penalties is constructed. This crystallization of public opinion is a product of the activities of moral entrepreneurs, support groups, and their allies. Spokespersons engage in a claims-making process to air grievances, estimate how many people are hurt in this manner, suggest appropriate remedies to facilitate recovery, and recommend measures that could pre- vent this kind of physical, emotional, and financial suffering from burdening others. Through the process of typification, advocates point out classic cases and

textbook examples that illustrate the menace to soci- ety against which they are campaigning.

Stage 2: Winning Victories, Implementing Reforms

The rediscovery process enters its second stage whenever activists and advocacy groups begin to make headway toward their goals.

At first, it might be necessary to set up indepen- dent demonstration projects or pilot programs to prove the need for special services. Then government grants can be secured, or federal, state, and local agen- cies can copy successful models or take over some responsibility for providing information, assistance, and protection. For instance, the battered women’s movement set up shelters, and the antirape move- ment established crisis centers. Eventually local gov- ernments funded safe houses where women and their young children could seek refuge, and hospitals (and even some universities) organized their own 24-hour rape hotlines and crisis-intervention services.

Individuals subjected to bias crimes were redis- covered during the 1990s. During the 1980s, only private organizations monitored incidents of hate- motivated violence and vandalism directed against racial and religious minorities, as well as homosexuals. But in 1990, the government got involved when Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which authorized the FBI to undertake the task of collecting reports about bias crimes from local police departments. Achievements that mark this second stage in the rediscovery process include the imposition of harsher penalties and the establishment of specially trained law enforcement units in many jurisdictions to more effectively recognize, investigate, solve, and prosecute bias crimes. Self-help groups offer injured parties tangible forms of support.

The best example of a rediscovery campaign that has raised consciousness, won victories, and secured reforms is the struggle waged since the early 1980s by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). It is an organization of parents, mostly mothers, whose sons or daughters were injured or killed by drunk drivers. These anguished survivors argued that for too long the “killer drunk”was able to get away with a socially

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 47

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

acceptable and judicially excusable form of homicide because more people identified with the intoxicated driver than with the innocent person who died from injuries sustained in the collision.

Viewing themselves as the relatives of bona fide crime victims, not merely accident victims, these crusaders were able to move the issue from the obituary page to the front page by using a wide range of tactics to mobilize public support, includ- ing candlelight vigils, pledges of responsible behav- ior by children and family cooperation by their parents, and demonstrations outside courthouses. Local chapters of their national self-help organiza- tions offered concrete services: pamphlets were dis- tributed through hospital emergency rooms and funeral parlors, bereavement support groups assisted grieving relatives, and volunteers accompanied vic- tims and their families to police stations, prosecu- tors’ offices, trials, and sentencing hearings.

Buoyed by very favorable media coverage, their lobbying campaigns brought about a crackdown on DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated) offenders. Enforcement measures include roadblocks, license suspensions and revoca- tions, more severe criminal charges, and on-the-spot confiscations of vehicles. Their efforts also led to reforms of drinking laws, such as raising the legal drinking age to 21 and lowering the blood-alcohol concentration levels that officially define impairment and intoxication (Thompson, 1984). Along with the 55-mph speed limit, mandatory seat belt laws, improved vehicle safety engineering, better roads, and breakthroughs in emergency medical services, the achievements of MADD and its allies have saved countless lives (Ayres, 1994).

Stage 3: Emergence of an Opposition and Development of Resistance to Further Changes

The third stage in the rediscovery process is marked by the emergence of groups that oppose the goals sought by victims of rediscovered crimes. The victims had to overcome public apathy during Stage 1 and bureau- cratic inertia during Stage 2, and they encounter resis- tance from other quarters during Stage 3. A backlash arises against perceived excesses in their demands. The

general argument of opponents is that the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction, that people are uncritically embracing a point of view that is too extreme, unbalanced, and one-sided, and that special interests are trying to advance an agenda that does not really benefit the law-abiding majority.

Spokespersons for a group of recently rediscovered victims might come under fire for a number of reasons. They might be criticized for overestimating the num- ber of people harmed when the actual threat to the public, according to the opposition, is much smaller. Advocates might be condemned for portraying those who were harmed as totally innocent of blame—and therefore deserving of unqualified support—when in reality some are partly at fault and shouldn’t get all the assistance that they demand. Activists might be casti- gated for making unreasonable demands that will cost the government (and taxpayers) too much money. They also might be denounced for insisting upon new policies that would undermine cherished consti- tutional rights, such as the presumption of innocence of persons accused of breaking the law (for example, allegations about child abuse or elder abuse can lead to investigations that permanently stigmatize the alleged wrongdoers even if the charges later turn out to be unfounded) (see Crystal, 1988).

