CRIM1020 Victimology: NSW Victim Impact Statements — Comprehensive Notes

1. Criminological Theories Explaining Victimisation
1.1. Routine Activities Theory (RAT)

  • Core Idea: Crime occurs when three elements converge in time and space: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian.

  • Application to Victimisation: Individuals whose routine activities place them in proximity to motivated offenders in unprotected settings are at a higher risk of victimisation. For example, leaving a home vacant for extended periods (suitable target, absence of guardian) increases the risk of burglary by a motivated offender.

1.2. Lifestyle Exposure Theory

  • Core Idea: The probability of victimisation is directly related to the lifestyle choices and daily activities of individuals.

  • Application to Victimisation: Certain lifestyles, particularly those involving frequenting public places at night, associating with high-risk individuals, or engaging in risky behaviors, increase exposure to potential offenders and thus elevate the risk of becoming a victim. Demographic factors such as age, gender, and income can influence lifestyle and associated risk.

1.3. Deviant Place Theory

  • Core Idea: Victimisation is more a function of the characteristics of the immediate geographical settings (places) rather than the characteristics of individuals.

  • Application to Victimisation: Individuals, regardless of their own lifestyle or behavior, are more likely to be victimised if they reside in, or frequent, crime-prone areas. These areas are characterised by high rates of social disorganisation, poverty, transience, and a general lack of social control.

2. Victim Typologies within Criminal Contexts

Victim typologies categorise victims based on their perceived role or contribution to the criminal event.

2.1. Mendelsohn's Typology (Dynamic Victim-Offender Relationship)

  • Completely Innocent Victim: No responsibility for the crime, e.g., a child hit by a drunk driver.

  • Victim with Minor Guilt: Victim inadvertently contributes to their own victimisation, e.g., leaving a car unlocked.

  • Victim as Guilty as Offender: Both parties are equally responsible, e.g., in a mutual fight.

  • Victim More Guilty than Offender: Victim instigates or provokes the criminal act, e.g., an aggressor who is then assaulted.

  • Victim Alone Guilty: Victim is the sole perpetrator, e.g., suicide or an accidental self-inflicted injury.

  • Simulating Victim: A person who fabricates a crime story, pretending to be a victim.

2.2. Von Hentig's Typology (Victim Proneness)

Von Hentig identified general classes of victims based on psychological, social, and biological factors that he believed made them predisposed to victimisation:

  • The Young: Vulnerable due to physical and mental immaturity.

  • The Old: Often physically weaker and socially isolated.

  • Females: Perceived as physically weaker and more susceptible to certain crimes.

  • The Mentally Defective: Unable to protect themselves or make sound judgments.

  • Immigrants and Minorities: Face systemic disadvantages and discrimination.

  • The Wanton: Those who are frivolous or indiscreet.

  • The Lonesome and Heartbroken: Isolated individuals seeking connection.

  • The Tormentor: Individuals who have previously victimised others, leading to retaliation.

3. Critique of the Victim's Role in the Criminal Justice System and Victimisation Aspects
3.1. Limited Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System

  • The current criminal justice system often affords very little active participation to victims. While consultation may occur, direct involvement is largely limited to providing a Victim Impact Statement (VIS), if they choose.

  • The influence of VISs on sentencing decisions can vary, indicating a gap between legislative entitlement and actual impact.

  • Legal professionals, including the judiciary, prosecutors, and defence lawyers, have shown demonstrable reluctance to fully relinquish control or shift the status quo, often leading to a conservative approach to victim participation.

  • Despite measures like the NSW Charter of Victims' Rights (contained in the 2013 Act), which outlines rights victims can expect, these primarily focus on information, services, and protection, rather than robust participatory roles in legal proceedings.

3.2. Primary Victimisation

  • This refers to the direct harm, both physical and psychological, incurred by an individual as a result of a criminal act.

  • Examples reflected in the content of a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) include: personal harm, emotional suffering or distress, harm to relationships with others, and economic loss or harm directly arising from the offence.

  • The harm can manifest as changes to wellbeing, heightened negative emotions (anger, fear, sadness), low self-esteem, sleep troubles, or requiring treatment (e.g., psychological support).

3.3. Secondary Victimisation (Victimisation by the System)

  • Secondary victimisation occurs when victims experience further harm or distress not from the original crime, but from the actions or inactions of the criminal justice system or related social institutions.

  • Examples from the provided context include:

    • The process of recounting traumatic events in court, which can relive the trauma and potentially increase victimisation.

    • Critiques against VISs suggesting they are not as empowering or therapeutic as claimed, and that their content, being regulated by legislation and legal officials, may serve the goals of the court more than the needs of the victim.

    • Concerns that victims who do not speak may be perceived as less credible or may miss fair justice, while those unable to speak may feel disadvantaged.

    • The potential for a VIS to become a public document (except in relation to children) and the lack of a legal requirement for confidentiality can also contribute to secondary victimisation by violating a victim's privacy.

3.4. Tertiary Victimisation (Societal/Systemic Victimisation)

  • Tertiary victimisation refers to the longer-term harm or prejudice experienced by victims due to broader societal reactions, systemic failures, or cultural norms, beyond direct contact with the criminal justice system.

  • This can include social stigma, isolation, ongoing psychological distress due to a lack of adequate long-term support, or the re-traumatisation that can arise from delays in the criminal justice system, which prolongs the period of uncertainty and recovery for victims.

  • The inconclusive results of studies on whether VISs assist victims in recovery suggest a systemic challenge in providing truly restorative or empowering mechanisms for victims' long-term healing and social integration.

4. Application of Victimology Notions in Real-World Case Scenarios
4.1. Case Study: RP v R [2013] NSWCCA 192

  • Case Summary: In this NSW case, an offender successfully appealed their sentence. The core of the appeal was the offender's claim that the victim's reaction to abuse suffered as a child was an