Victimology and the Criminal Justice System
Understanding Victimization and Its Impact
Victimization is defined as the process in which an individual is treated unfairly, typically through the application of physical or emotional abuse. In the majority of instances, such an act constitutes a violation of the laws within a specific jurisdiction and results in various forms of harm, including emotional, physical, and psychological damage. Beyond this initial act, there exists the concept of secondary victimization, which refers to the harm resulting from the processes and interactions that follow the primary act of victimization.
Secondary victimization specifically describes the psychological harm caused to victims during criminal proceedings (Orth, 2002). These proceedings can produce undesirable effects within the criminal justice system that further violate the victim's legitimate rights or entitlements. This secondary harm often stems from negative social or societal reactions following the primary victimization. It negatively influences critical psychological variables, including the victim’s self-esteem, their faith in the future, their trust in the legal system, and their overall belief in a just world.
Victims and the Criminal Justice System
Historically, from the 19th Century until quite recently, victims of crime occupied a very nominal role in the criminal justice process, serving primarily as informants and witnesses. This was driven by the public prosecution model, which sought impartiality in criminal trials. However, this dynamic has begun to shift in recent decades due to several factors: the introduction of compensation orders, the mandatory or allowed consideration of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) before sentencing, and an increase in organizations advocating for victim rights. The criminal justice system (CJS) depends heavily on victims to report crimes, meaning they play a vital role in bringing offenses to the attention of authorities. Consequently, victims are increasingly recognized as possessing both procedural rights within the process and substantive rights to specific services.
Despite these shifts, there are established reasons for excluding victims from certain aspects of the criminal justice process. The foundation of the system is the notion of impartiality; the judiciary and the jury must remain unbiased during adjudication to ensure a free trial for the accused. Furthermore, the constitutional principle of equality demands that all victims have their cases heard equally. However, the impact of crime varies depending on a victim's "robustness." Some victims may be more inclined toward vengeance than others, and there is a concern that a victim's personal robustness might sway the court to impose a punishment based on emotion rather than the offender’s actual blameworthiness.
In some jurisdictions, the inclusion of a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) is a legal requirement before a sentence is handed down for violent or sexual offenses (Coffey, 2006). In a VIS, the victim details the effects of the crime, such as emotional, physical, or psychological injuries, as well as economic losses or changes in employment status. Additionally, victims may be compensated for losses suffered, though this typically occurs only if the defendant is convicted.
Psychological Consequences and Secondary Victimization Factors
Unfavorable outcomes in criminal proceedings can severely violate the expectations of crime victims. One primary motive for victims is retaliation or retribution; upon hearing a court's decision, a victim appraises whether the harm done to the perpetrator is sufficiently severe. Moral outrage often occurs if the perpetrator receives rehabilitation that is perceived as better or more costly than the support provided to the victim. Victims frequently hold a critical attitude toward rehabilitation because it improves the perpetrator's outcome, thereby worsening the relative outcome for the victim.
Security is another key goal. Victims expect that a trial and subsequent sentence will deter or prevent the perpetrator from committing further offenses. While prison offers temporary security, a term perceived as "too short" can cause the victim to fearfully anticipate the perpetrator’s release. Finally, victims seek recognition of their status. Legal punishment officially identifies the defendant as the perpetrator and recognizes the victim publicly. A failure to recognize this status is often perceived as a particularly severe form of secondary victimization.
Secondary victimization is measured by assessing how criminal proceedings affect a victim's ability to cope, their self-esteem, and their trust in the legal system. It is generally predicted by two main factors: satisfaction with the outcome of the process and the perceived procedural justice (the fairness of the procedure itself).
Evaluating Criminal Proceedings: Justice and Stress
Victims evaluate criminal proceedings through several lenses. Procedural justice is evaluated based on six criteria: 1) Consistency in the application of rules, 2) Bias suppression in decision-making, 3) Accuracy in considering relevant information, 4) Correctability (the ability to review decisions based on new information), 5) Representativeness of all concerned parties' views, and 6) Ethicality (compatibility with accepted ethical values).