When the antirape movement claimed to have discovered an outbreak of date rapes against college students, skeptics asked why federally mandated statis- tics about incidents reported to campus security forces showed no such upsurge. They contended that hard- to-classify liaisons were being redefined as full-fledged sexual assaults, thereby maligning some admittedly sexually aggressive and exploitative college men as hard-core criminals (see Gilbert, 1991; Hellman, 1993; and MacDonald, 2008a). When the battered women’s movement organized a clemency drive to free certain imprisoned wives who had slain their abu- sive husband (in self-defense, they contended, but pro- secutors and jurors disagreed), critics charged that these women would be getting away with revenge killings. When incest survivors insisted that new memory retrieval techniques had helped them recall repressed recollections of sexual molestations by parents, step- parents, and other guardians, some accused family members banded together and insisted they were being unfairly slandered because of a therapist-induced

48 CHAPT ER 2

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

false memory syndrome (see Chapters 8, 9, and 10 for an in-depth analysis of these three controversies).

Even the many accomplishments of the entire victims’ movement can be questioned (see Weed, 1995). Under the banner of advancing victims’ rights, pressure groups might advocate policies that undermine whatever progress has been made toward securing humane treatment for offenders and ex-prisoners and inadvertently “widen the net” of formal social control exercised by the police and prosecutors over deviants and rebels. Victim activism can unnecessarily heighten fear and anxiety levels about the dangers of violence and theft and divert funds away from social programs designed to tackle the root causes of street crime.

Groups that focus their energies on the plight of individuals harmed by street crimes also can distract attention from other socially harmful activities such as polluting the environment or marketing unsafe pro- ducts, and their reforms can raise expectations about full recovery that just cannot be reasonably met (Fattah, 1986). It is even possible that what was for- merly a grassroots movement run by volunteers who solicited donations has metamorphosed into a virtual “victim industry.” It engages in a type of mass pro- duction, churning out newly identified groups of victims by dwelling on kinds of suffering that can arise from noncriminal sources such as bullying, emo- tional abuse, sexual harassment, sexual addiction, eating disorders, and credit card dependency (Best, 1997).

Stage 4: Research and Temporary Resolution of Disputes

It is during the fourth and last stage of the rediscov- ery process that victimologists can make their most valuable contributions. By getting to the bottom of unsolved mysteries and by intervening in bitter conflicts, victimologists can become a source of accurate assessments, helping evaluate competing claims about whether the problem has or has not been brought under control, and whether treat- ment and prevention measures are genuinely effec- tive. By maintaining objectivity, victimologists can serve as arbiters in these heated disputes.

For instance, ever since the early 1980s, parents have been petrified about the specter of kidnappers

spiriting off their children. Highly publicized cases of vicious pedophiles abducting, molesting, and then slaying youngsters periodically rekindle this smoldering panic. Claims by some child-search organizations that each year tens of thousands of children were being kidnapped by complete stran- gers created near hysteria among parents until some journalists challenged their estimates as gross exag- gerations. A blue-ribbon panel of experts convened by the U.S. Department of Justice in the 1980s and again in the late 1990s sought to make sense out of competing claims about just how often such unner- ving and infuriating tragedies take place each year. The researchers concluded that killings and long- term abductions by complete strangers were, thank- fully, very rare and did not pose a dire threat to the well-being of the next generation.

During the 1980s, a series of shocking shootings by disgruntled gun-toting employees led to the redis- covery of victims of “workplace violence.” In the aftermath of these slaughters, worried workers insisted that employers call in occupational safety specialists to devise protection and prevention programs. Anxious managers usually acceded, fearing expensive lawsuits and lowered morale and productivity. But researchers have determined that these highly publicized multiple murders accounted for just a tiny fraction of a multi- faceted but far less newsworthy set of dangers. Most of the cases of workplace violence across the country involve robberies, unarmed assaults, and complaints about stalkers acting in a menacing way. Many inci- dents that disrupt the smooth functioning of factories and offices are not even criminal matters, such as instances of verbal abuse, bullying, and sexual harass- ment (Rugala, 2004).

During Stage 4, a standoff, deadlock, or truce might develop between victims’ advocates who want more changes, and their opponents who resist any fur- ther reforms. But the fourth phase is not necessarily the final phase. The findings and policy recommendations of neutral parties such as victimologists and criminolo- gists do not settle questions once and for all. Concerns about some type of victimization can recede from public consciousness for years, only to reappear when social conditions are ripe for a new four stage cycle of rediscovery of 1) claims making; 2) reform; 3) opposi- tion; and 4) temporary resolution.

