crime control, surveillance, prevention and punishment, victims and the role of the CJS and other agencies Flashcards
positivist victimology
the statistical study of victims. it finds patterns, trends, and regularities in the distribution of victims across groups such as class, gender, ethnicity and age.
e.g the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) which regularly concludes ie. the average person’s chance of being a victim is fairly low
miers (1989)
sees positivist vicitimology as having three features
first feature of positivist victimology - miers
aims to identify the factors in individuals or the environment that make some people or groups more likely to be victims and thus produce patterns in victimisation. - victim proness
- earliest positivist studies based on the idea of victim proneness. they sought to identify the social and psychological characteristics of victims that make them different anf more vulnerable than non-victims e.g von Hentig (1948) identified 13 characteristics of victims (e.g more likely female, elderly and ‘mentally subnormal’)
second feature of positivist victimology - miers
focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence and how the interactions between the offender and the victim can lead to victimisation
third feature of positivist victimology
identifies the process through which people contribute to their own victimisation - victim precipitation
- wolfgang (1958) - studied 588 homicides in philadelphia, found 26% involved in victim precipitation e.g using violence first as a male when perp is female, triggering events to homicide
gottfredson and garofalo (1978)
five demographic factors that precipitate victimisation; age, gender, marital status, family income and race
evaluation of positivist victimology
- recognises the importance of looking at the offender-victimisation relationship
- its focus on violent crimes ignores victims of state and corporate crimes
- doesn’t consider how label of victim can be provided or withheld by the state
- its focus on the situational context of offending ignores the wider structural factors influence victimisation such as poverty and patriarchy
- focusing on victim precipitation can become victim blaming
-ignores situations where victims are unaware of their victimisation e.g crimes against the environment
critical victimology
- structural factors
such as poverty and patriarchy, which places powerless groups such as women and poor at greatest risk of victimisation - a form of structural powerlessness. e.g social deprivation means its the weakest and most marginalised members of society who are more likely the be the victims (e.g the homeless)
- feminists argue that domestic abuse is an aspect of male power in a patriarchal society
- higher rates of victimisation among ethnic minorities are linked to a police force which overpolices but underprotects some communities, seeing them as more likely to be offenders than victims
critical victimology
- role of the state
the states power to apply or deny the label of a victim. ‘victim’ is a label and social construct in the same way as ‘criminal’. the victim emerges in the interactions between those who apply labels and person who gets labelled as victim
- critical criminologists argue a fully developed victimology needs to pay attention to the role of state in deciding what is defined as an offence and who is defined as a victim
ideal victim
-whether or not someone is identified as a victim depends on how closely they fit the category of an ideal victim - stereotype
- shows that the concept of victim is socially constructed
-stereotype of ideal victim is favoured by the media, public, and CJS is a weak, innocent and blameless individual who is the target of a strangers attack. this leads to a hierarchy of victimisation
hierarchy of victimisation
de-labelling
CJS applies the label of victim to some but withholds it from others e.g when police decide to not press charges for assaulting his wife, thereby denying her victim status, or if an employer violated health and safety law but explains an injury as the fault of an accident prone worker.
- the function of this failure to label or de-labelling is to hide the crimes of the powerdul and deny victims redress.
- in the hierarchy of victimisation, the powerless are more likely to be victimised, yet least likely to have this acknowledged by the state
evaluation of critical victimology
- disregards the role of victim precipitation (e.g not making their home secure)
- draws attention to the way victim status is constructed by power and how this benefits powerful groups. analyses the role played by the state in the identification of victims
- encourages a focus on the hidden victims of state and corporate crime
impact of victimisation
- creates indirect victims (friends, family, witnesses)
- hate crimes against minority groups create waves of harm- whole communities become intimidates
- secondary victimisation can occur, this is when the way in which the police or govt agencies deal with a victim can cause further harm to the victim
- crime may create fear of being a victim even if it is irrational e.g women may be less likely to go out at night even though its men who have a greater chance of being attacked
situational crime prevention summary
- clarke: ‘pre-emptive approach that relies, not on improving society or its institution, but simply on reducing opportunities for crime’
- three features of measures:
— directed at specific crime
— involve managing or altering the immediate environment of the crime
— aim at increasing the effort and risk at committing crime and reducing rewards.
underlying the approach is rational choice theory
situational crime prevention strategy
- target hardening e.g locking doors and windows increase the effort a burglar needs to make
situational crime prevention study
- felson (2002) port authority bus terminal in NY was poorly designed and provided opportunity for misconduct
- re-shaping the physical environment to ‘design crime out’ greatly reduced such crime
