Chapter 7 Flashcards
4 key areas of modern victimology
- The prevalence, impact, and needs of victims
- The origins of victimology and international standards
- Policing, victim services, and compensation, courts, and restitution
- How to rebalance the justice system to respect victims’ human rights
Prevalence of victimization
- Data is only collected sporadically every five years through the general social survey
- information does not receive significant attention from criminologists, media or politicians
General Social Survey results
- 25% of Canadians victimized by theft or assault annually
- The overall rate has not changed in 15 years
- Adult victims are more likely to be young (15–24), male, and Aboriginal
- Repeat victimization: 40% of victims reported more than one victimization in the past year
- Victimization concentrated in certain areas, families, and individuals
Rates of victimization in Canada 1988-2009
- sexual assault, physical assault, theft of household property and vandalism have gone up
- robbery has remained pretty constant
- break and enter, motor vehicle theft have gone down
Impact of victimization
- Interpersonal crime will cause victims in Canada $2.5 billion in costs and pain and suffering
- Less than:
- -33% of victims call police to report the crime; this is even lower for sexual assault victims
- -3% of victims will see “their” offender convicted
- Police are unlikely to inform victims of services
- Most eligible victims will not know of or receive restitution or compensation
Impact of victimization (chart)
- cost for victims (billions)
- harm extends to friends and family
- financial loss, injury, emotional pain and trauma
Needs of crime victims (8)
- Right to recognition that they have been harmed
- Right to information: about reparation, services available, CJS processes
- Right to assistance: access to victim services
- Right to reparation: financial recovery, including restitution from the offender and compensation from the state
- Right to be protected from the accused
- Right to participation and representation in the criminal justice process
- Right to effective public policies to reduce victimization
- Right to implementation: there must be a remedy if these rights are not adequately implemented
Origins of victimology (1960s)
pioneering efforts centred on concern for victims, who were largely forgotten
- Advocacy groups (victims of crime demanded policy changes in police and government)
- Victim/witness assistance programs (to encourage victims to come forward to police)
- Rape crisis centres
- Victim offender mediation/restorative justice programs
- Victimization surveys
International movement for victim’s rights (1979?
- world society of victimology formed
Magna Carta for victims (1985)
UN adopted landmark resolution in which signatory nations agreed to:
- Implement basic principle of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power
- Prevent victimization through comprehensive measures
- Goal is to shift justice systems from an offender focus to one that balances offenders with needs of victims
Origins of victim rights policies in Canada 67, 70s, 81, 83
1967: Saskatchewan provided compensation to victims of violent crime
1970s: first monographs on crime victims published
1981: major international conference on assistance to victims of crime in Toronto
1983: federal–provincial task force provided recommendations on justice for victims
This task force criticized for neglecting victim trauma and participation in the CJS
1983 federal-provincial task force recommendations (6)
- gather survey data on numbers of victims
- provide information for victims
- provide services for victims
- provide restitution, compensation and property return
- protect victims from intimidation
- provide victim impact statements to assist with restitution, and hold trials within a reasonable time
Two issues that impeded basic human rights for crime victims in Canada
- Resistance to change within the traditional CJS
Legal bureaucracy is committed to the status quo - Gap between social science researchers & CJS
Legal training has not kept up with social science research
Tensions Between Traditional and Human Rights for Victims 86, 88
1986: Manitoba provides some victim services and uses a victim fine surcharge to help pay for these
1988: federal and provincial governments agree to a statement of principles to adapt UN resolution
- The principles are weaker than the UN document
- Does not create a centre of responsibility to implement them
- The government made promises but did not provide a way for victims to ensure that promises would be kept
Tensions Between Traditional and Human Rights for Victims 2003, 2007, 2013
2003: the provinces, territories, and federal government revised principles on victims rights
- But still did not include effective ways to implement them
- Some modifications to protect the privacy of victims, enable restitution orders in court, and allow victim impact statements
2007: federal government establishes Ombudsman to defend the rights of victims and to bring about systemic change at the federal level
2013: Ombudsman calls for a federal bill of rights for victims