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 49

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

B O X 2.1 An Illustration of the Four Stages in the Rediscovery Process: The Plight of Victims of Human Trafficking

Stage One: Reviving Public Outrage about a Longstanding Problem:

Trafficking in human beings is widely recognized as a lucrative racket and a major aspect of the crime problem in a great many source, transit, and destination countries across the globe. But it is not a new development: its victims were first discovered over 100 years ago.

During the early years of the twentieth century, a worldwide movement against “white slavery” arose. Its goal was to stop prostitutes from Europe from being sent to brothels throughout the colonial empires of the Western powers. Even though this moral panic about the sexual enslavement of white females eventually proved to be far smaller and less significant than popularly depicted, the campaign to stop it led to a series of treaties, including the “International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic” (1904), the League of Nation’s “International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women and Children” (1921) and its “Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women of Full Age” (1933), and the United Nation’s “Convention For the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others” (1949) (Lobasz, 2009).

Besides the historic use of violence against women com- pelled to take part in the sex trade, the economic exploitation of migrant workers who toiled in factories and fields was another longstanding and widely deplored practice. Starting in the late 1980s, a number of countries, reform-minded non- governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights activists, feminists, and religious groups began to publicize these abu- sive relationships. A number of factors came together to heighten concern and provoke outrage: the emergence of a focus on females within the human rights movement; the growing desperation in many societies of single mothers to find ways to support their children (the feminization of pov- erty); the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites, causing many young white women to search for a means of survival abroad; large-scale migrations across the world of workers across borders in a quest to escape poverty and seek opportunities in a rapidly globalizing economy; and the consolidation of organized crime’s hold over the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and people. Raids against transnational trafficking rings, statements by world leaders, international conferences, and articles as well as popular movies depicting sexual slavery heightened pressures to do something. In response, the Clinton Administration drafted a comprehensive approach that embodied prosecution, protection (of trafficked persons), and prevention (Jahic and Finckenauer, 2005; Lobasz, 2009; and Chuang, 2010).

Two rather unlikely allies joined together to campaign for stronger laws. The first were certain American feminists who viewed prostitution as an entrenched institution of male dominance and its female providers as subordinates com- pelled to sell their bodies because of a lack of meaningful economic alternatives. The second political force was a coa- lition of conservative evangelical Christians, whose concerns about men who take advantage of “fallen women” stemmed from matters of conscience and strongly held beliefs about purity, innocence, virtue, sin, and immorality. Their reli- giously motivated crusade centered on preserving traditional marriages and families rather than on liberating women from subordination to patriarchal control by opening up better opportunities that would enable them to become financially independent (Chuang, 2010).

A search of journalism databases reveals that media coverage of the problem has grown exponentially from a mere handful of articles at the start of the 1990s to about 3,750 in 2008 alone (Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahey, 2010).

In order to gain the greatest amount of support for the campaign, advocates socially constructed a “perfect victim” who did not choose to leave her family and to sell her body. They promoted the image of an innocent young girl who was kidnapped from her remote village and then drugged, beaten, and broken in spirit until she was obedient and submissive; passed around and then sold into slavery; and later trans- ported from her poverty-stricken source country through some transit country until she wound up as a virtual prisoner in a cruelly run brothel in some strange, far-off destination country. Unfortunately, this socially constructed helpless female worthy of being rescued, protected, assisted, and given sanctuary inadvertently creates a hierarchy of victims. Women who were willing to be smuggled across borders and agreed to be “sex workers” in foreign settings, but did not foresee that they would be intimidated, stripped of their false identity papers, and strictly controlled, do not evoke the same degree of compassion from the public, police officers, prosecutors, judges, and immigration officials. Indifference can easily turn to outright hostility toward these “illegal aliens” who chose and consented to prostitute themselves. Somewhere in between are those naïve young women who were procured by organized crime recruiters via employment scams: false promises of decent-paying legitimate jobs in domestic settings as maids or nannies, or in modeling, or even as dancers in strip clubs. Instead, after overstaying their visa limits, or entering the country with counterfeit docu- ments that were later confiscated by the trafficker, they wound up as exploited undocumented workers, forced to

50 CHAPT ER 2

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

submit to the demands of pimps, brothel managers, and customers in the commercial sex trade to pay off their border-crossing debts and to protect their families abroad from retaliation by the trafficker’s syndicate (Rieger, 2007; Lobasz, 2009; and Uy, 2011).