The principle of the presumption of innocence is often perceived by victims as a significant imbalance that favors the perpetrator over the victim. While it is a fundamental guaranty of a fair trial, questioning the perpetrator's guilt inherently implies questioning the credibility of the victim's testimony. Interactional justice refers to the interpersonal treatment of parties by the judge. Injustice in this category includes victim-blaming, insensitive remarks, debasement, and the minimization of harm, all of which negatively impact the victim's self-esteem.
Psychological stress is also a major variable. Victims find the testimony situation, confrontation with the perpetrator, and the presence of spectators to be especially stressful. The long delay between reporting a crime and the start of a trial adds further strain. In some cases, victims are explicitly blamed by the defense attorney or the perpetrator for being partially or fully responsible for the offense.
Measuring Victimization: UCR, NCVS, and ICVS
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) track crimes known to the police annually. Local departments submit data to a central authority, such as the Federal Bureau (of Investigation), which compiles an annual report. The UCR includes data on murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Advantages of the UCR include its wide coverage (representing over of the population) and its ability to provide trend analysis across regions, states, and cities. It also includes demographic data like age, sex, and race. Disadvantages include a lack of detailed information on victims and significant underestimation, as it only captures reported crimes. It also utilizes the "hierarchy rule," where only the highest offense in a single incident is counted.
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) supplements the UCR by providing a broader picture of incidents and victims, though it excludes the homeless, those in military barracks, and institutional settings. It operates in two stages: first, identifying if an individual experienced any of seven types of victimization (rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated/simple assault, personal theft, household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft) in the previous months; and second, completing a detailed incident report for each.
Advantages of the NCVS include the inclusion of unreported crimes and offenses like simple assault. Limitations include the reliance on respondent memory for the past months, the exclusion of murder and "victimless" crimes (prostitution, drug use), and the exclusion of commercial crimes. It also only includes persons aged and over, meaning child victimization is not captured.
The International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) is a standardized survey covering more than countries to allow for cross-country comparisons. It asks respondents about types of victimization: car theft, theft from a car, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft, burglary (attempted or completed), sexual victimization, threats, assaults, robbery, and personal property theft. It highlights that overall reporting rates by victims are only to , falling as low as for sexual assault.
Theories and Explanations of Victimization
The Subculture of Violence Theory proposes that certain population subgroups or areas have value systems where violence is an accepted response to disrespect. In these environments, victims may retaliate, leading to a victim-offender overlap. Victimization here often leads to psychological consequences like depression, anxiety, or PTSD, which may result in coping through substance abuse or reciprocal aggression.
Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theories suggest that daily patterns impact victimization risk. According to Cohen and Felson (1979), victimization is likely when three elements coalesce: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship. Guardianship can be social (the presence of others) or physical (carrying a weapon). Lifestyle Theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo, 1973) posits that behaviors like working late in seclusion or frequenting bars increase risk. High-risk factors include the people one associates with, working outside the home, and specific leisure activities.
Social Learning Theory (Akers, 1973) suggests that criminal behavior is learned through rewards and punishments. When applied to victimization, this explains why children exposed to violence at home are more likely to become victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) later in life. Additionally, Structural and Social Process Factors play a role; these include neighborhood context (crime hotspots), the insulating power of strong family attachments, and the influence of one's peer group.
Restorative Justice vs. Punitive Philosophy
Restorative Justice (RJ) is defined by Howard Zehr (1990) as a process involving stakeholders in an offense to collectively identify harms, needs, and obligations to heal and "put things as right as possible." It is a philosophy rooted in indigenous teachings that emphasizes repairing and maintaining relationships to prevent future harm.
There are distinct differences between Punitive and Restorative philosophies. The Punitive philosophy asks: "What law was broken?", "Who broke it?", and "What punishment is deserved?"; it focuses on the crime, the perpetrator, and fear-based deterrence. In contrast, the Restorative philosophy asks: "What happened?", "Who was impacted and how?", and "What needs to be done to make things right?"; it focuses on harm, repair, and relationship-based healing. While punitive measures rely on the fear of consequences, restorative measures are built on the premise that people want to maintain positive relationships and avoid causing harm.