Stage Two: Passing Legislation and Setting Up Assistance Programs

The rediscovery of people trapped in a modern equivalent of the slave trade officially took place in 1994 when the U.S. Department of State declared trafficking across borders to be a severe violation of human rights and began to collect reports about this criminal activity. Its Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons originally focused on the sexual exploi- tation of women and girls smuggled by international rings feeding the demand for prostitutes. But over the years, its definition of trafficking has broadened to cover anyone recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, and compelled to work in prostitution, domestic service, agriculture, construction work, or factory sweatshops by means of threat, coercion, force, abduction, fraud, or deception. Furthermore, physical transport across international borders no longer was an essential part of the definition; crossing state lines within the United States is a sufficient cause of federal prosecution (U.S. State Department, 2007; www.humantrafficking.org, 2011). Later expansions of the definition even dropped the requirement of movement across state lines and simply focused on the use of force, coercion, or fraud to keep someone trapped in a condition of servitude (Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahey, 2010).

In 2000, the latest international agreement went into effect: the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Chil- dren. That same year, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Both laws defined trafficking as the recruitment and movement of children, women, and men for the purpose of subjecting these victims to involuntary servi- tude, even slavery, in labor-intensive activities. The TVPA was reauthorized and strengthened in 2003, 2005, and 2008. It established a federal interagency task force, imposed stiff penalties on profiteers, and promised victims certain legal benefits and services if they cooperated with prosecutors and testified against their exploiters (Chuang, 2010).

According to the State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report for 2011, the United States ranked itself as being in the top tier (of three possible levels) for fully complying with all the minimum standards for combating trafficking. The fed- eral government stepped up its efforts to identify and assist “qualified victims.” Those foreign nationals who assist

investigations and prosecutions are eligible for “continued presence” and immigration relief (from deportation), which can lead to permission to work in legitimate jobs, legal residency, and eventual citizenship. These cooperating victims can also be granted “T visas” and also “U visas” for up to four years. Formal denunciation of and trial testimony against the trafficker and a successful conviction are not requirements for federal assis- tance. Protection in the form of visas can be extended to rela- tives who are in danger because of the victims’ escape from the trafficker’s clutches and their cooperation with American authorities. Persons who enter the United States illegally are not eligible for food stamps and health care, although they may receive emergency medical assistance and can stay at homeless shelters. But those who are granted continued presence because of their cooperation can be granted the same specific forms of support that are provided to refugees. Federally funded services (provided through contracts with NGOs) includemedical, dental, and mental health care; sustenance and shelter; help with translation and interpretation; legal assistance; and transpor- tation. Trafficking victims were mostly mired in the sex trade (brothels, massage parlors, street prostitution, even strip clubs), agricultural labor like planting and picking crops, landscaping and construction, the hotel and hospitality industry, janitorial services, home care, health and elder care, and factories and sweatshops. The 2011 report recommended that improvements be made in the training of investigators from the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission, the immigration detention and removal units of the Department of Homeland Security, and state and local law enforcement and child protection agencies, so that these offi- cers can better recognize and serve trafficking victims if they encounter them in their daily duties. The annual report also called for increased funding for comprehensive victim services (including issues related to education, housing, and legal mat- ters), and better integration of these pro-victim efforts with existing programs that aid immigrants, runaway and homeless youth, abused children, and juvenile delinquents (U.S. State Department, 2011).

Besides the State Department and the Department of Justice, at least 15 international organizations participate in the global struggle to suppress human trafficking, including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, the Organization of American States, the Association of South- east Nations, and the World Bank (Lobasz, 2009).

On the home front, 45 states passed legislation out- lawing trafficking and allocating resources to protect victims and provide assistance to them and 39 regional task forces were set up and funded by the Department of Justice.

(Continued)

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 51

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

B O X 2.1 Continued

amendment to the TVPA in 2008 imposed a requirement on the FBI to gather data from police departments across the country about trafficking offenses and to present these figures in an annual report starting in 2013 (U.S. State Department, 2011).

Concerned officials in diplomatic circles, law enforce- ment, and nongovernmental social service agencies and human rights organizations are developing and then recommending various “best practices” that fit within a victim-centered approach to prevent the smuggling and sale of human beings, to safeguard these rescued individuals from further harm, and to repatriate these displaced people to their country of origin or reintegrate them into the destination society with legal immigrant and eventually citizenship rights.

Stage Three: Challenges Arise and Opposition Emerges

No one approves of or defends involuntary servitude and sexual violence, but the crusade against human trafficking has provoked some opposition among thoughtful people and concerned groups for a number of reasons.

First of all, some activists share the moral outrage of the crusaders but feel that the casual application of the dramatic term “modern day slavery” is insensitive and an historically inaccurate equation of contemporary forms of suffering with the institutionalized barbarism of the transatlantic slave trade that for several centuries relentlessly brought fresh supplies of captive Africans to the new world as chattel to be bought, sold, and worked to near death (just as the very serious terms “lynching,” “genocide,” and “holocaust” can be inappropriately applied to lesser crimes).

Other critics are dismayed that this reform movement has become drawn into a divisive and intractable debate over the “oldest profession”: whether the sale of sexual favors is inherently coercive, invariably embodies female subordina- tion, and must be driven out of business by punishing prof- iteers, pimps, the women themselves, and their johns versus whether it can it be a voluntary and rational choice for adult “sex workers” who as employees or independent contractors deserve economic rights and basic legal protections, rather than stigmatization and criminal records. In 2003, the Bush administration reaffirmed its opposition to pimping, pander- ing, and maintaining brothels as inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and as furnishing an incentive for the inter- national sex trade in females. This stance prohibited any nongovernmental service organizations that receive federal

funding to help victims from supporting any toleration of prostitution as a solution to the trafficking problem That caused advocacy groups to become embroiled in a debate over prostitution, at the expense of a focus on devising improved services (see DeStefano, 2007; Chuang, 2010; and Uy, 2011).

Many concerned activists and advocacy groups feel that the media’s preoccupation with lurid stories about sex trafficking causes lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to lose sight of the more pervasive forms of people smuggling for the purposes of taking terrible advantage of them as migrant laborers as they toil in the fields, factories, and pri- vate homes of their exploitive employers (see Chuang, 2010; and Uy, 2011).

The hegemony of the criminal justice approach to trafficking as a threat to border security (especially in a post-9/11 world) and as a way of smashing transnational organized crime syndicates draws substantial amounts of very limited resources away from efforts to protect and address the needs of victims (see Lobasz, 2009; Chuang, 2010; and Uy, 2011).

Finally, some skeptics suspect that the true magnitude of the problem has been exaggerated by campaigners who disseminate shocking overestimates in order to arouse an otherwise jaded public. The skeptics point out that the actual number of cases, successful prosecutions, and verified victims are tiny fractions of these large, widely circulated figures. Between 2000 and early 2007, federal agencies had certified only 1,175 people from 77 countries as victims of human trafficking (U.S. State Department, 2007). During 2009, the State Department issued only about 600 T visas and Con- tinuing Presence orders to cooperating victims (U.S. State Department, 2011). Yet a CIA report in 2000 estimated that up to 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States each year for the sex trade (see Rieger, 2007). Other estimates came in lower; the figure cited for Congress’s 2005 reauthorization legislation was that the human cargo smuggled into the United States each year numbered between 18,000 to 20,000 people, primarily women and children (www.humantrafficking.org, 2008). On New York’s Long Island, an area reputed to be a hotbed of trafficking, not one arrest was made during 2005, and only one woman was res- cued from prostitution (Mead, 2006). As for the importation of teenage girls from abroad and from other parts of the United States to the streets of New York City for the purposes of prostitution, a federally funded ethnographic study of under- age sex workers found very few that could be considered

52 CHAPT ER 2

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

“trafficked.” The estimates derived from the field interviews were surprising: nearly half were boys; almost half were recruited into the sex trade by friends; only one in ten were involved with pimps; over nine in ten were born in the United States; and more than half were native New Yorkers (see Curtis et al., 2008; and Hinman, 2011).

Several explanations attempt to account for this dis- crepancy between rough estimates and actual statistics. One is that the low numbers indicate that the U.S. government has not allocated sufficient resources to thoroughly train law enforcement officers and to fund extensive investigations into this problem and rescue people from the clutches of traffickers and exploiters. A variation on this theme is that there is insufficient cooperation and coordination between the agencies tasked by the TVPA enforcement provisions with bringing this problem under control. But others suspect that the low numbers of substantiated cases reveal that political figures and advocacy groups may have greatly overestimated the prevalence of trafficking into as well as within the United States (see Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahey, 2010).

Stage Four: Research Findings Temporarily Resolve Disputes

The first set of reasonably accurate statistics about the profiles of victims in human trafficking cases was derived from those federal task forces that collected “high-quality” data about their investigations during the period of 2008–2010. A little over 525 confirmed victims were located in about 390 cases. Most of the investigations concerned sex trafficking rather than labor trafficking. In the sex trafficking cases, the overwhelming proportion of victims were female (94 percent). Also, the vast majority were younger than 25 years old (87 percent) and U.S. citizens (83 percent). As for the victims’ race and ethnicity, more were black (40 percent) and white (26 percent) than Hispanic or Asian. In the labor trafficking cases, most of the victims were over 24 years of age (62 percent) and more were males (32 percent), Hispanics (63 percent), and Asians (17 percent). None were U.S. citizens (Banks and Kyckkelhahn, 2011).

Victimologists want to discover exactly how the traf- fickers lure or deceive their targets (presumably through false promises of a better life and ploys about legitimate jobs); how they recruit children (by capitalizing on their innocence and naïveté, sometimes with parental complicity); and how they dominate and intimidate those who find themselves trapped into involuntary servitude, even when chances to

escape their predicament arise. Reportedly this inhibition about running away and seeking to be rescued immobilizes victims because their exploiters confiscate all their docu- ments, take advantage of language barriers, threaten repri- sals against loved ones at home in the source country, and scare them about deportation if they dare to turn to the authorities for help. Whether these explanations are suffi- cient, relevant, and comprehensive needs to be further researched (see George, 2003; Landesman, 2004; Bureau of Public Affairs, 2005; Glaberson, 2005; Saunders, 2005; and Rieger, 2007).

Organized-crime families (who also clandestinely move guns and drugs across international boundaries) provide an illicit service, helping border crossers reach their destinations. Some individuals who paid exorbitant fees (considering their limited ability to raise such large sums of money) to “coyotes” and other human smugglers surely knew (before they left their country of origin) that they would have to work off their debts. They can’t really be considered victims. But others must have been deceived in some manner about the situation they would find themselves in and did not realize how traffickers could force them into virtual servitude. Many of the women and certainly all the children who wind upmired in prostitution were unknowing victims. So too were many of the men and women who end up trapped by peonage to their manipulative and controlling employers. Yet overly strict legal guidelines seem to be leaving many of these trafficking victims unprotected and unassisted, and subject to deportation and repatriation, and maybe even another try at illegal entry into the country. From the stand- point of victim-centered research and policy evaluation, the first hurdle is to distinguish between those who are genuinely tricked, abused, enticed, terrorized, and caught up in debt bondage from those economically desperate immigrants who knowingly and willingly pay smugglers huge fees. That entails identifying the actual trafficking victims from amidst the ranks of “illegal immigrants,” and maybe even certain asylum seekers and political refugees. Ironically, some individuals who enter the country improperly and toil mightily don’t perceive them- selves to be trafficking victims and don’t seek to be rescued from their plight—they don’t realize that exploitive relationships that might be acceptable back home may fall under the heading of trafficking here (see Uy, 2011).

The murder of several border crossers in Arizona by smugglers holding them hostage in frustrated attempts to extort more money from their families back home indicates the depth of the perils victims face (Fulginiti, 2008). Furthermore,

(Continued)

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 53

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

A number of types of formerly overlooked victims have reached Stage 4 in the rediscovery process. Recently collected data can be analyzed to try toput thepublic’s fears intoperspective, to attempt to resolve ongoing controversies, and to assess the impact of countermeasures designed to assist those who are suffering and to prevent others from sharing their same fate (An example appears in Box 2.1).

REDISCOVERING ADDITIONAL GROUPS OF VICTIMS

Academics, practitioners, social movements, elected officials, the news media, and commercial interests continue to drive the process of rediscovery for- ward. A steady stream of fresh revelations serves as a reminder that neglected groups still are “out

studies based on surveys completed by municipal and county police departments have concluded that most of these law enforcement agencies lacked sufficient policies and adequate training to accurately identify trafficking victims and success- fully investigate their cases (Wilson, Walsh, and Kleuber, 2006; and Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahey, 2010).

The FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have compiled lists of behaviors and situations to help law enforcement personnel spot potential victims of human

trafficking. Officers and others should be on the lookout for the potential signs of being trafficked for the purpose of exploitation in the sex trade or for debt peonage that appear in Table 2.1.

Clearly, the true level of seriousness of the problem and the effectiveness of government relief and rescue efforts remain subjects of controversy that require additional research. This is why the plight of trafficking victims within the United States can be considered to be currently at Stage 4 of the rediscovery process.

T A B L E 2.1 Possible Indicators That a Person Is a Trafficking Victim

Does the individual …?

■ Live on or near the work premises ■ Live in a sparse place with many other occupants ■ Lack personal space and possessions ■ Frequently move from one work site to another ■ Appear unfamiliar with how to get around the neighborhood ■ Appear unable to travel around freely ■ Admit that he/she cannot socialize with outsiders and attend religious services ■ Disclose that he/she was recruited for one line of work but then was compelled

to perform other tasks ■ Disclose that earnings are garnished and held by someone else ■ Indicate that identification and travel documents are held by someone else ■ Appear to have been coached about what to say to immigration and police officers ■ Appear unable to talk openly and to communicate freely with family and friends ■ Look injured from beatings or show signs of malnourishment or lack of medical

treatment ■ Defer to someone else who insists on speaking or interpreting for him/her ■ Claim to be represented by the same attorney that handles the cases of many other

undocumented workers (illegal aliens)

SOURCES: Blue Campaign, 2010; Walker-Rodriguez and Hill, 2011.

B O X 2.1 Continued

54 CHAPT ER 2

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

there” and that they have compelling stories to tell, unmet needs, and legitimate demands for assistance and support. Usually, they continue to escape pub- lic notice until some highly unusual or horrific inci- dent reveals how they are being harmed and attracts

the interest of the news media and criminal justice agencies. The types of victims whose plight is now being rediscovered—but who require much more scrutiny and analysis, and creative remedies—are listed in Box 2.2.

B O X 2.2 The Process of Rediscovery Goes On and On

These recently recognized groups of victims face special pro- blems that require imaginative solutions. They eventually will receive the assistance and support they need as the rediscovery process continues to focus attention and resources on their plight:

■ Disabled individuals (deaf, blind, mentally retarded, mentally ill, or afflicted in other ways) who were assaulted or molested (Office for Victims of Crime, 2003; and Barrow, 2008)

■ People whose attackers cannot be arrested and prose- cuted because they are members of foreign delegations granted “diplomatic immunity” and are able to escape justice by returning home (Ashman and Trescott, 1987; Sieh, 1990; Lynch, 2003; and Grow, 2011)

■ Immigrants who feel they cannot come forward and ask the police for help without revealing that they are “illegal aliens” who lack the proper documents and are subject to deportation (Davis and Murray, 1995; Davis, Erez, and Avitabile, 2001; Chan, 2007; and Hoffmaster et al., 2010)

■ Homeless adults robbed, assaulted, and murdered on the streets and in shelters (Fitzpatrick, LaGory, and Ritchey, 1993; and Green, 2008)

■ Homeless runaway teens who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and rape (Tyler et al., 2005)

■ Hotel guests who suffer thefts and assaults because of lax security measures (Prestia, 1993; Owsley, 2005; and Ho et al., 2009)

■ Tourists who blunder into dangerous situations avoided by streetwise locals and are easy prey because they let their guard down (Rohter, 1993; Glensor and Peak, 2004; Lee, 2005; and Murphy, 2006)

■ Delivery truck drivers who are preyed upon by robbers, hijackers, and highway snipers (Sexton, 1994; and Duret and Patrick, 2004)

■ Motorists and pedestrians slammed into during high speed chases by fugitives seeking to avoid arrest or by squad cars in hot pursuit (Gray, 1993; Crew, Fridell, and Pursell, 1995; and Schultz et al., 2010)

■ Unrelated individuals, whose lives are snuffed outby vicious and demented serial killers (Holmes and DeBurger, 1988; Hickey, 1991; Egger and Egger, 2002; Pakhomou, 2004; Flegenheimer and Rosenberg, 2011; andAP, 2011); and especially prostitutes, hitchhikers, and stranded motorists, whose bodies are dumped near highways by violence-prone long-haul truckers (Glover, 2009; and Dalesio, 2011)

■ Prostitutes soliciting customers on the streets or over the internet who face risks of being beaten, raped, and murdered that are many times higher than for other women in their age bracket (Boyer and James, 1983; and Salfati, James, and Ferguson, 2008)

■ Newborns abandoned or killed by their distraught mothers (Yardley, 1999; and Buckley, 2007)

■ Frantic relatives of “missing persons” who have vanished and are presumed dead but, since they were adults with the right to privacy, cannot be the objects of intense police manhunts unless there is evidence of foul play (McPhee, 1999; Gardiner, 2008; and NCMA, 2008)

■ Suspects brutally beaten by police officers (Amnesty International USA, 1999; and Davey and Einhorn, 2007)

■ Teachers attacked, injured, and even killed by their students (Fine, 2001)

■ Youngsters sexually molested or physically abused through prohibited forms of corporal punishment by parents and teachers (Goodnough, 2003; and Larzelere and Baumrind, 2010)

■ High school and college students subjected to abusive hazing and bullying by older students that results in injury or death (Salmivalli and Nieminen, 2002; and Montague et al., 2008)

■ Students assaulted, robbed, even fatally shot by fellow students or by intruders in school buildings and schoolyards (Bastian and Taylor, 1991; Toby, 1983; NCES, 1998; DeGette, Jenson, and Colomy, 2000; and Booth, Van Hasselt, and Vecchi, 2011)

(Continued)

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 55

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

SUMMARY

Victimologists are social scientists who strive for objectivity when studying the characteristics of vic- tims, the suffering they endure, their reactions to their plight, their interactions with offenders, and the way others (such as journalists, elected officials, and people allied with social movements and com- mercial interests) respond to them. Victimology’s findings contribute to an ongoing rediscovery process, which constantly brings the plight of additional

overlooked groups to the public’s attention. The rediscovery process goes through several stages. After a group’s plight becomes known and reforms are implemented, an opposition frequently arises that resists further changes that might be to the group’s advantage. Victimologists can help resolve disputes by studying how newly rediscovered groups suffer andwhether efforts to assist them are really working as intended.

■ Terrified residents whose homes were invaded by armed robbers (Copeland and Martin, 2006; and Thompson, 2011)

■ “Mail-order brides,” lured to the United States by unregulated international matchmaking services on the Internet, who fear deportation if they complain to the authorities about their husbands’ violence (Briscoe, 2005; Morash, 2007; and Greenwood, 2009)

■ Teenage girls and young women kidnapped and held captive as “sex slaves” by vicious rapists (Hoffman, 2003; and Jacobs, 2003)

■ Unsuspecting people, usually women, who feel symbol- ically raped after being secretly videotaped during pri- vate moments by voyeurs using hidden spy cameras (Lovett, 2003; and Williams, 2005)

■ Youngsters physically and sexually abused by child care workers and babysitters (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2001)

■ Female inmates sexually abused by corrections officers (Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson, 2002)

■ Female motorists sexually abused by highway patrol officers (Tyre, 2001)

■ People deceived by robbers and rapists impersonating uniformed officers as well as plainclothes detectives (Van Netta, 2011)

■ Good Samaritans who try to break up crimes in prog- ress and rescue the intended victims but wind up

injured or killed themselves (Mawby, 1985; and Time et al., 2010)

■ Innocent bystanders wounded or killed by bullets intended for others, often when caught in crossfire between rival street gangs or drug dealers fighting over turf (Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer, and Julian, 1989; and Williams, 2009)

■ People being blackmailed who are reluctant to turn to the authorities for help because that would lead to exposure of their embarrassing secrets (see Katz et al., 1993; and Robinson et al., 2010)

■ Recipients, some of them children, of crank phone calls laced with threats or obscenities, made by individuals who range from “heavy breathers” and bored teenagers to dangerous assailants (Savitz, 1986; Warner, 1988; Leander et al., 2005; and Renshaw, 2008)

■ Residents injured by fires or burned out of their homes, unaware that they were harmed by acts of arson until fire marshals determine that the suspicious blazes were intentionally set (Sclafani, 2005)

■ Consumers who lose money in Internet cyber-swindles and “dotcons,” such as online pyramid investment (Ponzi) schemes, bogus auctions, fake escrow accounts, and other computer-based frauds (Lee, 2003b; and Stajano and Wilson, 2011)

■ Homeowners who become victims of mortgage fraud and foreclosure-rescue fraud and are evicted because they are swindled (FBI, 2008)

B O X 2.2 Continued

56 CHAPT ER 2

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

KEY TERMS DEFINED IN THE GLOSSARY

bias crimes, 40

Brady Bill, 42

children’s rights groups, 41

civil court, 37

civil liberties movement, 41

civil rights movement, 39

claims-making, 47

conflict approach, 46

constructionist approach, 46

elder abuse, 41

English common law, 37

false memory syndrome, 49

gay rightsmovement, 41

law-and-order movement, 39

Megan’s Law, 42

moral entrepreneurs, 46

plea negotiation, 38

public prosecutors, 37

self-definition of the victimization process, 46

self-help movement, 41

sensationalism, 43

social construction, 47

stigma contests, 46

street crimes, 37

tort law, 37

trafficking in human beings, 50

typification, 47

women’s movement, 39

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE

1. Describe what happens at each stage of the rediscovery process.

2. Argue that the rediscovery of victims by the news media, elected officials, and commercial

enterprises is a “mixed blessing” by stressing the downside: the potential for exploitation.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

1. Identify a group of victims of illegal activities who still has not been rediscovered and was not mentioned in this chapter. Describe the kinds of harm this group might be experiencing.

2. Argue that victimology would be enriched by expanding its boundaries to include studies about people around the world who suffer because of war crimes, government repression of political dissidents, and torture by the authorities.

SUGGESTED RESEARCH PROJECTS

1. Find out proposed or recently passed laws in your state that have been named in honor of crime victims. In each case, ask whether this legislation offers anything specific—other than stepped-up punishment of the offender—to ease the victim’s plight.

2. Choose a group from the list in Box 2.2 whose plight is currently being rediscovered. Pose questions that researchers ought to examine. Find out what you can about this group, its composition, the nature of its losses, and efforts underway to ease its suffering.

THE R ED I S COV ERY OF CR IME V I C T IMS 57

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